Journey to the Center of the Mirth

Did Republican Party Stuff Iowa Ballot Box for Romney?

2012-01-06T15:09:00.002-05:00

Before you say, "How else would he get that many votes in Iowa?" take a quick look at this video. Citing NPR report, this story cites several oddities that suggest the Republican party adjusted the vote totals to boost support for Mitt Romney that otherwise did not exist.

Oil Tanker Traffic in Dire Straits?

2012-01-05T15:44:00.001-05:00

Oh no! What if the flow of oil tankers gets blocked or slowed down by Iran? Guess what - on average, dozens of fully loaded oil tankers and container ships get captured every month and are held in port for ransom for months at a time. Other ships get captured, repainted and sold along with their cargo in a matter of hours. The flow of oil and other cargo is already being blocked and slowed down without any link to Iran and this has been going on for decades.


Oil tankers get attacked on a daily basis yet there's little urgency to stop the actual problem that exists and incredible urgency to start a war over a potential problem that does not yet exist.

And it's not restricted to the waters off eastern Africa. It's a constant threat between the South Pacific and Indian Oceans around Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines. I haven't even mentioned the piracy off the Brazilian coast. "But I haven't heard about Somali pirates for a long time," you say? No, as a sensational news story, modern day piracy has run its course. That doesn't mean it's no longer happening. Shipping companies try very hard to keep this quiet and out of the news for obvious reasons. Even the pirates avoid media coverage. Most prefer a clean business deal.

"Well, if oil tankers are already being captured and the flow of oil is already threatened, then why is there suddenly so much alarm about Iran blocking the Straits of Hormuz?" you ask. Exactly. Why the alarm? "And why haven't we sent in the Navy with the big guns to protect ships from the piracy that's actually occurring even right now?" Well, the U.S. does contribute to a modest international naval presence fighting piracy as part of a joint effort. But the daily theft of oil tankers and container ships is not considered an urgent problem. The great urgency seems directed to escalating a potential threat that someday in the future the flow of oil might be interrupted.

Be aware there is a concerted effort among many to start a war against Iran and the news media is only too happy to help fan the flames. For a few examples:

Iran Test-Fires Missiles Near Persian Gulf - 01/02/12
US sells $30bn - 84 - F-15 jets to Saudi Arabia
Live CNN Soldier's Mic Unplugged
CNN Live New Developments

Election Year’s Greatest Hits: Ten classic songs to vote by:

2012-01-03T14:17:00.001-05:00

1. Taxman – Beatles "I'm the taxman And you're working for no one but me"

Get up, stand up! Stand up for your rignts!

2. Get Up, Stand Up – Bob Marley "Stand up for your rights!"

3. Sheep – Pink Floyd "Meek and obedient you follow the leader"

4. Allentown – Billy Joel "And they're closing all the factories down"

5. Hang Fire – Rolling Stones "In the sweet old country where I come from nobody ever works nothing ever gets done"

6. The Trees – Rush "And the trees are all kept equal by hatchet, axe, and saw."

7. Fortunate Son – CCR "when the band plays hail to the chief, they point the cannon at you!"

8. And Justice For All – Metallica "Just What Is Truth? I Cannot Tell"

9. Taxman, Mr. Thief – Cheap Trick "Now the taxman is out to get you, he’ll steal your shit and think that it’s funny"

10. Two Minutes To Midnight - Iron Maiden "Go to war again, blood is freedom's stain"

More election year songs? Please put yours in the Comments box.

This Practical Plan Solves Income Inequality

2011-12-28T17:35:00.000-05:00

A Dec. 26th Associated Press story in the Providence Journal stated that President Obama and Mitt Romney both want to fix income inequality but by using different methods. The story didn’t ask whether income inequality is a problem or whether any president has the legal right to “fix” it. It is written as if income inequality is universally accepted as a problem that must be fixed. The occupiers and a variety of have-nots agree, demanding “We must close the wealth gap!”

Pretend with me for a minute that our country has no rule of law, no Constitution and the government forces everybody to put every cent of wealth into a big pot. Then it’s divided evenly by the number of people in the country and we all start tomorrow with the exact same amount of money. “Hooray! We’ve eliminated the wealth gap!” The politicians cheer, patting themselves on their backs.

Then what?

Then Senator Obama tries to convince Joe the Plumber that spreading wealth around by stealing it from some people and giving to others is "good for everybody." Americans largely ignore that this is illegal, unconstitutional, immoral and against any code of conduct an elected official would be expected to honor.

Some will go to Las Vegas and lose their “fair share” in the casino within minutes. Others will also go to Las Vegas and earn money working at a trade show. Some may start companies while others smoke crack in a back alley. Some will lend their money to a bank and instantly earn a miniscule amount of interest. Within minutes, we will once again be faced with gross income inequality and a widening wealth gap.

Then what?

Well, the only way to fix this is for the government to force everybody to put every cent of wealth into a big pot. Then it’s divided evenly by the number of people in the country and we all start over with the exact same amount of money. Some will go to Las Vegas and lose their “fair share” in the casino within minutes. Others will go to Las Vegas and earn money working at a trade show…etcetera, etcetera. You get the idea. Then once again faced with rising income inequality and a widening wealth gap, we’ll have no choice but to demand the government fix it by collecting our wealth in a big pot and handing it back.

As anyone can see, this very concept of income inequality is as ridiculous as the theft by force of government pushed as the solution. The very idea that everyone is supposed to earn the exact same amount of money regardless of his/her production or contribution to society cannot be more absurd. Does anyone in Green Bay truly believe that Aaron Rodgers and backup Matt Flynn should earn the same salary? Even the NFL Players Association union wouldn’t try to argue that case. If even unions agree the idea of income inequality is wrong for sports business then isn’t it wrong for every business?

