Corporations are Killing Las Vegas.

I just got back from Las Vegas, I was going to a get together. While most people think of conventions like trade shows or ComicCon, in fact their are organizations that represent every conceivable organization and/or interest. There are also hundreds of reunions everyday in Las Vegas ranging from graduating classes to people who served at the same military base or suffered in the same disaster. Often people meet up in Vegas because it is a relatively inexpensive flight from anywhere in the country and it allows for private get togethers that will not even be noticed. In fact I watched two different semi-anonymous meetings where some sort of business was conducted.  Each involved one man sitting with a computer and meeting with three or four different individuals in a business center hallway, neither rented out any space, they could have just as easily had the meeting at a Starbucks (not a promotion for Starbucks, I actually prefer another coffee shop). The think about meeting in Vegas is that you always have an excuse for being there, gambling. The same type of meeting would be more noticeable at an indian casino, not enough people at one time. My meeting was much less secretive and much more public. This discussion is not about my meeting, it is about Vegas.

Las Vegas began as an old west town that had bar-casinos. Not unusual in the day as many places in the mid-west and west had bars where gambling was done on site. Think of the story of the shoot-out at the O.K corral. Wyatt Earp actually owned at least one such bar-casino. Doc himself was a professional gambler. For whatever reason, many states outlawed gambling and Nevada did not. During the depression Las Vegas took off with the building of the Hoover dam. It should be noted that the families of the men who worked on the damn often lived just outside of Las Vegas in Henderson where gambling was illegal as was prostitution. It should be noted that while prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada, it is NOT legal in Las Vegas.

In the late 40s a mafia gangster named Bugsy Siegel decided that the mob could make legal money on gambling in Las Vegas by attracting people from Los Angeles. It was already known that people in Los Angeles liked to gamble as they had supported a gambling ship off the coast for years until it stopped operating. After building the first real hotel casino in Las Vegas, Mr. Siegel was killed; but, the mob discovered the advantages for money laundering in having Vegas casinos and began building what we have come to know as modern Vegas. Vegas under the mafia was well run and thieves were not tolerated, instead, they were buried in the desert by the mafia. In order to keep their casinos the mafia insisted that the casinos run honest games and not allow cheating.

The mafia pretty much controlled Vegas until Howard Hughes went there and got annoyed that he could not use his favorite room in a hotel. Upon being told that, he decided to buy the casino and thereby changed the town. Not only did he begin buying casinos, he also got a television station for the town. After Hughes other companies decided to invest in casinos and basically took over from the mafia. The next big change came when Steve Wynn built the Mirage, the first truly massive mega-resort. After Wynn the resorts got bigger and grander with the MGM Grand taking it to an all new level. The mega resorts became a reason for Vegas becoming the home to more and more conventions and it was especially well suited to mega-conventions. During the 1990s Vegas began branding itself as a place for the family to vacation and the MGM actually added on a theme park with a rollercoaster and other attractions. That all ended after 9-11.

After 9-11 tourism dropped off and Vegas then doubled down on the sin city aspect with the phrase, "What happens here stays here". The MGM actually tore down their amusement park and Vegas stopped trying to attract families. Since 9-11 bankers and corporations have taken over Vegas and not for the better. Vegas began selling out it's individuality and began cross branding, the Palms had a Playboy casino, all the resorts began having celebrity chefs and services were dropped.

Slot machines in Vegas used to be coin operated and the floor of the casino was loaded with cocktail waitressed and change servers who would give you quarters in exchange for your dollars. The corporations determined that they could save a lot of money by switching to a ticket system and eliminating the change servers. Gone was the sound of coins hitting trays and the personal touch of people coming by to break your bills. In the last few years even the type of slot machines has changed. Now, the casinos are mostly "penny machines"; but, that term is misleading. These "penny machines" often require a bet of at least 40 cents and up to 80 cents as a minimum bet. These machines also had lower payouts. Old quarter and dollar machines used to have a 97% payout with the "penny machines" having payouts of around 93%. It may not sound like a big difference; but, it is in fact huge and worth billions to the casinos; but, it also caused fewer people to play the slots.

