There are lots of diets. Most of them are bunk. So let's look at some basic knowledge that we understand about biology & nutrition.

First, we start with a definition of terms. Good science always has terms. Once they are defined, things become much clearer...

• ATP (Adenosine Triphosphate): this molecule is biology's basic currency of energy. ATP molecules are an end result of our metabolic processes. These molecules are used as a common currency to provide the energy to drive all our bodily functions. Some nutrients provide far more ATP than other nutrients. For instance, metabolism of a Fat molecule provides a MUCH greater number of ATP molecules than does metabolism of a Carbohydrate molecule. Wikipedia has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adenosine_triphosphate

• Mitochondria: these are organelles found in almost every cell of your body, usually thousands per cell. There two classes of cells in your body that do not have mitochondria — most importantly your mature red blood cells. This is an important fact we will come back to later. Mitochondria are the organelles that produce almost all the energy in your body. Mitochondria use Fats & Carbohydrates to produce ATP along with other byproducts. Wikipedia has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion

• Essential Nutrient: You might think this is easy — essential means it's required to live & thrive. But, of course, it's not quite that easy. When it comes to diet, Essential Nutrient does not solely mean that you need it to live. It also means that you must get it from your diet. In other words, your body cannot make the nutrient, therefore it must come from outside your body through diet. It is Essential in your diet.
  
  Good examples of this are Vitamin D & Vitamin C. Both of these vitamins are essential for you to live & thrive. Vitamin D can be made by your body — just stand outside at noon on a sunny day, wearing only your swimsuit & in 20 minutes your body will make about 20,000 IU of Vitamin D. However, no matter how long you stand in the sunlight, your body will not make Vitamin C. Cows make their own Vitamin C, but we humans can only get Vitamin C from our diet. So, Vitamin C is an Essential Nutrient, whereas Vitamin D is not. Wikipedia has this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutrient#Essential_nutrients

In addition to the classification of nutrients into Essential or not, nutrition also has a separate classification scheme based on the amount of a nutrient that we need. Note that this is a separate classification than Essential or not.

• Micro-Nutrient: These are nutrients of which we only need small amounts. Typically the dosages are in micrograms (mcg), or milligrams (mg). Vitamin A requirements tend to be in the mcg range. Vitamin C requirements tend to be in the mg range. Micro-nutrients are generally, Vitamins & Minerals. Note that while some vitamins are essential, and some are not, all minerals are essential. Your body will not make Iron, Calcium, Sodium, Boron, Zinc, Magnesium, etc.

• Macro-Nutrient: These are nutrients of which we need and/or consume large (macro) amounts. These are typically measured in grams or ounces. The 3 macro-nutrient categories are:

  • Fats
  • Amino Acids (consumed as proteins)
  • Carbohydrates

Let's make a table that categorizes these things according to their different classifications — it might help in understanding this mess of confusion.

​ Nutrient	​ Essential?	​ Non-Essential?
​ Vitamins	​ Some	​ Some
​ Minerals	​ All	​ None
​ Fats	​ Some (2)	​ Some
​ Amino Acids	​ Some (9)	​ Some
​ Carbohydrates	​ None	​ All

Just to complicate things a little more, let's add one more category of nutrients that most people don't know about, and other people know about but don't talk about: Anti-Nutrients.

WTF?
Anti-Nutrients are things we get in our diet that are actually bad for us. Examples of these are:

• Poisons: Cyanide, for instance. Almond & Apple seeds contain amygdalin. When crushed, e.g. chewed, amygdalin can be converted to cyanide. These are generally found in nuts & seeds.
• Lectins: These are proteins, and in humans (and other animals) they can cause a disruption in the adhesion between the cells of your intestine (leaky gut). Gluten is a type of lectin, but Lectin is a much broader category. Lectins are found in all plants. Because they are proteins, they can be inactivated through cooking. Note that "can be" does not necessarily mean "all" or "completely". They can also be neuro-disruptors as well. The nerve gas Ricin is derived from castor beans. They can also cause agglutination of your red blood cells.
• Phytates: these are generally found in nuts, seeds, & legumes. Phytates bind to minerals — so when you consume phytates, they can cause malabsorption of the essential minerals in your diet. Cooking can remove some phytates, but the generally preferred methods are soaking in an acid solution or pickling. This is why you soak beans overnight before cooking them.
• Oxalates: these are basically salts of oxalic acids. Many plants contain oxalic acid. The acids from the plants combine with minerals in your body and form little oxalate salt crystals. These are usually excreted in your urine. But if you eat an oxalate-rich diet, or don't metabolize oxalic acid well, these can cause "stone" problems.