Much is written promoting income inequality as a great evil but I haven’t found a compelling case for the virtues of its reverse: income equality. If one exists, please let me know. “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” as then Senator Obama said to Joe the Plumber, is not so compelling a case that it justifies stealing from one person to give it to someone else.

Stop NJ A4372, S3105

2011-12-06T14:29:00.001-05:00

Updated Jan. 11, 2012: Bill reintroduced in NJ Senate - call or write your senator today.

Your message can be as simple as:

“A bill was filed and referred to the Education committee, S3105, that would turn New Jersey’s sensible legal framework for homeschooling into a complicated morass of regulations and red tape. Don’t add new burdens to school staff, tax payers, and parents. The current homeschool law is working. Please oppose S3105.”

Find your senator: http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/districts/municipalities.asp

Original post:

Your calls are needed to stop a new threat that has arisen to your rights in New Jersey: A4372, filed by Assemblywoman Valerie Huttle. It is identical to Sen. Loretta Weinberg’s S3105.

Please make five phone calls by Thursday using the contact information below. Remember to be courteous.

- Call Assemblywoman Sheila Oliver at (973) 395-1166. She is the Speaker of the New Jersey General Assembly and controls its business.
- Call Assemblyman Patrick Diegnan at (908) 757-1677. He is the chairman of the Assembly Education Committee, where A4372 has been referred.
- Call Assemblywoman Joan Voss at (201) 346-6400. She is the vice chair of the education committee.
- Call Assemblyman Erik Pederson (R) at (908) 237-4694 and Assemblyman John DiMaio (R) at (908) 684-9550

Feel free to email too: AsmDiMaio@njleg.org, AsmPeterson@njleg.org, AswOliver@njleg.org, asmdiegnan@njleg.org, Aswvoss@njleg.org

Huttle’s bill gives the State Board of Education dramatic new power over homeschool families. The board’s regulations could mandate exactly how all the bill’s requirements would be enforced, including what medical information must be submitted. The board could define homeschooling itself. The bill treats every homeschool parent like a suspected child abuser requiring them to file documentation of annual medical exams by September 1, to submit each child’s name, birth date, and homeschool instructor’s name every year by August 1 and a mandatory portfolio would be due June 30. Bureaucrats would have virtually unlimited power over what families must include in the "portfolio" and what is to be taught.

This bill would turn New Jersey’s current sensible legal framework for homeschooling into a morass of regulations and burdensome red tape. With identical bills now filed in both houses of the legislature, the situation is more serious. If both bills should pass in their own respective chambers, no vote in the other chamber would be needed for the bills to become law.

Your message can be as simple as:

“A bill was filed and referred to the Education committee, A4372, that would turn New Jersey’s sensible legal framework for homeschooling into a complicated morass of regulations and red tape. Don’t add new burdens to school staff, tax payers, and parents. The current homeschool law is working. Please oppose A4372.”

Thanks for helping to fight for our freedom to homeschool.
Paul

When the President Gets a Death Button

2011-11-23T13:57:00.001-05:00

In the Star Trek episode when Lt. Uhura dressed like Lara Croft, Captain Kirk revealed the secret behind his rapid rise to power: with a weapon hidden in his quarters, he could press a button and kill anyone on the ship. Kirk didn’t need no stinkin’ badge, arrest warrant, judge, jury or due process of law. Just press the button and zap! Not only did it kill but it completely removed the person from existence so there were no messy remains to handle. The idea that one person in power can kill anyone at any time is so anti-American that the story was set in a parallel universe – a universe diametrically opposed to how America is supposed to operate. Maybe the weapon was initially developed as a defense against a Klingon boarding party or a Romulan spy who had infiltrated the Federation. But how quickly and easily it was turned against anyone on the ship, against anyone who might dare oppose or disagree with the leadership.

Drones currently patrol the American borders with Mexico and Canada, in addition to many foreign countries. Many government officials are pushing to monitor the entire USA 24/7. Photo courtesy Defense Industry Daily.

Now travel back in time from the 23^rd century to today. We don’t have the ability to single a person out for death at the push of a button. But we do have unmanned aerial drones. With these, our leaders feel free to kill almost anyone anywhere in the world - even American citizens – seemingly without any regard for the rule of law, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Few of us will cry over the removal of Anwar al-Awlaki but with the capability offered by these drones so comes a responsibility to prevent their reckless implementation.

We’ve been patrolling our border with Mexico for years, just with cameras, of course, but how quickly will these drones be armed to stop the drug cartels? And surely, we’ll need to deploy them over our southern states to shoot the drug traffickers and track the movements of illegals.

We’ve also deployed drones to patrol our border with Canada. Their range covers hundreds of miles into American territory, however, and there’s a concerted push to cover American skies (start the video at 8:00 in) with these drones. Citizens will likely think twice before peaceably assembling or occupying a city knowing the surveillance drones overhead are zooming in on their faces for automated recognition and addition to the database of dissidents, threats and enemies. Or, what if and when the drones are armed? Is our leadership really that different from that of Syria or China? We may use police batons before opening fire but American law enforcement always has live ammo at the ready for use against unruly Americans if the rubber bullets and tear gas fail to disperse a crowd.

And from the Washington Post, our newest drones will automatically hunt, target, and kill the enemy based on calculations made by software, not decisions made by humans. That’s actually called a Terminator, or Nomad for the Star Trek fans and an assassin droid for the Star Wars fans.