While many believe (and the corporations that own casinos in Vegas would like to believe) that the decrease in gambling revenue is down to the increase in Indian casinos, this is not true. In fact tourism to Vegas has been on the increase, it just has not led to an increase in the number of people playing slot machines. While the odds in Vegas used to be better than those at Indian casinos, the odds are now better at the Indian casinos. Consider the fact that Vegas now makes 60% of it's revenue from food and entertainment with the biggest entertainment draw being DJs and dance parties.

When you used to go to Vegas you might lose at the tables or machines; but, you could always get comped for a buffet or go buy the $1.99 steak and eggs or even a 99 cent shrimp cocktail. Those are both gone. I have also noticed fewer and fewer cocktail waitresses on the floors.

I haven't really stayed in Vegas for about 5 years. I travelled to Nevada but it was to another city to visit relatives. The biggest trends I notice in Vegas was the increase in branding on everything and at every casino. It has become one big commercial for everything from Harley Davidson to Gucci. I also noticed that the casinos which traditionally had their own restaurants have turned to contracting out with IHOP and Dennys and they do not offer $1.99 steak and eggs or 99 cent shrimp cocktails. In fact, food at the casinos has gotten ridiculous and entertainment costs have skyrocketed with shows like Celine Dion commanding $500 a seat. What the big corporations have managed to do is take away all the little perks that Vegas used to offer. As for the club scene in Vegas, expect to have to pay $500 for a bottle of champagne to get a decent table. I could do that in Los Angeles and see the same acts at concert venues without travelling 5 hours on the road.

Corporate perspective is killing Vegas as a place to go to gamble and the corporations are committed to eliminating true gambling with honest odds. The big move right now in Nevada is to change the way that slot machines work. Historically it has been illegal to make slots a game skill; but, that is just what they are promoting. Think of it this way. Imagine playing a slot machine, hitting all the right symbols for a payout and then having to throw darts at a board and hitting them all dead center to actually get paid. Sounds silly but that is exactly what they are trying to have a law passed to allow. While they could just increase the odds back to 97% to bring back gamblers, that is not going to happen because the corporate mindset is to increase profitability each year while decreasing expenses. That may work with selling clothes; but, it does not work for gamblers. Gambling is a choice, like picking a movie to see. Gamblers do not return to casinos where they constantly lose. If you hated the first "Fast and the Furious" movie, odds are that you did not watch the sequels. By increasing your chances of losing at the casinos, people will continue to stop going to them for gambling. The corporations will convince themselves that it is because people would rather go for the clubs; but, clubbing will lose it's draw and then there will be no reason to go to Vegas. Gambling is the essence of Vegas and it's attraction and once it loses that, it will go the way of Atlantic city and begin having to close more and more casinos. This will be devastating to Nevada as gambling is it's only big industry.

On a personal note, I used to go to Vegas once a month with my father and always enjoyed it. This trip has convinced me that I will not travel to Vegas to gamble. That is not a good sign for Vegas' future. Now, I do plan on playing in poker tournaments again; but, I can do that in California and get the food for less.

What are they willing to do to you?

Yahoo - The Wall Street Journal - The Eye-Scanning ATM Is Here. Not much to say for my part, I have already written about this technology numerous times. Yes, it is real and it is going to be standard.

YouTube - 26 Creepiest Science Experiments You've Never Heard Of . I have to admit that I was aware of most of these experiments. I think the most famous corrupt experiment in America was probably the Tuskegee Experiment where blacks in the south who were part of an experiment that they thought was to take care of them were actually not treated for Syphilis which resulted in many of them dying and others living in pain with a very curable disease. What must be remembered is that this experiment went on until 1972. You should watch this short video and then ask yourself if people were willing to do these things before, what makes you think their intent has changed?

