Many are Direction Challenged
I’ve often listened to poorly provided directions to someplace by a well meaning, but ill informed person; it’s excruciating. They don’t know the Cardinal directions; North, South, East, and West. Seven of ten people can’t point to East; where the sun comes up each morning. Sometimes they don’t even know left or right reliably. Many also are distance challenged with no idea of how far things are in feet, yards, or miles. They sometimes know relationships that are meaningful to them, but unknowable by you, like turn at the old house, or the dead tree, or the big stone, or a local business, or a used to be long gone business, or a place where some event occurred you couldn’t possibly have known. Sometimes it’s a reliable landmark, sometimes its not.
I have a few explanations why I think we have these problems.
1. First, I doubt it’s ever mentioned in school. Good understanding of distances, directions and relationship require logic and analytical thought. Most teachers can’t construct logical, succinct, meaningful instructions themselves. Never ask a teacher or a convenience market clerk for directions to anywhere.
2. Next, there are many misuses of the Cardinal direction relationships in common use.
Here are a couple of my nominees for most egregious abuses:
a. Referring to any location east of the Mississippi River as Mid-West. This happens nearly everyday on every TV or radio weather broadcast, and often in TV programming and newspaper stories. Simply take a look at the US map; Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Missouri, Arkansas, and Tennessee are not even in the west, let alone Mid-West. If anything they are Mid-East.
b. States like Nebraska, Colorado, Kansas New Mexico and Oklahoma are not even middle-west; they are more logically central states.
c. Any simple look at the map will show states like Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah are in the center of the west and therefore, logically Mid-West.
3. A similar problem exists in common use in California. The center of California is nearly always referred to as Northern California.
a. Again, a simple look at the proportions of the map will tell any logical person Northern California would be North of Central California, and Southern California is South of Central California. No one says San Francisco is in Western California, and most certainly not in nasty Central California with those primitive agricultural types and ignorant Oklahoma transplants that settled in the Central Valley in the 1940’s and made it into the most productive food producing region on our planet.
b. Northern California on the map clearly includes Redding, Alturas, Crescent City, Eureka, Chico, and doubtfully, Sacramento, Davis or Santa Rosa. Everything South of Sacramento to Bakersfield should be Central California. Everything South of Bakersfield should be Southern California.
c. No one, save me and a few other malcontents refer to Eastern California as those places east of the Sierra Nevada and north of the San Bernardino Mountains to the Nevada and Arizona borders that would rather not be considered part of the craziness associated with Southern California. Places like Mojave, Palmdale, Lancaster, Victorville, Barstow, Twentynine Palms, Ridgecrest, Bishop, and Needles, that could clearly be Eastern California.
4. The power of how people see themselves and their relationship to rest of the nation often modifies what seems to be a geographic reference. New Yorkers and those from the Northeast colonies see themselves as the most important; therefore, everything west of them is considered “the West” in some way. For those on along the West Coast, the Northeast and upper East Coast is “Back East.” “Down South” refers more to a state of mind and shared experiences than geography. “Up North” can be any state near or touching the Canadian border. The “Southwest” can be any state near or eating foods like those near the Mexican border. These pseudo geographic titles convey more about perception and attitude than precise geography and are mostly cultural generalities.
So, what should be done?
The map should be viewed and referred to in geographic reality. Because Hawaii and Alaska are not contiguous, I recommend Western most for Hawaii (10,932 sq. mi. pop. 1.3M esti08) and Northwestern most for Alaska (656,425 sq. mi. pop. 0.68M esti08).
For the contiguous states I suggest only these regional designations; West, Central, East, North-central, South-central, Northwest, Southwest, Northeast, and Southeast. No more references to something called mid-anything.
West, (total area 457,564 sq. mi., total population 45.8M esti08.)
California (163,707 sq. mi.), Oregon (98,386 sq. mi.), Nevada (110,567 sq mi.) and Utah (84,904 sq. mi.)
Northwest, (total area 301,923 sq. mi., total population 9M esti08.)
Washington (71,303 sq. mi.), Idaho (83,574 sq. mi.) and Montana (147,046 sq. mi.)