We’ve seen what happens when a government takes the power to kill anyone for any reason without any serious resistance from (or with support of) its citizens. Here are a few pictures of the results. As the power to kill becomes cleaner, easier and safer to inflict, it’s even more important that we pay close attention to who our government is killing and why, and whether they have any legal right to do so. Once we allow the government to kill anyone at any time without concern for the law, then taking your house for redevelopment, taking your money to fill the budget shortfall or taking away your kids for that-time-at-the-supermarket-captured-on-video becomes easy pickins for the government and hard for anyone to fight. If the law doesn't hold up against murder it certainly won't offer any grounds to fight the IRS, OSHA or EPA let alone your local zoning board or health department.

Look! Up in the sky - it's not a bird or a plane - and it may be coming for you and yours.

Details about our drone wars here

Presidential candidate's take on right to assassinate Americans here - video

More in-depth on issue, including the CIA's hit list - video

Is this the day you stop doing what "they" tell you?

2011-08-23T12:42:00.004-04:00

Those of us born after 1950 might not realize “they” said JFK was unelectable but the people voted and he won. “They” also said Reagan was unelectable but the people voted and he won. “They” even said Obama was unelectable at first but the people voted and he won. It seems Americans actually do think for themselves, at least every four years. This time, let’s pay less attention to what “they” say and vote for the candidate with the knowledge and wisdom to dig us out from our economic hole – even if “they” call him or her unelectable. As Kennedy, Reagan and Obama proved, the only thing stopping an unelectable candidate from becoming president is our willingness to accept what “they” say.

Your home loan is under water - so why do we have to pay?

2011-06-02T16:57:00.009-04:00

Nearly every time I’ve driven a car off the dealer’s lot, the market value of the car instantly dropped to the point where it was worth less than the amount of my loan balance. When the collateral underlying a loan becomes worth less than the loan balance, it’s called being under water. So, I guess my car loans have been under water four or five times. I once had a home equity loan where the interest rate was higher than the market interest rate, after rates had fallen considerably. This loan also would be termed under water. Yet it never occurred to me to cry foul and demand that someone else either pay my loan for me or give me money as compensation for my situation or for the questionable deal to which I’d agreed and contracted. But for some reason, people think a home loan is extra special and if it’s under water then the borrower needs to be legally entitled to take your money and mine.

Is something so different about a home loan? Please someone explain what is so different about a home mortgage loan that stealing from others needs to be made legal and acceptable. People demand payments if their home values decline yet I haven’t heard of anyone lining up to pay more in property taxes when their home values increase.

Once we accept and allow this type of stealing via taxation to compensate “victims” of under water home loans, we’ll soon be paying “victims” of under water car loans, home equity loans and student loans – yes!... “because the job I was promised doesn’t pay what I thought it would pay - my anticipated earnings are less than my student loan balance and I demand compensation.”

Silly? Just wait. It doesn’t end there. Once we’ve legalized and accepted this kind of theft, then nearly any kind of theft becomes acceptable, subject to the whims of the people who hold political office. And that’s not a very trustworthy lot to depend on, is it?

Chevron TV Spot Gives Up Right to Profits

2011-05-05T10:57:00.016-04:00

TV Commercial at YouTube

Chevron Employee: “Last year, Chevron made a lot of money…”

Blue Collar Man: “Where does it go?!” (demanding tone)

Poster: “Oil companies should put their profits to good use.”

That’s right! Oil companies should put their profits to good use, just as every profitable company should put its profits to good use. But what Joseph representing the Blue Collar Man in the commercial means by “good” and what the audience this commercial is intended to placate means by “good” are very different than what most working, thinking people mean by “good”. Chevron is speaking to people who think they have a rightful claim on Chevron’s profits – people who truly believe that it’s not only “good” for Chevron to give its profits to other people but that it should be required to do so, even by law.

More troubling than this example of mainstreaming Marxism in America is Chevron’s giving in to it, that Chevron has accepted this socialist idea that its profits were not rightfully earned (maybe some weren't but that's for a different post). This commercial only legitimizes the case and promotes the wrongheaded idea to millions.

No one has the right to decide how somebody else spends (or saves) his/her money or his/her company's profits – at least not in America. Chevron’s refusal to defend its legitimate right and responsibility to earn profits - essentially its very right to exist - may soothe some public outrage in the short term but it only spells more trouble and eventual defeat over the long term. No need to fear Hugo Chavez nationalizing oil company assets – the oil companies are doing it themselves.

"A Must-Read!" Book Review of Economics In One Lesson

2011-04-12T11:53:00.007-04:00

I read Economics in One Lesson by Henry Hazlitt more than a year ago with my then 10-yr. old son. The knowledge in it is so profound that I’ve put off writing this review for fear that I could never do it justice, and I’m sure I haven’t. But there’s no time to wait – you need to read this book now.

I’ve read a number of books about economics and banking, history and politics, and without a doubt, Economics In One Lesson stands out as the most important book on the subject area.

It is setup as a series of 23 different examples describing everyday occurrences to illustrate fundamental economic principles. How a broken window impacts the overall wealth of the community is among the most famous of these examples. Other examples address the value of public works projects, the importance of exports, the impact of taxation on production, the relationship of employment to the minimum wage and the inflationary result of printing money.

Though written more than 50 years ago, the examples remain all too relevant today, unfortunately. In fact, for nearly every example, I was able to clip an article from the newspaper or print one from the Web documenting how the same issues are sadly alive today. “Price Controls Hamper Rise of Generics”, Wall Street Journal, for example, revealed how the government of the Philippines set price controls on branded drugs to lower their cost only to find the artificially reduced profits caused retailers to cancel planned store openings and stop hiring. Hospitals raised other prices to recoup the loss of revenue from drugs and the once-growing generic drug manufacturing industry stalled since the spread between its prices and the now-lower branded drugs has been cut. Now there are more people unemployed and less medicine available. If only government officials in the Philippines had read this book before causing so much needless and predictable suffering.