YouTube - 5 New Inventions That Will Blow Your Pants Off ◆ 3. I often write about technologies that are being finalized; but, this video is about things that are already being produced and you still probably don't know about them.

YouTube - Top 10 Medical Advances that Sound Like Science Fiction — TopTenzNet.

YouTube - Top 10 Sinister Moves Made By Tobacco Companies Continuing to Sell a Deadly Product — TopTenzNet.

YouTube - godfather of propaganda edward bernays (full length) 2013. This is not the best article on Mr Bernays; but, is a quick outline on him and you can search his name for more information. Basically he was related to Freud and used those tools to create propaganda for the government and then later to create advertising for whoever. He is the father of modern public relations and if you don't know him and his works then you will never understand why I write about the news in the manner that I do and you will not realize how you are being lied to by all medias.

American Graffiti and Looking Back Again

If you have never seen the movie "American Graffiti" then I am going to suggest that you do not see it until you have seen it's sequel, "More American Graffiti" and I will explain why. American Graffiti came out in 1973. At that time we were still in Vietnam and Nixon was still in office. During that year the Watergate scandal was just beginning to gain ground. To kids growing up then it seemed like we were a lost generation that was vastly outnumbered by people only a few years older as the baby boom had ended in the late 50s or early 60s depending who you want to believe.

The 1970s seemed boring, the music wasn't as good; but, there was something more. It was if the 60s generation of kids had all the fun and the 70s teenagers were more controlled. At least it seemed that way to the people I knew at the time. In the 60s there were strong marriages, in the 70s divorce exploded and most people had both parents working. Drugs were no longer an experiment, it was just getting high. The kids in the 70s wanted things that just belonged to us; but, what we got was disco, corporate rock and practically no focus on our generation. Heck, it wasn't till video games that we really got something of our own.

One thing we had was B movies that were actually aimed at us. Movies like "The Pom Pom Girls", "Drive in" and "Heavy Metal" along with "Fritz the Cat". These were stupid exploitation movies aimed specifically at teenagers in the early to mid 70s. Then came "American Graffiti" which was more about the 50s than the 60s. It wasn't about hippies, it was about kids growing up in the suburbs who thought that getting beer was naughty. We longed for that as our families were coming apart. All my friends came from homes of divorce. We didn't want to change the world, it was already changing to fast for most. We wanted some fun that wasn't a complete rejection of society but maybe a call to the past and the 50s fit that perfectly.

American Graffiti takes place in 1962 before the Beatles arrived in the United States and before President Kennedy died, it took place before this nations loss of innocence. That is why the show it spawned, "Happy Days" took place in the 50s and was so successful with my generation. We grew up while the world was losing it's innocence and felt cheated. We grew up I a world that both catered to and took advantage of the 60s generation. The only thing that we did inherit from the 60s was the chance to die in Vietnam and the draft was still in effect.

Think about the other really big films that kids loved in the 70s, "Grease" and "Star Wars". We were looking for a return to simple and innocent fun. Heck, the films they made about kids in the 70s that were big budget were depressing, "Aloha Bobby Rose" and "Little Foxes" had horrible endings and were about the depressing nature of growing up then. Heck one of the biggest films was the first Rocky film and at least that was one about succeeding in a depressing situation, it was what we felt.

"American Graffiti" wasn't about riots and protests, it was about racing and girls and innocent fun. It was escapism from the 70s and a wish for what we felt we had missed out on. Now blacks in America may not have seen it the same way at the time and that makes sense. They were watching movies like "Superfly" and "Cooley High" and tv shows like "Good Times". These were shows and movies about dealing with poverty and hard times. America was still very much racially divided and the biggest show that dealt with that issue was "All in the Family" and that always had a depressing backstory. It was nothing but conflict, though, it did have some great jokes, it was still sad in the end.