Southwest, (total area 235,599 sq. mi., total population 8.4M esti.08.)
Arizona (114,006 sq. mi.) and New Mexico (121,593 sq. mi.)
Central, (total area 718,157 sq. mi., total population 46.3M esti08.)
Wyoming (97,818 sq. mi.), Colorado (104,100 sq. mi.), Nebraska (77,358 sq. mi.), Kansas (82,282 sq. mi.), Missouri (69,709 sq. mi.), Oklahoma (69,903 sq. mi.), Arkansas (53,182 sq. mi.), Indiana (36,420 sq. mi.), Ohio (44,828 sq. mi.), Kentucky (40,411 sq. mi.) and Tennessee (42,146 sq. mi.)
North Central, (total area 511,273 sq. mi., total population 38.2M esti08.)
North Dakota (70,702 sq. mi.), South Dakota (77,121 sq. mi.), Minnesota (86,943 sq. mi.), Iowa (56,276 sq. mi.), Wisconsin (65,503 sq. mi.), Michigan (96,810 sq. mi.), and Illinois (57,918 sq. mi.)
South Central, (total area 268,601 sq. mi., total population 24.3M esti08.)
Texas (268,601 sq. mi.);
East, (total area 191,507 sq. mi., total population 47.5M esti08.)
Pennsylvania (46,058 sq. mi.), New Jersey (8,722 sq. mi.), Maryland (12,407 sq. mi.), Delaware (1,954 sq. mi.), Rhode Island (1,545 sq. mi.), Virginia (42,769 sq. mi.), West Virginia (24,231 sq. mi.), and North Carolina (53,821 sq. mi.)
Northeast, (total area 124,927 sq. mi., total population 32.7M esti08.)
Maine (35,387 sq. mi.), New Hampshire (9,351 sq. mi.), Vermont (9,615 sq. mi.), New York (54,475 sq. mi.), Massachusetts (10,555 sq. mi.), and Connecticut (5,544 sq. mi.)
Southeast, (total area 299,906 sq. mi., total population 44.5M esti08.)
Louisiana (51,843 sq. mi.), South Carolina (32,007 sq. mi.), Mississippi (38,434 sq. mi.), Alabama (52,423 sq. mi.), Georgia (59,441 sq. mi.), and Florida (65,758 sq. mi.)
Notes:
No conscious attempt was made to equalize the areas or populations of these regions.
Square Miles (sq. mi.) include waters of the State.
Estimates and calculations incompletely reviewed at posting.
17 August 2009
12 August 2009
Medicare Benefits, Leave Them Alone
It was government health care assistance, not originally requested nor sought by the majority.
For forty four years those who are retiring now have paid a huge price for elderly medical benefits. An enormous amount of money was taken from our employers and from our pay checks during our prime earning years.
We were not given a choice. It was compulsory. We were not allowed to choose not to participate.
We were promised certain benefits upon reaching the age of sixty five.
The Congress, Representatives and Senators, ignored the actuarial tables of the time that clearly told everyone the program could not sustain itself without massive and rapidly increasing taxpayer contributions.
Again, we did not ask for it. It was a bribe for reelection votes by the well meaning, but uninformed. We were compelled to pay for it. And we must register for it, even if we do not want to use it. It's nearly impossible, if you are age sixty five or older, to get and pay for medical treatments of your choice without using Medicare.
You are virtually forced to use it.
I didn't want it. I don't like it. I didn't ask for it. It was a socialistic mistake. I don't want it now. I wish I had the money I was forced to waste on it for 44 years. If I would have saved and invested it in a medical savings account, I would have more than 1 million dollars now to pay for my own health care needs.
Now is not the time to withhold the promised benefits.
You've already taken our money.
Now you must pay up.
If you welsh on your promises now, you will have a grey insurrection the likes of which you cannot possibly imagine.
It would be a scandal dwarfing Bernie Madoff''s pyramid scheme by a hundred fold.
If you want to make changes that decrease benefits 50 years from now, and you inform the young wage earners entering the workplace today, go ahead. But, be prepared to leave office quickly. They won't like the very high costs with the promise of very little benefit 50 years in the future.
I doubt they will trust you any more than I do now.