In “The New Cannery Row”, for a second example, Wall Street Journal editors reveal what happened to the tuna industry in American Samoa when our Congress required the U.S. territory to raise its minimum wage from $3.26 an hour to $7.25 an hour by 2015. Well, what do you think happened? Chicken of the Sea closed its plant. StarKist cut more than half its workforce. Thousands were put out of work. The minimum wage hike pushed unemployment from 10% to 30%. Seems workers in Thailand are willing to clean fish for $.75 an hour. Since our Congress failed to grasp this, we get to send $18 million of our taxes to Samoa as compensation. Oops.

Had our Congressmen read Hazlitt’s analysis of each occurrence and his predictions for the outcomes of each occurrence under different economic policies they would’ve understood how raising and lowering the minimum wage affects employment. In fact, the answers to nearly every economic challenge that seems to confound everyone from TV talking heads to Federal Reserve members and the President’s team of economic advisors are in this book, quickly and simply laid out for anyone to understand – regardless of a passing grade in Economics 101.

In fact, the policy answers are so obvious that my 10-yr. old, upon noticing the “50th Anniversary Edition” sticker on the cover, was baffled that the world could be in such economic chaos when the answers have been right here for 50 years. He’d thought we were reading a new book –it was unfathomable that most of our political leaders have ignored the obvious for so long while continually throwing money at policies that are proven to fail everywhere they’ve been implemented.

After reading Economics In One Lesson, it’s easy to see through all of the fear and hysteria driving today’s pseudo-journalists on the news. I highly recommend Economics In One Lesson. This book needs to be at the top of your reading list.

Less Civility, More Hostility?

2011-01-26T12:17:00.004-05:00

The cry for civility among the political class following the attempt on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords' life is a sign of fear poking through their arrogance and disdain for the American people. Sure, Jared Lee Loughner is mentally ill but that a member of Congress was the object of his anger is not being dismissed in Washington D.C. But I don’t buy in to these calls for civility. They are, in fact, thinly veiled pleas to leave other political officials alone, to leave them be to pilfer in peace, wantonly waste and blatantly bilk Americans of their money, rights and freedom.

It’s not very different than a thug on the street stealing your wallet and then scolding you for reacting without civility.

Congressmen routinely carried guns to work in the mid-1800's for self-defense. After all, you never know when a debate will lose its civility. Only the unprecedented prosperity and security of 20th century America made arming political officials unnecessary to the point that we snicker at the thought. Now that both prosperity and security are in question and the primary causes of this turmoil are easily seen in policy directives from Washington, it is perfectly logical that the political class would become targets of anger. Their fear of a Jeffersonian revolution seems to be growing. Do they understand their policies must lead to tough times and unrest? Or do they think unrest is but a symptom of tough times?

Go ahead and plead for civility. Until the political class feels nervous enough to carry there is a far greater need for lawful citizen action, a far greater need for hostility* than civility.

*By hostility, the author refers merely to the tone of policy discussions. This is in no way intended to incite a little rebellion.

Top Ten Ways to Know You're About to be Assaulted by a TSA Agent

2010-11-23T01:46:00.001-05:00

This TSA agent checks genitals of a 3-yr. old girl. Enjoy your flight to Disney.

1. There's pee all over the floor

2. It's your turn for the pat-down and you're still pounding a $4.00 water bottle

3. You left the house without wearing shoes

4. Notice sign offering free AIDS and pregnancy tests with every enhanced pat-down

5. You see glimpse of TSA training video behind screen - it's hosted by Ginger Lynn

6. Small print on your plane ticket states frequent flyer miles may be voided if selected for enhanced pat-down

7. You tried to check a bag weighing more than 50 lbs.

8. You're in line between two Imams

9. You're an American

10. Your t-shirt reads, "You Suck, TSA!"
The government, btw, does not have the right to do this to anyone, thanks to the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Columbus Day Reading List

2010-10-11T10:48:00.003-04:00

Many people we consider great historical figures had flaws that were omitted during the creation of their myths. We're not taught much about their shortcomings, only that they were the first to do something. So people seem shocked when they find out Thomas Jefferson owned slaves despite proclaiming that all men are created equal, and that Teddy Roosevelt - hero of our national parks - led the charge not only of San Juan Hill but also the charge to rule over the Philippines, Hawaii, Panama and Puerto Rico. Taught seemingly since birth that Christopher Columbus was first to discover America, we can't easily process that not only wasn't he first but that he helped enslave and massacre thousands upon thousands of the people he discovered.

Let's celebrate Columbus for his salesmanship, entrepreneurial drive and persistence, but that's just the cover to the story and you can't judge a book by its cover.

Columbus Day Recommended Reading List:
* 1492 The Decline of Medievalism and the Rise of the Modern Age
* Lies My Teacher Told Me, James W. Loewen
* The Island at the Center of the World, Russell Shorto
* Indian Givers, Jack Weatherford
* Native Roots, Jack Weatherford

These are all available at Amazon.com, as are my book reviews

Everything I Need to Know About Economics I Learned Playing Age of Empires III

2010-06-23T09:32:00.007-04:00

If Age of Empires III wasn’t called a video game, it could be called an economics simulation. Then it could be used as a tool for learning instead of dismissed as a waste of time. In this PC game, each player starts a colony with an explorer and seven settlers. To survive and thrive, settlers must set to work gathering berries and hunting for food, cutting down trees for buildings and mining metals for money. As the colony grows, more settlers arrive. Hunting and gathering are replaced by farming and domesticating livestock, mining is replaced by banking and woodcutting is replaced by factory production. A market promotes the efficient conversion of commodities and money from one to another – minus a percentage as a brokerage fee. And all of this needs to be humming along while accounting for the colony’s defense against the colony on the other side of the plain. It would be impossible to win at this game without understanding several fundamental principles involving economics, defense and government. And lo and behold, these principles are learned and retained simply by playing the game. No textbooks required. For example:

1. Everybody contributes. Every person living in the colony needs food and shelter. Everyone is, to some degree, a cost to the colony. Therefore, every member of the colony needs to contribute, or in economic terms, needs to produce goods. A settler who isn’t farming must be building or mining or otherwise producing. An idle settler is a burden draining the colony of resources. So destructive idleness is, in fact, that the game alerts the player if a settler is left idle between tasks. Watching TV, lounging by the pool and vacationing on the beach are economically unthinkable. If you’re not helping, you’re hindering. There certainly aren’t any inspectors, administrators or other officials living off of the work of others.

2. Opportunity cost. Since resources are limited and costs are involved in gathering resources, how the limited resources are allocated requires careful, thoughtful decision making. Should the available wood be used to build houses to support and attract additional settlers or to build a mill to boost agricultural production? Should the available gold be invested in technological improvements that boost production of goods or in raising an army to protect the colony? Each purchase is at the expense of another purchase and each decision has consequences that impact everyone in the colony. Now don’t forget to consider that military personnel require food and shelter but don’t contribute in terms of economic production. With a finite amount of population permitted (200), each soldier represents one less settler able to produce goods.

3. Sustainability. The game starts with numerous head of bison roaming the plains, a number of gold mines and lush forests. But eventually, these resources will be depleted so alternative methods of production must be found. Domesticating livestock, farming and using advanced materials, for example, must be considered and they must be considered before resources expire, not after everyone is starving.

4. Technology is good. Settlers can cut wood at a given rate but investing in a log flume and sawmill boosts the production rate. Settlers can plant a farm but studying seed technology boosts the production come harvest time. Raising an army of musketmen is fine but improving their weapons with rifling allows the same number of soldiers to more effectively defend the colony. It would be unthinkable to believe that it’s better to use a lot of human labor to perform a job slowly when a few tools can help fewer people perform a job faster and easier, freeing the human labor to contribute in another area.

5. Value of services. It’s common for politicians and TV commercials to slam “transaction fees”, “brokerage fees” and “convenience fees”. We’ve been told for decades that providing services should be free of charge as if they offer no value. In Age of Empires, players are grateful for the ability to instantly exchange one type of commodity for another. This ability has value and for this ability to trade goods, a transaction fee is paid. This fee pays for the service being provided - the ability to easily exchange goods. It is no different than a credit card company offering the ability to write a check for instant access to cash and earning a percentage for both the service and for bearing the risk of extending credit. Yet people have been taught to become irate when required to pay for services like these, though without them our economy could not function as smoothly.

6. Deterrence. At first, while I was carefully and methodically sending my settlers hunting, gathering and building, my opponent’s army would quickly arrive and destroy my colony. Game over. Then my 11-year old son, who convinced me to try this game, explained how to prevent it. “You don’t need to raise a whole army – that’s too expensive – you just need a few soldiers so the other guy won’t attack.” Aha! A deterrence. The opposite of which I’ll call an invitation. It’s a concept that’s self-evident to a pre-teen but seemingly alien to our leadership in Washington D.C.

Video games have come a long way since Space Invaders and Asteroids. And while vile, cop-killing, Grand Theft Auto-style games capture the headlines, hundreds of other games that don’t grab headlines would be labeled educational if they simply weren’t so much fun to play. Parents need to rethink their perception of video games and stop lumping everything on a computer or console as a wasteful diversion away from productive, educational activities. It may be time to recognize that some video games are both productive and educational and it’s their extra element of fun that makes the learning process so effortless.

24 - Good Riddance, Jack Bauer

2010-05-24T15:43:00.006-04:00

It seems a long time ago when my sister-in law Alex alerted me to a new show called “24”. “You guys would love this show!” she assured me and my wife, Shannon. “Split screens, real time, high-tech, it’s great.” She was right. Just before season three began, we watched the DVD’s of the first two seasons, often watching five or six episodes in a row late at night. It tried to be a relatively realistic show dealing with the reality of our efforts to counter terrorism. The villains were Muslims out to kill Americans, Milosevic’s thug partners in ethnic cleansing and Mexican drug lords. The bad guys on the show actually mirrored the bad guys we see in the news. But then came the Janeane Garofaloization of 24: All torture=bad, All Muslims=good, Islamic terrorists=just reacting to American arrogance.

The effect is quite clear when considering the villains and their aims in the final seasons. American President Charles Logan tried to smuggle nukes into America as a mere political maneuver. American businessman Jon Voight launched terrorist attacks against his own country. American President Alison Taylor covered up a Russian plot to murder a pseudo-Iranian president who fought terrorists to the death to pursue peace with America - ha, that’s a good one! And let’s not forget Jack’s own brother and father plotting against America. Sure, there were always Americans like Nina working with the bad guys for personal gain. But no longer were Americans fighting the terrorists on 24. In this bizarro-24, Americans ARE the terrorists!

Super Jack

In the early seasons of 24, Jack actually got hurt and suffered from his injuries. It had a modicum of realism. He sometimes lost fights, got captured, beaten and couldn’t escape. Then Jack became a superhero, an action hero. In the final season, for example, he has so far been strung up at the wrists, stabbed in the kidney and mercilessly beaten yet he quickly escaped and went on with his day. Later, he was stabbed in the chest by Renee Walker. Just a flesh wound. Carry on. Then his lung collapsed from several bullets taken in a bulletproof vest. Thanks for reflating, Mr. EMT, gotta' go. Hours later, he was stabbed in the abdomen – badly enough that blood is shown left on the wall on which he was leaning. No problem. And let’s not forget he’s kicked his heroin addiction by himself cold turkey.