Note that all of the examples of anti-nutrients above come from plants.

Wait! WTF? I thought plants were good for you? I thought the body needed glucose from carbohydrates to run the brain? It turns out, not so much.

Remember the "gotcha" part of Essential Nutrient was that your body could ONLY get the required nutrient from your diet? Your body will make glucose. The process is called gluconeogenesis. So glucose is NOT an essential nutrient - by definition.

So how much glucose do you really need?
About 20 grams per day, or about 5 teaspoons. At any time of the day, you only have about 1 teaspoon of glucose circulating in your blood stream.

What about my brain? Doesn't it use glucose for energy?
Yes it does. But it also can use ketone bodies which are produced by metabolizing Fats. And your brain gets more energy from ketones than from glucose.

TL;DR: Carbohydrates are NOT an essential part of your diet...

Why I Won't Vote for The Donald (Trump) ...

The Donald certainly seems to be a successful businessman. He definitely has a higher net worth than I do. He's built a lot of high dollar properties, employed more people, etc. From the standpoint of someone who might be able to improve the American business climate, I'm guessing he'll do a MUCH better job than our current Prevaricator Of The United States could ever do. He'd probably do a better job of negotiating with our "frenemies" such as China, Russia, Mexico, and Venezuela.

But I don't think these issues are at the core of our problems in the United States. The base issue, is that we are no longer following the principles of our Constitution. The Constitution assigns separate powers to the separate branches of the Federal Government. This separation was broken many years ago. When Congress gave the Executive Branch the authority to create regulations through different agencies that would have the force of law, Congress gave up it's  Legislative power to the Executive branch. Until this President came into office, the Executive branch has been somewhat circumspect about creating new Laws/Regulations. But the current Prevaricator Of The United States, has gone overboard. Things had been getting worse slowly, but it has greatly accelerated in these last two terms.

The reason I won't vote for The Donald, is he appears to be oblivious to this. He speaks of making better deals, about creating jobs, etc. But nothing about our Constitution and how it is being ignored. He's said nothing about how he would try to fix that. So, if he gets into office, things will only get worse NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES.

He will not restore our freedom, because he does not really understand the Constitution ...

Hyper - Hypocritical Harry?

Recently, Dirty Harry made a speech on the Senate floor about the "racist" NFL. Apparently, he feels any reference to Indians is some sort of derogatory remark. You can read about it here.

So, I did a cursory search on the interweb about Indian related names in the glorius home state of Dirty Harry, Nevada. Here's what about 10 seconds of searching found (not guaranteed to be complete).

Mesquite (derived from an Aztec name)
Winnemucca
Tonopah
Pahrump
Washoe

Of course, it's not enough to just rename the cities and counties. You have to rename all the government buildings, libraries, school districts, schools, school teams, possibly junior college teams, and even private business that use the name of the city / county in their business name.

Clean up your own house first, Harry!

Facebook Is No Longer Trustworthy ...

I've been pondering the issue raised by recent disclosures that Facebook "altered" views of some test subjects Timelines. It did this by "hiding" either negative posts, or "positive" posts for certain viewers, and then measuring whether this had a negative or positive effect on the posts placed later by the viewers (if I understand the experiment correctly).

The big brouhaha has been about whether Facebook had violated some ethical rules regarding conducting psychological experiments. There's a very nice discussion here about this aspect of the issue.

However, from my perspective, everyone is missing the real point. Facebook violated its social contract with its subscribers. When we sign up for Facebook, it's understood that Facebook will use our data in managing and optimizing its relationship with advertisers. That's how Facebook makes revenue for itself. We sign up knowing this, in exchange for free services to communicate our thoughts and feelings to others; friends, family, the world, depending on our security settings. However, we have an expectation, and a reasonable one, that Facebook will present that representation of ourselves faithfully. In other words, what I post is what others see. 

Facebook violated that trust. Their experiment involved un-faithfully representing people's presentation of themselves to their friends, family and the world. In other words, I can no longer trust that Facebook will faithfully and truthfully present my representation of myself. 

In this case, Facebook simply "removed" some posts that other viewed. Imagine: I go to my Facebook page, and see every post I've made. However, someone else going to my page sees a different set of posts. That's not good. I can no longer trust that my friends are viewing everything I want them to see. 