"American Graffiti" was made for pennies using mostly unknowns and at that time even Ron Howard was no longer a star, he was just an ex-child star. George Lucas' previously film was THX1138, a depressing futuristic film and not a favorite with most kids. "American Graffiti" was a film for 70s kids and had happy music from beginning to end. The story was simple, a bunch of kids just graduated from high school and were going to move into the rest of their lives. They decided to have one last good time before leaving the comfort of their homes and moving out into the real world, the future. It was their last chance to have innocent fun. It resonated with us. It was made for pennies and was never expected to do particularly well, it was the kids from the 70s that made it big, not the people who grew up during that time. It certainly wasn't aimed at ex-hippies, they had rejected that time and longed for the late 60s.

Now I want to talk about "More American Graffiti". At the time everyone I knew hated it. It has not only a depressing ending; but, the story itself is depressing. It is not a hopeful film, it is instead about the victims of the mid to late 60s. I won't give away the plot details too much for those who have not seen it. Suffice it to say that the film is about what happened to the characters in "American Graffiti" after they grew up and the party was over and real life became their life. I hated it, it had no hope for the future in it.

Looking back on "More American Graffiti" now, I see the film from a different perspective. You see the second movie wasn't made for the same people as the first movie, it was made for the children who grew up in the 60s, not the ones who grew up in the 70s. Lucas didn't understand who made the first film so popular, he was still writing to his generation and they didn't care about the 50s and early 60s. It was people who grew up in the 50s and their children who watched "Happy Days", not the ex-hippies.

By accident I happened to see large parts of "More American Graffiti" again today and you know, it is a fitting end to the saga. It is not however a teen film and the first one was.

Where are the teen films today, what films talk to the current generation. I am not talking about action films or big films, I am talking about small films that they can call their own and address their hopes? I don't see it. Then again what do they have to look forward to? Oh year, living at home with a hundred thousand dollars in debt if they go to college or maybe just a film about having fun while working at McDonalds or WalMart. Wait, wait, what about working until they die?

UPDATE:

You know what, it just occurred to me what the biggest films aimed at young teenagers today are. "Twilight" and "The Hunger Games" They may have grown up on "Harry Potter"; but as teenagers they are given a different perspective. I guess they also have superhero shows and comics (graphic novels); but, those are not about teenagers except maybe "Heroes". What is realistic in media about the teen experience today?

Let's talk religion and politics.

I am going to bet that most of my readers have never heard of an ERUV. While it may sound like some sort of scary drone, it is not. It is a Jewish thing, specifically, Jews are not supposed to carry things out of their house on the Sabbath. In order to get around this rule, many communities have placed a wire that runs around their whole community and believe that as long is they stay within the boundaries of that wire, they are not in violation of their biblical requirements regarding the Sabbath. Here is a very short video on it.

Business Insider - There's a hidden wire stretched above American cities - and few people know what it is for.

I first came across this issue about 20 years ago when someone who worked on maintaining them told me about it. I worked with public infrastructure for most of my career and prior to that I worked in real estate with some work in factories, gas stations, restaurants, retail and trade shows. Of all the things I ever worked on, infrastructure is probably the most informative as it connects to everything else. While working in infrastructure I learned about hidden casinos and brothels that operate in our largest cities that are never raided by the police because they are ethnic.

Back to the Eruv, from a religious standpoint it is sort of insincere. While I am not Jewish I still find it insincere to find ways around following the tenants of your religion. I also find it to be a fantastic example of Jesus' complaints about the Jews of his day, of which he was one. Jesus complained that the Jews of his day were hypocrites who used inventive explanations of the law to use the law to do things that were not pleasing to God and then were overly legalistic regarding things that they wanted to stop others from doing.

I should point out that not all Rebbis support the use of Eruvs to get around what they believe the rule to be. It is merely an example of a modernization of biblical law to suit society.

Yahoo - Ben Carson would ‘love’ to see Roe v. Wade overturned, compares abortion to slavery.