Part of the original allure of the show was its realistic approach. Once Jack became superhuman, it lost much of its credibility and became just another TV show.

Dumbing Down

While I found superhumanizing Jack Bauer disappointing, it was the dumbing down of the dialog I found downright infuriating. Yes, the episodes were sometimes difficult to follow in the early seasons. You actually had to pay attention and think. Plots unfolded. In later seasons, plots are spoon-fed. Dialog in the early seasons sounded very much like conversation, spoken in the way that people speak. But in recent seasons, the writers take every opportunity to condescendingly remind the viewers what’s going on and who are the bad guys. There are no pronouns. For example, “Jack Bauer killed Dana Walsh…”, or, “Does Jack Bauer know it was President Charles Logan who told President Taylor about the Russian involvement in agent Renee Walker’s death in Jack Bauer's apartment?”

In a tactic commonly used by lazy writers, a scene where Jack visits an old colleague for weapons and tactical support is used as an opportunity to bring the viewers up to speed. “Jack, I won’t help you unless I know everything that’s going on…”. "Ok, well here's everything up to this point in the season...". If Jack would just take a few steps and whirl around before reading his lines it would be as ridiculous as the dialog on the “Young and the Restless”.

Instead of a real-time show with real-life plots and real-time conversation, it’s sunk to the level of ordinary TV. I'll miss you, 24, but good riddance. I've been missing the 24 we know and love for several years, now.

Secession: Screw You Guys! I'm Going Home

2010-04-20T13:58:00.001-04:00

My Letter to the Editor, Wall Street Journal

In Michael Trinklein's "Altered States" in the Weekend Journal of April 17-18, he states, "Seceding from the nation is illegal...". The Supreme Court ruled in 1869 in Texas v. White that "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States". It's curious why he didn't state in the article that seceding from a state is also illegal. Or is it that the Court was simply wrong to declare secession illegal? At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, it was widely understood that any state would retain the right to leave the union after ratification if its people determined it was no longer a beneficial agreement. The writings of Thomas Jefferson, Alexis de Tocqueville, George Mason and many others document the thinking of the time was that it would be downright ridiculous for states to be compelled to remain part of a country when the costs and sacrifices outweighed the benefits. New Englanders spent years trying to secede from the union long before the South tried to secede. To the founders, secession was a very real and obvious course of action to check an overbearing central government. Today, talk of secession draws a condescending chuckle mostly because we've been told it's illegal, impossible and a dead issue settled by Lincoln's use of force. The tone of the article reinforces that perspective. As a long-time reader of the WSJ, I expect more than breezy excerpts - even in the Weekend Journal. Given the facts about the intent of the founders, the issue of secession seems worthy of a more weighty piece written by a journalist. Leave the excerpts and promotional book reviews to the online retailers.

Paul Entin
Bloomsbury, NJ
www.twitter.com/paulentin

Addendum: Rhode Island, New York and Virginia only agreed to ratify the Constitution based on the clear and obvious understanding that the states would leave the union if it no longer benefited its people. Here's a fine explanation from History Vortex.

I Am Organized, Dammit!

2010-01-18T17:58:00.003-05:00

I’m a very organized person. I once built a database to organize and catalog my cassette tapes years before iTunes figured out how to do that for us online. I painstakingly organized my baseball card collection into scores of cardboard boxes, each labeled on both ends and all stored according to the year issued. I aligned books on my bookshelf by size to prevent them from sliding over and to ensure all of the spines were visible. A colleague once called me fastidiously attentive to details in my advertising contracts. My wife once marveled at how well organized, clean and uncluttered my desk and office were (though she perceived me to be completely unorganized at home, erroneously, I might add). I realized tonight that I am by nature, quite an organized person. But somehow my family perceives me as quite the opposite. And worse, I believed the opposite, too. How could this happen?

Hypothesis

Every year my Mom would take me to Jamesway for back to school supplies. I enjoyed flipping through Mead’s latest selection of binders and always went home with a Data Center, a Trapper Keeper and/or a variety of spiral notebooks. I took great care in counting the number of tabs and pockets to be sure there was one for each class. I chose spiral notebooks to coordinate with my schedule. One, five-subject spiral notebook would do fine for the Tuesday/Thursday schedule for the entire year without having to make extra trips to my locker. A single subject notebook would do for classes like typing and computer science. Clearly, this is an example of an organized person, one who is excited to start school. Yet within weeks, the new binder would be overstuffed with handouts that didn’t quite fit into the pockets along with myriad papers with frayed edges ripped from the spiral notebooks. The metal spirals would be deformed and the notebooks covered in some very creative doodling while each page showed a single frame of a full-length animated cartoon at the lower right hand corner. Very few class notes were written in these notebooks.

Yet only weeks earlier I’d placed great importance on these books. What happened?

Forgetful or Unorganized?

My teachers knew well that, occasionally, I’d forget to do my homework. Occasionally, I’d even forget to bring home the very little notebook we were required to have and in which we were required to write down what homework was assigned so it wouldn’t be forgotten. Occasionally, I’d arrive in class only to remember that a quiz or test was to be taken. It’s understandable that any parents witnessing these lapses year after year might label their son as unorganized. “If only he were more organized then he’d remember these things,” I suppose my parents thought to themselves. I don’t recall what they actually said about it, if anything, since it’s hard to argue when even this visibly unorganized process unfailingly brings home A’s and B’s and annual evenings at the honors dinner. But as this process played on for 12 years, it is clear now that even I came to believe I was naturally unorganized.