But it gets worse. Now that Facebook has shown it is willing to "hide" some posts, what's to stop them from experimenting and "adding" some posts? First, it might be posts about products. Let's say I click on a particular ad when I visit my own page three times in a row. Facebook could easily "add" a post such as, "I'm really interested in this product! I'm thinking of buying it!" with an embedded link to the product page. That might lead my friends to click on it as well. Facebook could easily "hide" this post from me when I visit my own page. And hide any responses from friends to this made-up post. Suppose I'm applying for a new job. And Facebook has "chosen" my account as one of the "subjects" to which posts will be added and viewed by others than me. I might not get that job because my potential employer saw something they didn't like, THAT I NEVER POSTED AND I NEVER SAW!

Later, it could be posts about something else; politics, religion; anything. And what's to stop them? Nothing, really. 

They've already demonstrated a willingness to mess with your page and what other people see on it. And they whole-heartedly did NOT apologize. They merely stated that they had poorly communicated what they had done.

Think of it this way. You're married. Your spouse, for unknown reasons, and unbeknownst to you, starts telling stories about you: he's cheating on me; he hits me; he molests the children. All of a sudden you're friends start treating you differently than they have in the past. Perhaps the police start investigating you. Finally, you find out what your spouse has done. And what does your spouse do? Doesn't apologize, just says "Well, I guess I could have communicated it to you in a better fashion..."

Would you ever trust that spouse again?

I no longer trust Facebook ...

Proud of Your Ignorance?

Granted, I’m a curmudgeon, and take umbrage at things that other’s might easily overlook or forgive. But making simple spelling mistakes on an email blast that represents your company to the world does not strike me as a way to make a great impression. I received this email today:

I’m sure whatever tool was used to create the original email had some spell check capability.

Is this company too proud to use a spell checker? If they’re not willing, or not smart enough, to use spell checking on a public document, what confidence do you have they will be careful with the work they do for you?

Boycott Mozilla?

Given how the new CEO of Mozilla was hounded out of Mozilla by a bunch of intolerant employees, I've decided to never again use any Mozilla products. Firefox has been removed from every computer in my, albeit small, company.

As a Libertarian, I believe any consulting adult should be allowed to enroll into a civil union with as many other consenting adults as they choose. Sanctifying a civil union through a church, temple, or synagogue should be strictly a religious matter. And that religious organization should be free to accept or refuse to sanctify any union they choose. That's what freedom of association, and freedom of religion are about.

However, the tactics of the loud mouthed, self-righteous, intolerant employees of Mozilla, and that stupid OKCupid web-site, are too much for me.

Their behavior smacks of the tactics and goals of every modern totalitarian,  fascist regime that has existed since the beginning of the 20th century. I want nothing to do with them.

So, I am going to boycott Mozilla because of the intolerance of their company, for their punishing of someone who exercised his Constitutional rights in a manner that they deemed inappropriate, and for their absolute ignorance and hypocrisy of what free discourse means.

I hope others will join me, and eventually the company devolves into bankruptcy, and the loud-mouthed peons with their silent supporters are out on the street without a job. Nothing would be a more fitting result.
(this is a repost from another blog of mine, theDotNetTavern)

Should Any Organization Be Tax Exempt?

Recently, one of our local weekly papers published a Letter to the Editor from a gentleman who indicated he was upset that the Boy Scouts of America were tax-exempt. He felt that as they "discriminate" against gays that they should not be eligible to receive a tax-exemption. The writer made a point in his letter that he is on on the board of directors of one of our local Lutheran churches.  I responded to his letter with my own. The editor modified my letter slightly, which I repeat below, but did not change the general nature or intent of my original.

Regarding the recent letter writer who suggested the Boy Scouts of America should lose their tax-exempt status because he doesn't like their policies: perhaps he should consider how many other tax-exempt entities discriminate. 

The Girl Scouts: they are guilty of gender discrimination. They won't accept my son as a member. Like the BSA, their oath requires the members serve God and their faith. Surely that's a problem for girls whose families are agnostic or atheist. Cut them off. No exemption for them. Don't let them use the church facilities. Or how about the Black Chamber of Commerce, La Raza or Asian-American anything? Surely their names tell it all. They discriminate on the basis of race. No tax exemption for them. 

Or how about those Muslims, Catholics and Jews? You have to learn their Koran, Bible or Torah, and possibly (if male) get circumcised before you join those guys. You can't be an atheist and join those groups. Religious discrimination. 