The truth is that Ben Carson does not have any chance whatsoever of becoming President and to add to that comment, neither does Rand Paul or Carly Fiorina. None of them have a chance because none of them could get any crossover votes once people know what they believe. The funny thing is that the media, while attacking Trump, has failed to point out any of the crazy things these other three believe.

Here is a quote from Mr. Carson, “I’m a reasonable person, and if people can come up with a reasonable explanation of why they would like to kill a baby, I’ll listen", he then went on to say that rape and incest were not reasonable reasons. While I do not believe abortion is right, I certainly would not claim that a woman who had been raped was being "unreasonable" for wanting one.

Another thing Carson recently said was that homosexuality was a choice. As proof he discussed how straight people came out of prison gay. Getting raped in prison is not the same thing as becoming gay. I would love to see the statistics this guy believes he is reading, they are nonsense. The truth is I am worried about any man who thinks he could be gay under whatever circumstances. Growing up, I never wondered whether being gay might be more to my liking, I liked women. I would like Mr. Carson to find me these adults who went to jail straight and then came out gay, he should have them talk to the cameras about how they made that choice, I will wait. The man is an idiot and unfortunately unsure about his own sexuality.

Yahoo - Fiscal Times - Trump Knocks Carson as a Seventh Day Adventist as Iowa Polls Shift.

This one is just great and the ultimate example of hypocrisy. A few months ago Carson questioned Trumps beliefs in Christianity and then he also went so far as to say that Muslims should not run for President or at least not have a chance at winning. Trump stated that Carson was a Seventh Day Adventist and said that it was a fringe movement. Carson's response was to be offended. Well, the truth is just about every Christian group believes that Seventh Day Adventists are fringe Christians.

Just to be clear, the Seventh Day Adventists have predicted the end of the world multiple times in the 1800s. If any of you remember what I wrote about a few years ago when there was an idiot going around saying the world was going to end, I said that the only true measure according to the bible of a Prophet was whether or not he was ever wrong and that if they were wrong then they were a false prophet under bible law. Nothing has changed in my belief and religions started by false prophets are false religions. I would say the same about Seventh Day Adventists. I don't doubt their sincerity; but, to say that a church that incorrectly predicted the end of the world multiple times was not fringe is silly.

The article seemed confused by why Trump brought up Carsons church. The answer, while confounding to non-believers and the media is relatively simple. Most Christians will not vote for Carson in the end anymore than they would vote for a Muslim. Mr. Carson is being pierced by his own petard.

75,000 HIts and Counting

This blog has now had over 75,000 hits. And none of that is on my mind right now, my next post is. Thanks and be well.

Lets Talk About Gun Control

Whenever you are reading this, I actually wrote it awhile ago. I didn't want to post it immediately in the aftermath of the latest college slaughters as I thought it would be disrespectful of the victims (although less so than the vile statements of Ben Carson and others who did not think the deaths worthy of discussion in any real sense) and because I don't believe we should ever have a knee jerk reaction to big events, in our life or in the world.

Let's start with the Constitution. It says, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Sorry, the Constitution does not give you the right to own a gun to hunt, protect yourself or involve yourself in attacking the government or it's institutions. It says that it is necessary because we needed a "well regulated militia". Now, if you are against the supreme court interpreting the constitution then you would have to be for limiting gun ownership to those who join the National Guard or some other state sponsored militia. By the way, there are limitations on what weapons the National Guard can own. No state has it's own nuclear bombs or intercontinental ballistic missiles.

Let's ignore the constitution for a second and ask a rational rather than a legal question. What weapons should individuals be allowed to own and for what purposes? Should you be allowed to own a machine gun so that you can rob banks or kill groups of people that you don't like? Are those valid reasons for owning weapons? Should individuals be allowed to own atomic weapons and use them against foreign countries that they don't like? If you are for unlimited weapon ownership than how can you justify stopping foreign countries like Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons? Are you consistent in your beliefs?