Medicare was a mistake 44 years ago. It's still a mistake. If you are considering any changes;
1. Your first change should be how to systematically and quickly close the program down.
2. Deliver the full benefits to those who have paid in since it started.
3. Decreasing benefits to those who have paid in less to this point.
4. Never attempt anything like it again. Especially any kind of government provided or encouraged health care for those who choose not to provide for themselves.
Health care or access to it, is not a constitutional right. The Federal Government should remove itself from all health care involvement, except for providing tax exemptions for health care costs and allowing nonprofit philanthropic and religious organization to provide for widows, orphans, and others incapable of caring for themselves, tax-free.
For forty four years those who are retiring now have paid a huge price for elderly medical benefits. An enormous amount of money was taken from our employers and from our pay checks during our prime earning years.
We were not given a choice. It was compulsory. We were not allowed to choose not to participate.
We were promised certain benefits upon reaching the age of sixty five.
The Congress, Representatives and Senators, ignored the actuarial tables of the time that clearly told everyone the program could not sustain itself without massive and rapidly increasing taxpayer contributions.
Again, we did not ask for it. It was a bribe for reelection votes by the well meaning, but uninformed. We were compelled to pay for it. And we must register for it, even if we do not want to use it. It's nearly impossible, if you are age sixty five or older, to get and pay for medical treatments of your choice without using Medicare.
You are virtually forced to use it.
I didn't want it. I don't like it. I didn't ask for it. It was a socialistic mistake. I don't want it now. I wish I had the money I was forced to waste on it for 44 years. If I would have saved and invested it in a medical savings account, I would have more than 1 million dollars now to pay for my own health care needs.
Now is not the time to withhold the promised benefits.
You've already taken our money.
Now you must pay up.
If you welsh on your promises now, you will have a grey insurrection the likes of which you cannot possibly imagine.
It would be a scandal dwarfing Bernie Madoff''s pyramid scheme by a hundred fold.
If you want to make changes that decrease benefits 50 years from now, and you inform the young wage earners entering the workplace today, go ahead. But, be prepared to leave office quickly. They won't like the very high costs with the promise of very little benefit 50 years in the future.
I doubt they will trust you any more than I do now.
Medicare was a mistake 44 years ago. It's still a mistake. If you are considering any changes;
1. Your first change should be how to systematically and quickly close the program down.
2. Deliver the full benefits to those who have paid in since it started.
3. Decreasing benefits to those who have paid in less to this point.
4. Never attempt anything like it again. Especially any kind of government provided or encouraged health care for those who choose not to provide for themselves.
Health care or access to it, is not a constitutional right. The Federal Government should remove itself from all health care involvement, except for providing tax exemptions for health care costs and allowing nonprofit philanthropic and religious organization to provide for widows, orphans, and others incapable of caring for themselves, tax-free.
06 August 2009
You Don’t Have to Look Overseas
We have many decades of government medical experience here.
There’s no need to compare the proposed nationalization of medical care and insurance to Canada or the United Kingdom. We have at least four decades of government medical care in Medicaid and Medicare. And much more than that with active military personnel and veterans care. No one I know that has used Medicaid, Medicare, military, veterans or native american reservation care would say it’s the highest quality medical care available anywhere.
I suspect that, if offered a $15,000 a year voucher good for the health care insurance of their choice, hardly any of them would choose any of those systems.
I believe they would choose private insurance typical of employees of middle and large sized businesses and organizations. And if offered health insurance like Senators or Representatives have, they would certainly choose it.
So what would it cost for 200 million families, couples, and individuals to use $15,000 per year to select and pay for health insurance coverage using a voucher paid for by US taxpayers?
200,000,000 times $15,000 equals $3,000,000,000,000, that’s $3 trillion dollars.
That would be half of the $6 trillion they say the uninsured are costing our economy annually now and it would replace all other current national health systems.
I believe that is far less expensive than Medicare, Medicaid, military, veterans or reservation care costs annually today, without considering the 1.3 trillion dollars of the current national health care proposals. This would literally cover every man, women and child wishing to have medical insurance. Those who did not want medical insurance (3 to 5 million people, or $60 billion annually) could return the voucher to the Treasury to be held in a fund to pay for tourists, visiting students and visiting workers who might need medical care while legally in the United States.