Come to think of it, why are any of these groups tax-exempt? Why should I be forced to pay to make up for the lost revenue from any of the above sources? While I agree with the purposes of the BSA and the GSA, I'm against the ethnic this or that of anything, and just about every organized religion, including the letter writer's Lutheran religion. "He among you who is without sin, let him first cast a stone ... "

Gun Control: Good Politics, But Bad Policy?

According to the Brookings Institute, Mr. Obama has a plan to increase the implementation of "evidence-based" policy (See here...). Oh really?

Let's look at some gun control evidence. I went to the FBI site and downloaded one of their many tables of statistics (See here ...). The table I downloaded was table 20 (homicides by state/weapon). I then added some columns of my own to perform some simple calculations (See my download link at the end of this post).

The results are pretty simple. Of the 12,000+ homicides in 2011, 8,000+ were by firearm, or about 68% - slightly more than 2/3. Of the 8,000+ homicides by firearms, 72% were by handgun, and only 8% were by a combination of rifle or shotgun. The other 20% by firearm, the FBI couldn't tell if it was by handgun or not. Let's asssume, for the sake of argument that the percentage of the "unknown type" reflects the same percentage as the known, and we get approximately: 90% by handgun, 10% by rifle or shotgun.

So the first elephant in the room here is that people are making noise about creating policy that addresses less than 10% of the "problem". I say less than 10%, because that 10% covers both rifles and shotguns, and so far as I know, no one is talking about controls for shotguns. After all, shotguns are something that Mr. Obama and friends supposedly shoot quite often ...

So what type of "evidence-based" policy ignores 90% of the "problem" but is still considered good policy?

Now let's look at some Center For Disease Control (CDC) statistics. These are 2010 data - the best I could  find on their web-site. This comes from Table 10 (deaths from 113 different causes)(See here...). They have death by homicide with a firearm at 11,078. About 3,000 more than the 2011 FBI numbers, but within the same ball-park. Notably, 2010 was a worse year than 2011. Another elephant in the room: if the death by firearm numbers are falling (which they are), why are we trying to make policy about 10% of a declining problem? Is it wise to spend our money on problems that are declining on their own?

Finally, from the same CDC table, death by suicide for the year was 38,364 of which 19,392 was by firearm, or roughly half. Now, suicide with a long gun, is possible, but more difficult. If you have short arms, you either need assistance (which makes it not suicide?), or you use your toes to push the trigger - or maybe some weird Rube Goldberg mechanism.

The third elephant in the room is that the suicide rate by firearm is 175% of the homicide rate by firearm. In fact, the total suicide rate is almost exactly twice the total homicide rate. Maybe "evidence-based" policy would indicate we should first spend some of our money on reducing the overall suicide rate. Wouldn't it make more sense to solve the bigger problems before the smaller problems?

It seems the room is getting pretty crowded. And elephant s**t isn't all that different from bull s**t.

So far, it looks to me that "talking" about good, "evidence-based" policy is a lot better politics than it is good policy ...

My version of the FBI table mentioned above can be found here ...

No, Moron, That's Not What We're Wondering ...

The dimwit in charge of the State Department (as opposed to the Wimp-in-Chief) was recently quoted in at least one news article as saying that Americans are likely asking themselves:

“How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be."

Actually, no, that's not what people are thinking. They're thinking "How could you be so stupid to think it would turn out any other way?" Let's see, 9/11 the anniversary of 9/11/2001. No, nothing's going to happen then. Warnings from the Egyptian government. Ahh, they're probably just over-reacting.

And why are our sovereign lands, surrounded by anti-US militants being guarded by native, least-cost, un-trained, probably double-agent, security guards from the host country? I'm sure it's very unlikely that they might have interests stronger than risking their lives to protect American interests...

Why the hell weren't the Marines there? To keep the natives from feeling offended? Tough S**t! Let them get over it...

So now the question is no longer, should we stop giving them aid? If we'd been defending our own interests properly, and as required by these fools' Oaths of Office, that would still be the question. The question has now become, why the hell are we not dropping thousands of 500lb bunker busters on them?

These morons' inability to do their job in protecting US interests has now made things MUCH worse for US interests.

To paraphrase what a famous actor recently said, "If they aren't doin' their job, ya gotta let 'em go..." It's time for them all to go. Even their stupid, moronic questions show that they don't understand their real job...

[Edit shortly after original post]
Now we know they DID know, and they STILL did nothing.  When will Congress get some cojones and impeach this fool in the White House?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/09/14/diplomatic-western-posts-targeted-repeatedly-in-benghazi-in-run-up-to-deadly/?intcmp=trending

Should Businesses Pay Income Taxes?