There are those on the fringe right that claim everyone should have a gun and that somehow we would all be safer. Let's follow that logic a little further, if everyone had access to a nuclear bomb, do you really believe the world would be safer and that nobody would use it for evil and senseless purposes. If you really believe that, would you have allowed the insane shooters of Columbine, Aurora and the more recent shootings to own personal nuclear bombs? That would be insanity and is the insanity of the argument that everyone should be armed.

The standard conservative response to the latest batch of mass shootings is to say that we should get better at finding the mentally disturbed. It does not however address whether or not we should deny the mentally disturbed access to weapons. A knife can be used as a weapon; but, unless you are actively suicidal or homicidal you should probably have access to some type of knife if only to cut up your steak. Perhaps a plastic knife for really disturbed people. Do rational people really think we will all be safer if crazy people can own tanks or cannons or machine guns?

Perhaps the weapons you may own should be limited based on what weapons we can trust you to use properly. Limit the crazy to plastic knives, members of state militias to non-intercontinental weapons and no weapons of mass destruction. I would not allow local police to have military jets with tactical weapons. The police are supposed to protect and serve us, not kill thousands of innocents. I am not even for the militarization of the police and oddly enough, neither are most libertarians or far right conservatives. They should try and be consistent to. If you don't want the police to have certain weapons then you cannot promote individuals owning them.

I have a relative who sold drugs a very long time ago, decades ago. He was convicted of a non-violent felony and is no longer allowed to own a gun. In fact, he will not stay in a place where there are guns and has been on the straight and narrow for decades. I might allow non-violent offenders to own a gun to protect themselves or to hunt; but, if you use a weapon in a crime or violence, yeah, I don't think you should be allowed to own a gun or machine gun or sniper rifle or weapon of mass destruction. Does that belief make me a crazy radical gun controlling commie? I don't think so and the founding fathers would have agreed with me.

Can we at least agree that limitations should be put on weapons ownership by the insane and violent criminals? I don't believe either group would have been allowed in a well regulated militia. The Constitution certainly does not give them a right to own guns. I am pretty sure that it didn't allow slaves to own guns. Do you think all slaves should have been allowed to own guns and how do you think that would have turned out in the south? Heck, it was a crime to teach slaves to read. Wave that confederate flag fascists everywhere.

There is a statement made frequently on the left and the right that with rights comes responsibility. If you agree with that then perhaps we could agree that your right to weapons should be aligned with the responsibility you show for limiting your ownership to valid uses. Now, overthrowing the government is not a valid use, that is called treason and you can go to jail for that, so, it would be irrational to expect to government to protect your right to use weapons against the government. If you think you should have the right to own a weapon for hunting then you should probably be limited to owning hunting weapons and having a hunting license. If you believe you should be able to own a weapon to protect your family then you should be probably limited to weapons that do not cause collateral damage. You don't need a machine gun that is powerful enough to kill the police and innocent bystanders to defend yourself from an intruder into your home. Now, the constitution does not say that you can own weapons for the purpose of hunting or to protect yourself; but, those are things I can support IF limited to people who are sane and not violent criminals.

Sorry, we need to talk about something else. You know where it said "a well regulated militia"? Wouldn't that require that people know how to use a weapon and are trained in it's proper usage as a minimum? In California you need a doctor's note to say that you would benefit from marijuana; but, you don't need a certificate from the state or a private agency to say you have a valid reason for owning a weapon. More conservatives are against marijuana legalization for any reason, including medical than are against unrestricted weapon ownership. How many died from smoking marijuana last year and how many died from being shot?

I would have posted this today possibly, as the Oregon mass killing has had time pass; but, a couple more mass killings in recent days means that I shall delay posting as it is too soon to expect either side in the debate to actually think about their positions. I do not know when enough time will have passed. I shall wait until the news articles have slowed and the mass killings have stopped for a bit.