It would not include people not legally here. They should not be offered or receive medical care, unless they demonstrate they can pay for it. If they are discovered illegally here, they should be transported back to their country of their citizenship at our expense. It will be cheaper than decades of education and medical care for their children.
An accident of geography at birth should not establish citizenship. It may confer a right to choose citizenship when one reaches the age of majority, if they are not criminals.
The 40 million non-citizens I believe are here illegally should come forward and begin the long and expensive citizenship process, or return immediately to their country of citizenship.
There’s no need to compare the proposed nationalization of medical care and insurance to Canada or the United Kingdom. We have at least four decades of government medical care in Medicaid and Medicare. And much more than that with active military personnel and veterans care. No one I know that has used Medicaid, Medicare, military, veterans or native american reservation care would say it’s the highest quality medical care available anywhere.
I suspect that, if offered a $15,000 a year voucher good for the health care insurance of their choice, hardly any of them would choose any of those systems.
I believe they would choose private insurance typical of employees of middle and large sized businesses and organizations. And if offered health insurance like Senators or Representatives have, they would certainly choose it.
So what would it cost for 200 million families, couples, and individuals to use $15,000 per year to select and pay for health insurance coverage using a voucher paid for by US taxpayers?
200,000,000 times $15,000 equals $3,000,000,000,000, that’s $3 trillion dollars.
That would be half of the $6 trillion they say the uninsured are costing our economy annually now and it would replace all other current national health systems.
I believe that is far less expensive than Medicare, Medicaid, military, veterans or reservation care costs annually today, without considering the 1.3 trillion dollars of the current national health care proposals. This would literally cover every man, women and child wishing to have medical insurance. Those who did not want medical insurance (3 to 5 million people, or $60 billion annually) could return the voucher to the Treasury to be held in a fund to pay for tourists, visiting students and visiting workers who might need medical care while legally in the United States.
It would not include people not legally here. They should not be offered or receive medical care, unless they demonstrate they can pay for it. If they are discovered illegally here, they should be transported back to their country of their citizenship at our expense. It will be cheaper than decades of education and medical care for their children.
An accident of geography at birth should not establish citizenship. It may confer a right to choose citizenship when one reaches the age of majority, if they are not criminals.
The 40 million non-citizens I believe are here illegally should come forward and begin the long and expensive citizenship process, or return immediately to their country of citizenship.
Prisoners Released from North Korea
What were they doing there?
I’m glad that Laura Ling and Euna Lee were pardoned from their 12 year hard labor sentences in North Korea. I’m glad they have been returned the relative safety of the United States and reunited with their families and friends. It is amusing that former President Bill Clinton was available to his wife’s State Department to be the photo opportunity and their escort.
It’s said that they were working in China for former Vice President Al Gore’s almost unheard of Current TV, filming a story about the trafficking of women. Why did this take them so near the border? We were led to believe they crossed over the North Korea boarder without their knowledge. Were they walking around? Were they driving on an unmapped road? It’s hard to imagine this accidentally happening. Were they by themselves? Normally, western journalists in China are escorted by Chinese officials. The Chinese escort didn’t know they were crossing into North Korea without permission?
Why were they really in China? What were they doing so close to the border? Did they just want to add North Korea to their country resume? Did they think it was as simple as sneaking across the US border? Didn’t they know most other nations consider the sanctity of their borders critical to their sovereignty? If it wasn’t an accident or a lark, it must have been on purpose.
What was the purpose of deliberating violating a sovereign nation’s boundary; following a TV story?
What ransom had to be paid to buy their freedom? Was it just the former President Clinton’s less than joyful appearance or an exchange of greetings; or an agreement about something more foreboding, sinister, or unauthorized?
What actual exchange got them released?
I don’t really care why they intruded into North Korea. But it is curious that so much effort was expended to retrieve two fledgling TV journalists and violators of national boundaries that were about something ignorant or clandestine, who probably should have served some hard labor just for being so foolish, and wasting precious resources during a time of supposed international economic crisis.