How can the person who leaves the homework assignment notebook in his locker at school at the end of the day be the same person who meticulously organizes his baseball card collection as a child and today runs a company that meets deadlines on a daily basis without fail?

Conclusion

It doesn’t take a professional scientist to conclude that the child organizing the baseball cards and carefully selecting the ideal three-ring binder is the same person who meets tight deadlines and works from a clean, uncluttered (mostly) desk as an adult. The oddity, or anomaly if you prefer, where a profound lack of organization is evident appears only at school or around assignments related to school. When involved in self-directed or otherwise inspiring and important pursuits, I’ve demonstrated serious organizational skills. Only when forced to do schoolwork that I’d found uninspiring and deemed unimportant does any hint of disorganization appear.

So what is it about schooling that causes naturally organized people to act in a disorganized manner and over time, come to believe that they are in fact naturally disorganized? What else are children learning to believe about themselves from schooling that isn’t true, or wasn’t true when they first began schooling? What damage might it cause and how might it affect their ability to succeed as adults?

I suspect many people tire of organizing their clothing, kids' toys and even the day's mail. But the truly important jobs always seem to get organized just fine.

If there are any published studies addressing this issue, please post a link.

Please Pass the Steroids

2010-01-12T11:00:00.010-05:00

Steroids work wonders, as Arnold demonstrates. So why are they illegal?

The steroid controversy has centered on whether A-Rod, Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, Marion Jones, Ben Johnson and other professional athletes used the performance enhancing drugs to...enhance their performance - to cheat. The fact that they committed crimes by buying and using steroids rarely earns mention. But what many people seem to be overlooking is that steroids clearly do in fact enhance performance. They are proven to regenerate muscle and promote its growth. That's why steroids were given to wounded soldiers in WWII. That's why they help you run faster. That's why hitting a weak lineout to second base becomes a double in the gap. They work.

Therefore, why aren't we all enhancing our performance with steroids? Why aren't we focusing far more attention on learning how to use steroids safely in moderation rather than simply banning them outright as a controlled substance?

Sure, abusing steroids - like abusing any drug - carries serious health risks. But the known side effects of Ritalin and other drugs commonly given to kids like candy are more serious than the acne, headaches and other side effects likely to be caused by modest, medically supervised steroid use. The ban-and-be-terrified-of-roids community still has to cling to Lyle Alzado as its poster child and he died nearly 20 years ago. Of all the thousands upon thousands of people supposedly using steroids, according to the surveys conducted in schools and by the gov't, is there no one else in the last 20 years who has had such horrific results? Arnold Schwarzenegger lived on steroids for longer than Alzado and the governor seems to be in pretty good condition.

Steroids need more investigation - not mere vilification - so we can more accurately judge the risks vs. the rewards for ourselves. Then we can decide with our doctors whether or not they may be effective for us.

If going bald really is a side effect, Ill risk it.

We Needed the Berlin Wall

2009-11-10T09:33:00.001-05:00

The Berlin Wall provided an omnipresent reminder that life on the eastern side was different from life on the western side. The wall was a tangible symbol that millions of innocent people were being held under oppressive, socialist rule on one side while we on the other side enjoyed life as free (relatively) capitalists. This stark contrast demonstrated the obvious advantages of political and economic freedom every day for the world to see. If only the wall would be torn down then the whole world would rush to freedom!...Right?

In our arrogance, Americans believed that tearing down the Berlin Wall would unleash the capitalist spirit and yearning for freedom upon the crumbling socialist countries of eastern Europe and the USSR. It didn’t occur to us that the evils of socialism, totalitarianism and the desire to be controlled by the government would spread westward just as quickly.

The Berlin Wall represented all that was evil in the “evil empire” and by contrast all that was good in the West. Americans don't shoot innocent civilians in the back as they race to freedom. Now it’s gone and it’s getting harder to see the distinction between East and West, good and evil. It seems America may have needed this cold war relic to continue appearing "good" even as it strengthens government control over its people, strips away fundamental freedoms and marches towards socialism.

Curfew Averts Riotous Mayhem In Hunterdon County?

2009-10-31T22:49:00.005-04:00

Hunterdon teens are so threatening their own parents allow illegal curfew. Photo courtesy NJ.com

Raritan Twp. General Ordinance Chapter 9.12 establishes a Halloween curfew. Minors are not allowed outside anywhere in the township unless accompanied by an adult between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. from Oct. 26th - Nov. 2nd subject to arrest. Both parent and juvenile offender to be penalized with community service hours and are subject to the provisions of Chapter 1.08.010. From a quick Web search, I have not been able to figure out what those penalties may be (this is not an investigative journalism piece). It turns out that Halloween curfews are quite common in America today. Cities like Detroit and Newark have a riotous history that makes it seem perfectly reasonable - even prudent - to enact preventative curfews. But Raritan Twp., NJ? The median income for a family is $126,663.00. I haven't seen too many teens flipping over the neighbor's minivan. Clearly, young people in Raritan Twp. are no great threat to the community. In fact, according to 2003 Police statistics (the current year available) there were 827 Adult Arrests (not including drunk drivers) and 154 Juvenile Arrests. It seems the people under 18 are far less of a threat than the adults who voted (or at least didn't oppose) to confine their own children to their homes.

But what disturbed me most about these curfews is that they are clearly in violation of the First Amendment. Yet despite that, and despite that there really is no threat of a riot in Raritan or in most towns, people think it's ok to enact curfews anyway - just in case. Many even welcome curfews...lest roaming hoards of travel soccer players and their Nintendo DS-wielding siblings terrorize the neighborhood.