This is, of course, a trick question. The answer is "no". The reason is very simple - businesses never really pay taxes, they simply collect "hidden" taxes from their customers - some of which they pass on to the government. Let me illustrate with an example of two fictitious companies, Company A and Company B.

Both companies produce a "glibbitch" product. They each have the same market share, and their annual revenues are each $10,000,000.00 dollars. Because they have a fungible product, and their production costs are similar, they have the same Costs of Goods Sold. Let's assume that it costs each company $9,000,000.00 to make their product, pay salaries, cover advertising, etc. So each of them supposedly starts with a company income before taxes (Revenue - Expenses) of a cool $1,000,000.00. However, Company B has one significant advantage over Company A that is not related to the product they both sell - Company B has better tax attorneys.

So Company A pays the Coporate Tax on $1,000,000 at say 30% or $300,000.00. However, Company B's lawyers are REALLY good at ferreting out some loopholes, and at the end of the year Company pays $100.00 in Corporate Income Tax. Now, both companies have sold the same amount of goods, earned the same amount of revenue, and made the same amount of income before taxes. Yet company A passes on $300,000.00 of the tax money it collected, while Company B only passes on $100.00 of the same $300,000.00 of tax money it collected.

Why do I say that Company A and B both collected $300,000.00 in tax money? Well, for one thing, the Government says it's not theirs (initially). Secondly, all that money, regardless of how much gets passed on, came entirely from their customers! The customers paid the $300,000.00 to each company! It was built into the price! Company B was just better at not having to pay it to the Government!

Now suppose the world changes overnight and on January 1st, 200x the Business Tax Rate goes to zero. All of a sudden A and B are on the same footing. Company A is now looking at increasing their profits by $300,000 per year while poor old Company B, that was doing so much better before, is looking at a measly $100.00 increase in their profits for the year.

But will Company A really do that?  If they do, then there is nothing to really distinguish them from Company B. And frankly, if they lowered their price so their annual income was just $9,900,000.00, they would still be be making more money and cost less than Company B. Remember, Company B has been paying only $100.00 each year in taxes. If they lower their price to match Company A, their net profits (after taxes) would actually go DOWN. That's not good for the shareholders....

So Company A's market share will increase. Remember, "glibbitch's" are a fungible product. So now more customers are paying less money to get the same product, because the hidden tax is now gone.

Eventually, the Government would have to raise the sales tax on "glibbitch's" because their revenue has gone down. But that's OK. Because now it's clear how much money is the Government's.

But more importantly, and rarely discussed, is that now Company A and B have to complete solely on their primary business - which is making "glibbitch's". Company B will have to lower their price to match A's. But since B is now making less revenue, they'll have to figure out how to make their product either less expensively, or improve it to maintain the price they were getting before. The important issue is that they will now compete on the price/value of their product - not on how good their tax lawyers are. Isn't that better for us all? (Well, maybe not the tax lawyers...)

A Democrat September Surprise?

A day or so ago, I had a premonition.

I think there will be a "September Surprise" from the Democratic Convention starting this coming week. My premonition is, that on the day that the VP candidate is to be announced and voted on, Old Joe will withdraw for family/medical reasons. The party will be thrown into apparent turmoil. "What are we do?" "We sympathize with Joe, but we need a candidate!" "We have to draft somebody!" "I know, let's draft Hillary!"

Yes, my premonition is that Hillary Clinton will be drafted as the VP candidate for the Democrats. I know the buzz is that she was "asked" and she "declined". Pundits have posited that

• If BO loses the 2012 election, then she will be associated with a second failure in a presidential campaign, and
• If BO wins, she doesn't want to be forced to defend his policies in 2016 when she runs again

But I think the party is scared, and sees her as necessary. And the party doesn't care about her reasons. They just want to win. They'll demand that she accept for the "good of the party". This scenario gives her and them perfect cover.

If BO loses 2012, she can claim that it wasn't really anything to do with her, because she was "drafted" and didn't really want it in the first place.

If BO wins, she won't have to support his policies in 2016, because she only took the job for the "good of the party", and not because she believed in them.

That would ironic wouldn't it? BO's presidential campaign saved by your "typical, old, white woman"...

Should Sony Spell Their Name "CRAP"?

I've never been too fond of Sony equipment. Years ago, my #1 offspring wanted a laptop. A Sony Vaio was purchased. It broke (display went out), in about a year - out of warranty.  The cost to replace the display was more than the cost of the original laptop. TRASH HEAP!