C’mon ladies, why were you really there?
I’m glad that Laura Ling and Euna Lee were pardoned from their 12 year hard labor sentences in North Korea. I’m glad they have been returned the relative safety of the United States and reunited with their families and friends. It is amusing that former President Bill Clinton was available to his wife’s State Department to be the photo opportunity and their escort.
It’s said that they were working in China for former Vice President Al Gore’s almost unheard of Current TV, filming a story about the trafficking of women. Why did this take them so near the border? We were led to believe they crossed over the North Korea boarder without their knowledge. Were they walking around? Were they driving on an unmapped road? It’s hard to imagine this accidentally happening. Were they by themselves? Normally, western journalists in China are escorted by Chinese officials. The Chinese escort didn’t know they were crossing into North Korea without permission?
Why were they really in China? What were they doing so close to the border? Did they just want to add North Korea to their country resume? Did they think it was as simple as sneaking across the US border? Didn’t they know most other nations consider the sanctity of their borders critical to their sovereignty? If it wasn’t an accident or a lark, it must have been on purpose.
What was the purpose of deliberating violating a sovereign nation’s boundary; following a TV story?
What ransom had to be paid to buy their freedom? Was it just the former President Clinton’s less than joyful appearance or an exchange of greetings; or an agreement about something more foreboding, sinister, or unauthorized?
What actual exchange got them released?
I don’t really care why they intruded into North Korea. But it is curious that so much effort was expended to retrieve two fledgling TV journalists and violators of national boundaries that were about something ignorant or clandestine, who probably should have served some hard labor just for being so foolish, and wasting precious resources during a time of supposed international economic crisis.
C’mon ladies, why were you really there?
30 July 2009
Government Health Reforms
Exactly the Wrong Solutions
We are opposed to the large scale health care and insurance reforms currently being considered in the House and Senate.
We are retired and paid into Medicare every year since its inception expecting to receive the promised benefits. As “War Babies” I’m sure we paid in the bulk of the costs and now that we are about to begin using the benefit we earned, there are plans to restrict the promised benefits, that’s pathetically immoral and a very dishonest betrayal.
That’s not what we paid for, and it’s not right.
We are opposed to any changes that will:
1. Reduce our already earned and paid for benefits. That’s wasn’t the promise.
2. Limit the ability of others to earn and pay for their own health needs.
3. Make government or any health insurance mandatory or require any monetary fine for not choosing it.
4. Increase any Government interference in our health care choices; or limit our ability to get and pay for the health care of our own choice.
5. Decrease quality and availability of private health insurance or care; or prevent doctors and hospitals from providing whatever services we request and pay for.
6. Pay for the health care costs of those not here legally; or pay for the health care costs of those who chose foolishly not to provide for themselves.
We have worked our entire lives, and sacrificed, and saved, in spite of oppressively high taxes, to provide our own retirement, health insurance, and health care needs.
We expected to use what we earned and saved to care for ourselves. We did not intend to pay for health care for others, certainly not for those illegally here, and certainly not for those who made poor life choices for themselves.
We already provide for necessary care for those handicapped people who cannot provide for themselves; prisoners, military veterans, mentally deficient, and those temporarily incompetent. I think that’s more than enough.
We do favor targeted reforms that will:
1. Force those who receive health care services to pay their own costs.
2. Redefine emergency services to those necessary to prevent eminent death (i.e. hemorrhaging) or severe impairment (i.e. brain damage).
3. Reduce litigated damages.
4. Reduce health care recipient and provider fraud.
5. Reduce the size, role, and constantly growing interference by the Federal Government in the personal health choices of its free and honorable citizens.
We are opposed to the large scale health care and insurance reforms currently being considered in the House and Senate.
We are retired and paid into Medicare every year since its inception expecting to receive the promised benefits. As “War Babies” I’m sure we paid in the bulk of the costs and now that we are about to begin using the benefit we earned, there are plans to restrict the promised benefits, that’s pathetically immoral and a very dishonest betrayal.
That’s not what we paid for, and it’s not right.