As a friendly reminder, the First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble...". The First Amendment trumps local ordinances. The less people resist when our freedoms are being taken away, the more we invite our remaining freedoms to be trampled upon and eventually dismissed. But why teach kids about Washington, Jefferson and Franklin and the freedoms they secured for us when we have Marx, Mao and Castro to admire?

Moral of the Story: Hidden Taxes Always Go Up

2009-07-27T16:47:00.003-04:00

With today's update, this story is now in its fourth year of life:

I had to pay $19.62 today as an “annual assessment levied on New Jersey Employers by the New Jersey Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development according to various statutes.” Talk about a hidden tax. Last year, when my assessment was about $9.00 (my first such assessment), my accountant advised me to “just pay it” since there’s nothing we could do about it.

This is infuriating. (1) I don’t like paying yet another tax (2) I don’t like paying yet another tax where my earnings are simply stolen and given to others (3) I don’t like that if this tax is going to be enacted, that it falls squarely on businesses to pay for people who are unemployed (4) I don’t like how the gov’t quietly enacts numerous little taxes so that none of them individually will get enough attention to block their passage, but taken together it’s a great cost and burden on us and on our economy. (5) I don’t like that I’m being forced to pay this with no opportunity to say, “No! I’m not paying this!" I wasn’t allowed to vote against it before it was enacted and I object to being forced to pay it. Sure, in theory it was enacted by the legislative branch, whose members I helped elect. And I had access to public records of bills and votes and therefore I was given an opportunity to voice my opinion. Unfortunately, political reality differs from political science. Funny how the insignificant $9.00 tax more than doubled in one year since nobody bothered to complain about it. Looking forward to next year’s letter.

UPDATE: Just received "next year's letter" and the tax went up almost 12 percent to $22.24.

UPDATE 2009: The tax went up to $24.37, another 9.5 percent.

UPDATE 2010: The tax went up to $25.37, a mere 4.0 percent increase.

Paul's Economy Won't Show Up In Job Creation Reports

2009-06-24T11:03:00.003-04:00

There's a small economy bustling outside my house. The lawn service, landscape contractor and pool company are all hard at work while relying on me to be hard at work, too.

The lawn service is a sole proprietor and former stock broker who realized he'd rather be cutting lawns four days per week and going fishing the other three, weather permitting. The landscape contractor started his company a few years ago and now has his own skid steer loader, landscape truck and work crew (freelance). The pool company fixing the sand filter housing is a local, family-owned retailer/service company who hires laborers for the summer.

None of these people waited for the government to "create" a job. And by hiring them, I get specialized services, capabilities and expertise beyond my own. I help keep them in business so their work crews have jobs and I get to keep myself in business, too. And we all provide higher quality work to our Clients because we're doing what we were meant to be doing.

Despite how clear it is to me and millions of other entrepreneurs that my economy is what drives America (and the world if given the opportunity), we're largely shunned by elected officials and the socialist academics they follow. The jobs my economy created aren't counted in the job creation statistics or at least aren't valued as highly as the jobs created at taxpayer expense.

Poor AP Reporting of Fatal Train Accident

2009-03-04T15:32:00.002-05:00

Came across an AP story in the PD&D Design Daily email that stated the train engineer who drove his passenger train into a freight train (http://www.pddnet.com/Scripts/ShowPR~RID~25979.asp) sent 43 text messages from the cab that day and spent ample time talking on his cell phone. I was more bothered by the AP reporter, per this letter I sent to the editor of PD&D:

David, I know it's an AP story so this complaint really is with AP's reporting but since I found it via PD&D Design Daily, I'll state it for you (and your readers if you like): the AP reporter quoted only one person in the piece, a union representative who - what a surprise - wants two engineers on the payroll to perform the job of one engineer. Is there no one anywhere in the world the reporter could have quoted to comment on whether that's a good idea? Now I'm not a trained engineer but I'm pretty sure talking on a cell phone and sending 43 text messages while driving a train increases the risk of a deadly collision or other accident. How odd the union representative neglected to comment on the engineer's performance or its potential impact on the accident. And why that wasn't the lead in the story may lead one to infer the AP reporter carries a union card.
Regards,
Paul Entin
www.eprmarketing.com

The Day The Earth Stood Still

2008-12-16T15:00:00.006-05:00

I always liked the original so when I heard a remake was in progress I couldn't wait to see it with my son. Then I saw the trailer and became almost nauseous. See, in the original, an alien comes to Earth with an ultimatum that if we earthlings don't stop our wars and don't halt nuclear proliferation then his planet will destroy our planet because we'd become a threat to their existence.

Given the dire reality of the threat of nuclear war and the potential for the weaponization of space at the time, it was a compelling message. Plus Gort the robot was great as the precursor to the Cylons of the original Battlestar Galactica.

Today, the threat of nuclear annihilation is probably greater than in the 1950's and 1960's due to the sheer number of nuclear arms, the increasing number of countries that deploy them, the ready availability of nuclear material and the instability of the nuclear powers. But nukes don't get the press coverage anymore. No, the media thinks that the slow encroachment of global warming is a far more dangerous and alarming threat than the immediate destruction via global thermonuclear war.

In the remake, the alien Klaatu descends from the sky bearing a message that humanity must be eradicated for failing to properly care for the planet. This is just disgusting and a slap in the face to the writer Harry Bates. It's also ridiculous to equate the theoretical threat of global warming with the actual and ready threat of nuclear destruction. And just how would our wayward environmental ways be such a threat to another planet as to attract the attention of an alien race? Just ridiculous.

I downloaded the original from Netflix and watched it with my son so he could see how the story is supposed to be. Now if he ends up seeing the remake with his friends he'll understand why it's such a silly and uninspiring film.