About 2 years ago, I made the mistake of buying a Sony Bloggie at CostCo to record the activities of offspring #2. What a pile ...

Sound quality is bad. Focus takes too long to acquire. Changing the zoom means taking one hand off the device, and ultimately changing the plane the device is in, which messes up the video.

The software, chrome browser based, is another pile of crap. Every time I've started it, it asks if I want to download an update for a device that is not my model. Occasionally it just freezes. Now the upload to YouTube is no longer working. When I upload (after poking around and finding the file I want outside of the Bloggie software), the audio and visual are not in sync.

Finally, the device itself no longer turns on. We had some intermittent problems recently, where it would just freeze - wouldn't record video, couldn't change the zoom, couldn't turn it off. According to the Lady of the House, letting the battery run down completely, then putting it on the charger,pressing the on/off button would bring it back to "normal".

No longer. It seems to be terminally broken. I suppose I could find out if someone can repair it. But then I'd have spent more money to get a functioning device that I really don't like. I'll spend some time looking for better alternatives.

Sony seems to be a company that can no longer produce anything of quality - or at least anything I care about.

A Paen to Smokey Nonsense ...

For some reason, I'm drawn to smoky food and scents. My favorite Scotch whiskies are Laphroaig and Lagavulin. Both are, and are known for, their smokey, peaty flavor and aroma. While I enjoy a really good Tequila, given a choice between a moderate Mezcal and an excellent Tequila, I'm drawn more to the Mezcal. I've yet to find a Bourbon or Rye that gives me quite the same pleasure.

I don't own a barbeque grill - I have a Big Green Egg smoker/griller. I've never used it for simple grilling. My wife likes the smokey quality of the meat and vegetables it produces. In our house, it's the closest she lets me come to working in the kitchen - outside. I have an older model that doesn't have all the fancy stuff you'll find on their site. What else would you expect from a curmudgeon?

Yesterday, after several months hankering for it, I bought a tin of Lapsang Souchong tea. This morning, savoring the fine, camp fire like, smokiness of the tea, I'm writing this post. When describing this tea to others, the best descriptor I can come up with is "like a camp fire". Almost everyone comprehends that - few can quite understand why I like it.

Actually, even I don't completely comprehend why. The only thing that comes to mind for me is that it always evokes a flash of my youth. It's not a long drawn out memory - it's just an image that pops up and then disappears like one of those silly "whack-a--mole" games. The mole pops up when I first smell the tea (or the whiskey), then disappears. It doesn't come up again that day, regardless of how much tea or spirits I imbibe that day. A few days later, with my first sip of the day, it's there then gone again.

When I was eleven, my parents bought a new house in our home county of San Diego. I don't know if was an un-incorporated part of the city or not. I just remember it being surrounded by tons of open space, and next to the largest mountain (Cowles Mt.) in San Diego. My friends and I would often go out for an over-night camping trip to one of the canyons in the area. The image that always comes to mind is me and my friends, sitting around the camp fire, eating our canned "Chili & Beans", and  talking about nonsense...

Is Romney Just an Obama Mini-me?

Mr. Romney doesn't seem to get his numbers up very much. His opponents have surged and fallen by the way-side ever since the beginning of the primary contest. Pundits have theorized that the reason is the conservative base (and perhaps the middle) are just supporting the "anyone-but-Romney" of the day.  As each of these alternatives is found to have serious flaws, the next in line is supported until another major flaw is found. While people seem puzzled by this "anyone-but-Romney" ethos, no one seems to have a handle on why it exists. To me the answer is glaringly evident.

Mr. Romney is just an Obama Mini-Me, or Obama LIte.

Why do I say that? To answer that, I look at two things that are particularly revealing about his nature and beliefs. The first thing is the answer he gave recently to the question, "What would be your first actions if you were elected President?" His response was essentially, he would, through executive order, give waivers to the States so they could "decline" to participate in Obamacare. Compare that to Newt's answer, which was he would, day one, ask Congress to repeal Obamacare. Note the difference. Newt recognizes that Congress is the source of all Federal laws. Mitt never even mentions repealing it. He'd just issue an executive order. Mitt seems to have no idea how our Constitution lays things out. When it comes to Obamacare, Congress is the real culprit here. They passed the damn law! It may have been Obama's desire to pass it, but Congress brought the desire to fruition. Romney's solution is just to "paper" over the problem, and ignore it. It doesn't make the problem go away. Worse, it  allows an executive order in the next administration to remove the waivers. Mitt just doesn't understand the real issue.