We are opposed to any changes that will:
1. Reduce our already earned and paid for benefits. That’s wasn’t the promise.
2. Limit the ability of others to earn and pay for their own health needs.
3. Make government or any health insurance mandatory or require any monetary fine for not choosing it.
4. Increase any Government interference in our health care choices; or limit our ability to get and pay for the health care of our own choice.
5. Decrease quality and availability of private health insurance or care; or prevent doctors and hospitals from providing whatever services we request and pay for.
6. Pay for the health care costs of those not here legally; or pay for the health care costs of those who chose foolishly not to provide for themselves.
We have worked our entire lives, and sacrificed, and saved, in spite of oppressively high taxes, to provide our own retirement, health insurance, and health care needs.
We expected to use what we earned and saved to care for ourselves. We did not intend to pay for health care for others, certainly not for those illegally here, and certainly not for those who made poor life choices for themselves.
We already provide for necessary care for those handicapped people who cannot provide for themselves; prisoners, military veterans, mentally deficient, and those temporarily incompetent. I think that’s more than enough.
We do favor targeted reforms that will:
1. Force those who receive health care services to pay their own costs.
2. Redefine emergency services to those necessary to prevent eminent death (i.e. hemorrhaging) or severe impairment (i.e. brain damage).
3. Reduce litigated damages.
4. Reduce health care recipient and provider fraud.
5. Reduce the size, role, and constantly growing interference by the Federal Government in the personal health choices of its free and honorable citizens.
19 July 2009
Bail Out Taxpayers
They need it. They know best how to use it.
Stop Repeating the Mistakes of the Past
The current recession would be over way before now, if in January 2009, $40,000 would have been sent to each taxpayer (100 million had actual tax liability) and each actual American voter (133 million), half of which are taxpayers.
The citizen bailout total would be approximately 6 trillion, 620 billion dollars, or about what they are attempting to waste now. 100M plus ½ of 133M (66.5M) times $40,000; or 165.5M times $40,000 equals $6,620,000,000,000.
Millions of American cars and homes would have been bought. Millions of jobs would have been created. People could afford control of their own health care and “end of life” provisions. They could save money for their own retirement. Help their children afford their own home. Help their grandchildren afford a quality education.
Also, everyone’s Federal income tax rate could be cut in half permanently, and foolish business taxes that are just passed on to consumers hidden in the prices of goods and services could be eliminated, along with ridiculous transfer “death” taxes that are looted from their rightful heirs.
Federal, states, and local revenues would skyrocket. Many new businesses and jobs, and some old ones would flourish. People could actually save money to take care of their personal needs and wants without the interference that must come with, so called, government benefits.
These bailouts will make the old, tired, extremely expensive non-solutions being proposed by the current government completely unnecessary; expanded government health care, unnecessary; new expensive taxes and restrictions on personal commercial freedom, unnecessary; wasteful federal education spending, unnecessary; idiotic business takeovers and financial bailouts, unnecessary; a ridiculous so called Stimulus Act (really thinly disguised social spending) badly planned and under executed, completely unnecessary.
Why then do both major political parties in Congress and the Administration refuse to cut programs and give the citizens back their money immediately allowing the US and World economies to recover?
Well, a lot of reasons. Cutting the government revenue by 40% would cut their power and influence by 40%. The broadcast and print media would lose about $1 billion in advertising sales and bribes. Politicians would lose millions in campaign contribution, bribes, and gifts, about 3 million newly unemployed would need to find real jobs.
Safety nets were in place for these kinds of economic adjustments, but over the past five decades the reserves have been looted to pay for promises of every increasing feel good social programs to buy cheap votes from those willing to take unearned benefits. Together these congressional bandits and citizen and non-citizens thieves have systematically stolen the rightfully resources of good citizens.
It’s time to put these rascals and those that conspire with them, out on the street to earn there own way.
Restore control of the National Treasury to newly elected Senators and Representatives, and yes a President, who understands where, taxes come from and who deserves full and first consideration of where and how it’s held and spent.
Stop Repeating the Mistakes of the Past
The current recession would be over way before now, if in January 2009, $40,000 would have been sent to each taxpayer (100 million had actual tax liability) and each actual American voter (133 million), half of which are taxpayers.
The citizen bailout total would be approximately 6 trillion, 620 billion dollars, or about what they are attempting to waste now. 100M plus ½ of 133M (66.5M) times $40,000; or 165.5M times $40,000 equals $6,620,000,000,000.
Millions of American cars and homes would have been bought. Millions of jobs would have been created. People could afford control of their own health care and “end of life” provisions. They could save money for their own retirement. Help their children afford their own home. Help their grandchildren afford a quality education.
Also, everyone’s Federal income tax rate could be cut in half permanently, and foolish business taxes that are just passed on to consumers hidden in the prices of goods and services could be eliminated, along with ridiculous transfer “death” taxes that are looted from their rightful heirs.
Federal, states, and local revenues would skyrocket. Many new businesses and jobs, and some old ones would flourish. People could actually save money to take care of their personal needs and wants without the interference that must come with, so called, government benefits.
These bailouts will make the old, tired, extremely expensive non-solutions being proposed by the current government completely unnecessary; expanded government health care, unnecessary; new expensive taxes and restrictions on personal commercial freedom, unnecessary; wasteful federal education spending, unnecessary; idiotic business takeovers and financial bailouts, unnecessary; a ridiculous so called Stimulus Act (really thinly disguised social spending) badly planned and under executed, completely unnecessary.
Why then do both major political parties in Congress and the Administration refuse to cut programs and give the citizens back their money immediately allowing the US and World economies to recover?
Well, a lot of reasons. Cutting the government revenue by 40% would cut their power and influence by 40%. The broadcast and print media would lose about $1 billion in advertising sales and bribes. Politicians would lose millions in campaign contribution, bribes, and gifts, about 3 million newly unemployed would need to find real jobs.
Safety nets were in place for these kinds of economic adjustments, but over the past five decades the reserves have been looted to pay for promises of every increasing feel good social programs to buy cheap votes from those willing to take unearned benefits. Together these congressional bandits and citizen and non-citizens thieves have systematically stolen the rightfully resources of good citizens.
It’s time to put these rascals and those that conspire with them, out on the street to earn there own way.
Restore control of the National Treasury to newly elected Senators and Representatives, and yes a President, who understands where, taxes come from and who deserves full and first consideration of where and how it’s held and spent.
17 July 2009
Prisons
Build more quickly
I often hear complaints about the number of criminals in prison. Occasionally there are complaints about the costs, the location, the ethic makeup of prison populations, prison gangs, lack of effective rehabilitation, the wasted lives, the inhumanity and injustice of it all, etc. etc. etc.
Stop whining. When I’m in a discussion about more prisons, I ask two simple questions. Are all those who have knowingly committed crimes against the people or the state in prison?
Why not?
When there is an opportunity to vote for more prison or jail cells, I vote yes, in spite of my fervent crusade to reduce government spending at all levels. There are not enough prisons cells if any convicted criminals are not in prison, or if they are released before they have served their full sentences. Often early releases occur because of supposed overcrowding, or to scare citizens into approving tax increases when revenues are scarce.
These are poor economic times. Crime rates are likely to increase. Build more prisons now, employing those who wish to work, preparing a place to house those who do not, and are willing take what they have not earned.
There is already more than enough tax revenue to put all criminals in confinement for their full terms. It’s just a matter of priority. Cut just a few of the frivolous and unnecessary Federal, state and local programs and invest in more cells.
I’m not bothered by prison overcrowding. I think its part of the punishment. Although I would build enough cells so crowding only occasionally occurs. When it does, no one should be released because of it
Who’s in prison? What is their ethic makeup? I don’t care!
Assuming they were properly convicted, they belong in prison for their full pronounced sentence. Sentences should be absolute. Nothing should ameliorate what a judge has decreed, except for a deliberately deceitful miscarriage of justice. No humanitarian considerations, no health problems, no dying relatives, nothing else should modify their sentence. These unfortunate circumstances too are part of the punishment.
I favor Rehabilitation; although I think it should be an earned opportunity only available after the completion of their full sentences.
While serving their sentence, if they behave well, they should be allowed to learn the fundamental rules of polite society, how to read and write in English, the best students should have more education or training opportunities, or allowed to work at necessary prison functions, developing job skills that may be useful to them, if they ever get out.