The second reason is somewhat apocryphal. It is reported that in the last campaign, Mitt was sitting in a cameraman's garage, waiting for some event to begin, or for his time on stage to start. He noticed that the garage was dirty, and began to sweep it clean and tidy it up.

Now what could be wrong with that? Helping your fellow man, keeping active (since idle hands are the devil's playground), etc. Except for two things: the cameraman didn't ask Mitt to clean up the garage, and Mitt didn't ask for permission before he began cleaning. He assumed, "no one really wants to have their garage this way, let me just help by making it the way I think is best". In other words, a do-gooder liberal who thinks he knows the way that you should live - his way. I realize that cleaning someone else's garage is a humble act. It certainly is beneath me most of the time. It certainly implies that Mitt is not too much of a snob to get his hands dirty. What's telling, and disturbing, is the innate instinct to INTRUDE on someone's life without asking them. The implicit assumption of "I know better than you how you should run your life".

To me the only difference between Obama and Mitt is one of degree. Romney may have more business experience, and may be able to help the economy more - but the two of them share the same disregard or lack of understanding of our founding documents, and they both are happy to try and make sure you live your life they way they think you should.

Does Breaking the Law for 25 Years Qualify You to Stay?

Last night in the Republican debate on CNN, Mr. Gingrich suggested that if an illegal alien (i.e. a breaker of our laws), had been here for 25 years, had raised a family, gone to church, paid his taxes, held a job, etc., then we shouldn't just eject him from the country.

Let me posit a different scenario. For the last 25 years, an American citizen, has been committing the same crime every day - say stealing $100.00 every day from his employer. During that 25 years he's raised a family, gone to church, paid his taxes, held a job, etc. When he is caught, should we let him go scot-free with an admonition that he shouldn't do this anymore? I don't think anyone would agree that is the correct response.

If someone is here illegally, they are commiting a crime every day they remain. To pay taxes, they must have perjured themselves to get a social security number, or they must have stolen someone else's number. Each is a federal crime. If they've gotten a loan to buy a house, or gotten a credit card, they've likely committed fraud when they signed their application.

If we would penalize an American citizen for a crime, why shouldn't penalize an illegal alien for committing several? We're either a nation of laws, or emotions. I prefer laws.

Proof the World Is Not Ending May 21, 2011?

I believe I've found incontrovertible proof the world will not end on May 21, 2011.

First, you have to understand that while the ancient Mayans were "advanced" for their time, their "prediction" of the end of the world might be subject to some small margin of error. First, their calendar ended some 400 - 600 years (approximately) in the future at the time of their production of the calendar. This is something grander than our current predictions of the doom of civilization predicted by the global warmist alarmists. After all, they're only looking out about 100 years, and merely predicting ecological catastrophe, rather than the total destruction of the earth (and perhaps the universe itself).

Secondly, since that ancient time we've made some minor, but significant, advancements in the understanding of orbital mechanics - not just of our solar system, but also of our galaxy. So our predictive models should be more accurate than those produced primarily with sticks and stones. After all, we have personal computers, calculators on our iPhones instead of our fingers, etc. So clearly we know a little more. Plus, we can shoot our arrows much higher into the sky...

Recently, I was at my local, going-out-of-business bookstore looking to score a printed book cheaper than I could get for my Kindle. Alas, no joy for me. However, I did find calendars. Hundreds of them, all produced by not just one oracle, but dozens of them. They all had similar calendars. But more importantly, THEY ALL ENDED ON THE SAME DAY - December 31, 2011!
That means the world ends January 1, 2012.

Now, we know a little more than the Mayans. And our current time is much closer to the modern predicted end of the world, so less subject to days or even weeks of marginal error. So I have faith that our modern predictions are more accurate than those of the Mayans 400 or so years ago.

So rather than party my ass off on May 20, 2011, I'm waiting until December 31, 2011. I understand others have similar plans this year ...

And The Problem Is...?

I'm a native of the land of Fruits, Nuts & Flakes (California). I live on a small island in the San Francisco Bay off the coast of Oakland. We have two local newspapers. I tend to read the one that comes out on Friday, because it has a better real-estate section than the paper that comes out on Wednesday. I always read the Editorials & occasionally respond to them. The particular item that I wish to discuss here, is the political cartoon. It shows our Republican Gubernatorial candidate, Meg Whitman, holding a money bag, and the caption is "If you have to ask how much?... You can't afford to be governor."