The rest can just sit there, or lay staring at the ceiling, or writhe in mental anguish at the terrible things they’ve done, or mull around the yard with the other losers of their sad ilk.
Those who serve their entire sentence have earned the opportunity to attempt rehabilitation. A priveledge earned, not a right. If they continue to behave well after release, more counseling, training and support should be offered for a few years to restart their newly compliant lives.
Those who can’t learn the basic idea of earning rewards by good behavior can sit and rot. All privileges beyond healthy food, safe cells, and critical medical care, must be earned. No TV, no books, no weight room, no rehab, no training, no education, no mixing with other prisoners, no extra exercise periods, and no visitors for those who cannot exhibit self control enough to comply with a few of societies basic behavior rules.
They are criminals. They have committed offenses that have betrayed our trust of them as fellow human beings. They must pay the prescribed price and may earn their way back by proving they have truly learned acceptable human behavior. If not, don’t waste more precious resources on them, use the resources instead to help the small percentage who prove they can learn from their mistakes.
Not all can be saved; most shouldn’t even get a second chance.
I often hear complaints about the number of criminals in prison. Occasionally there are complaints about the costs, the location, the ethic makeup of prison populations, prison gangs, lack of effective rehabilitation, the wasted lives, the inhumanity and injustice of it all, etc. etc. etc.
Stop whining. When I’m in a discussion about more prisons, I ask two simple questions. Are all those who have knowingly committed crimes against the people or the state in prison?
Why not?
When there is an opportunity to vote for more prison or jail cells, I vote yes, in spite of my fervent crusade to reduce government spending at all levels. There are not enough prisons cells if any convicted criminals are not in prison, or if they are released before they have served their full sentences. Often early releases occur because of supposed overcrowding, or to scare citizens into approving tax increases when revenues are scarce.
These are poor economic times. Crime rates are likely to increase. Build more prisons now, employing those who wish to work, preparing a place to house those who do not, and are willing take what they have not earned.
There is already more than enough tax revenue to put all criminals in confinement for their full terms. It’s just a matter of priority. Cut just a few of the frivolous and unnecessary Federal, state and local programs and invest in more cells.
I’m not bothered by prison overcrowding. I think its part of the punishment. Although I would build enough cells so crowding only occasionally occurs. When it does, no one should be released because of it
Who’s in prison? What is their ethic makeup? I don’t care!
Assuming they were properly convicted, they belong in prison for their full pronounced sentence. Sentences should be absolute. Nothing should ameliorate what a judge has decreed, except for a deliberately deceitful miscarriage of justice. No humanitarian considerations, no health problems, no dying relatives, nothing else should modify their sentence. These unfortunate circumstances too are part of the punishment.
I favor Rehabilitation; although I think it should be an earned opportunity only available after the completion of their full sentences.
While serving their sentence, if they behave well, they should be allowed to learn the fundamental rules of polite society, how to read and write in English, the best students should have more education or training opportunities, or allowed to work at necessary prison functions, developing job skills that may be useful to them, if they ever get out.
The rest can just sit there, or lay staring at the ceiling, or writhe in mental anguish at the terrible things they’ve done, or mull around the yard with the other losers of their sad ilk.
Those who serve their entire sentence have earned the opportunity to attempt rehabilitation. A priveledge earned, not a right. If they continue to behave well after release, more counseling, training and support should be offered for a few years to restart their newly compliant lives.
Those who can’t learn the basic idea of earning rewards by good behavior can sit and rot. All privileges beyond healthy food, safe cells, and critical medical care, must be earned. No TV, no books, no weight room, no rehab, no training, no education, no mixing with other prisoners, no extra exercise periods, and no visitors for those who cannot exhibit self control enough to comply with a few of societies basic behavior rules.
They are criminals. They have committed offenses that have betrayed our trust of them as fellow human beings. They must pay the prescribed price and may earn their way back by proving they have truly learned acceptable human behavior. If not, don’t waste more precious resources on them, use the resources instead to help the small percentage who prove they can learn from their mistakes.
Not all can be saved; most shouldn’t even get a second chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)