The implication is that a wealthy individual willing to spend their own hard-earned money to campaign for a political office is somehow a bad thing.

Personally, I think it's a wonderful thing. Just think - she's not beholden to the Union fascists, the Oil Companies, the Environmental fascists, the racist Hispanics who want to remake California back into the paragon of civilization called Mexico (what's the murder rate there right now?), or the ad nauseum etcs. that belong in that ilk.

I guess she's wealthy enough she can actually afford to listen to what the citizens of California want her to hear.

On the other hand, all the above types of interest groups spending "independently" on Moonbeam's behalf will no doubt be whispering in his ear loudly and often enough that he won't really be listening to you or me. Not to mention that he has in one interview long ago admitted lying in his campaigns to win. In another more recent interview (in L.A. I believe) after accusing Whitman of lying, he was asked if he had ever lied. (I paraphrase here ...) "I've never lied - although I have equivocated. And when I did equivocate, it was obvious to the voters." Now, you don't really need to run off to your dictionary to look up the definition of equivacation. It's a fancy word for lieing when done intentionally. It's about the same level as Clinton's famous "define is" moment. So I suppose we should give Moonbeam some points for being honest about lieing? Boy, there's a conundrum - but hardly a recommendation for my vote.

Personally, I'm choosing the person who is so committed to trying to save California that she's willing to spend more money than anyone else has in American politics over someone who admits he's willing to say anything just to get back in office.

Regardless of the size of her fortune, I have no doubt that Moonbeam has more lies than Whitman has dollars.

The Purpose Of A Business Is...?

I've been a natural born citizen of the US for over 60 years now. I've been employed, or self-employed in some capacity for over 40 years. When I was in college, I had part-time jobs (often several concurrently), and began full-time employment in 1976. Since then, I've been an employee, self-employed, and had a consulting business with nearly twenty staff members. During that time, it's become clear that the common perception of why businesses exist has changed.

These days it seems most people think the purpose of a business is to provide jobs to people.

It's not.

A business exists to create profits for its owners. Period - finito - end of story.

Some businesses create those profits through employing others, and paying them for their efforts. However, there are many other businesses that have no employees. Most of them are now on the Internet. Some businesses have small numbers of owners, and many others have millions of owners through shares publicly traded on stock exchanges.

Regardless of the form of ownership, or the size of a company, each has been  started for one and only one reason; to make a profit for the owners. Nobody in their right mind starts a business with the main purpose of employing people. Starting a business for any other reason than profit dooms it to failure from the beginning. If profit is not the main reason for your business, then the choices you make as an owner will eventually fail to bring you the money you need to keep the business in existence.

Somehow, Union-ites(*), Democrats, liberal Republicans, and a few other Left Wing Nut Jobs, don't understand this. Clearly the people in the Administration don't get it. Which is why the stimulus is not really working. They're all Academics who've never been in business, let alone owned a business. Until they finally understand this, or surround themselves with business people to whom they will actually listen, EVERY attempt they make to stimulate the economy will fail and waste more of my and your money.

I finally stopped having a small business and went back to being self-employed. It was too risky and too painful to have employees. I was fortunate enough to not have to deal with unions in addition to all the headaches employees provide.

All I can say is I prefer to be self-employed with all those risks, than to be an employer and all the headaches and increased risk that comes from being an employer.


(*)Union-ites: A common precipate of the unfortunately prevalent element Absurdium.

Why We Hate the Government

I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. I have a rental property in Oakland. I have a professional management company manage the property. This is for two reasons:

• I don't want to deal with tenant problems, particularly late at night
• The City of Oakland and the State of California, are so anti-landlord it is quite dangerous financially to make a simple management mistake and open yourself up to huge penalties

The "waste management" company that services Alameda County, of which Oakland is a part, is Waste Management of Alameda County. Early this week, I recieved a letter from Oakland that stated I had not paid my garbage collection fee to Waste Management, and if I did not come to a hearing to protest this, Oakland would put a lien on my property.

There was one especially significant problem with the letter. The address of the property was incorrect. I don't own the property on which the lien was threatened to be placed.

I did call the city and the waste management company and point out their error. They didn't seem too concerned. It seems this happens with some non-negligible frequency. I was just trying to help out the poor schlub who obviously didn't get the letter, and was probably going to get a lien on his property because he didn't get the letter to be able to respond.

Our governments seem to be filled with a surfeit of functionally incompetent automatons.