UPDATE:

So I wrote the above a week or two ago. Here is a question, why did the 2nd amendment bother stating why people should have a right to own arms? Why didn't it say that because you have a right to protect yourself and hunt you should have a right to own arms and limit it to a national need for a well regulated militia? Why did the constitution use the term "well regulated" to further define militias that should have weapons? The term "well regulated" presumes that the writers of the amendment did not believe every militia was or deserving or a right to weapons. Do you really think the founding fathers would have allowed states to give weapons to all their citizens with the express purpose of taking over the federal government?

Unlike the constitution, I believe people should be allowed to own weapons to protect themselves and to hunt. I don't think we should only be allowed to own weapons to protect the country, I think we should be allowed to protect ourselves too. I also believe we should change the constitution to clearly state that. Lets take to a vote. Lets write a law, a constitutional amendment that we can all agree on. What would that look like? What weapons should people be allowed to own and for what purposes? Who should be allowed to own weapons of mass destructions, we did go to war in Iraq over that, should average Americans be allowed to own weapons of mass destruction, how about of mass murder?

The Future

Yahoo - Today’s college graduates might not retire till age 75.

The article which attacks young people for not saving enough in the stock market has a couple of really cynical lines. I like the one where the author says that if a 23 year old began saving 10% of his income each month, he would retire by 70 rather than 75. It then says that if they were really aggressive and saved 20% of their income in the stock market, they could retire by 62, the current age of retirement.  Do you know that male life expectancy is the United States is 76. Take a moment and think about that. If a 23 year old were to save 10% of his income for 67 years, he could retire and live for 6 years. How does that make sense?

The article presumes the median income for millenials who have college degrees. Now just to start with, median income is one form of average. There are four ways averages are calculated they are called mean, mode, median and midrange. Frequently people will discuss the median income and call it the average; but, it is just one way of calculating an average and in this case it is misleading. What it does not reflect is what most people we consider millenials actually make and what most make is a lot less than $45,000 a year. It is also misleading because it completely ignores the 20% of millennials who are unemployed.

I have to say that I think young people in this country really need to change the game and demand change. They should demand that they be given retirements and if things do not change then tax the rich till they cannot retire or live in peace.

MIT Technology Review - First Gene-Edited Dogs Reported in China.

So scientists in China have announced that they have made dogs with twice the muscle mass of normal dogs by playing with their DNA. They claim this is to find new therapies to help dogs. Are you kidding me? The Chinese have also said that by using gene treatments they hope to increase the IQ of their people 10 points a year. The Chinese plan on modifying the genes of their people to make them smarter, stronger and to have more stamina. They plan on creating a super race and don't be shocked because US scientists working for the government in DARPA are doing the exact same thing.

I should also report that the age of 75 for retirement assumes you are a college graduate. I guess if you are not a college graduate then you should just expect to work till you die.

Time - Here’s What the Westboro Baptist Church Thinks of Kim Davis.

Kim Davis is the clerk who refused to follow a court order and issue marriage licenses to gays. Westboro Baptist Church is the church that carries around signs that say "God Hates Fags" and pickets soldiers funerals. Apparently Westboro has taken Ms. Davis to task for having been married multiple times. While I appreciate their consistency I must ask why they have spent more time attacking gays than people who cheat on their spouses. Heck, adultery made the ten commandments and homosexuality did not. Where are their priorities; but, then again where are the priorities of anyone who claims to be Christian and yet tolerates adulterers in their church and not gays?

Awhile ago I wrote a post on gun rights and did not post it at the time. I did not write the article because of the latest mass shooting and did not want to post it while the people involved had yet to be buried. I will post it tomorrow or later today.My post does not say what the laws regarding weapons and citizens should be. Instead it discusses a simpler question, does the government have the right to limit people's access to weapons and what needs do people have for weapons. I hope the readers do not see it as me promoting or rejecting gun control; because, it is neither. The purpose it to begin to look at the real issues and the idea of matching personal rights to weapons against the usefulness of the weapons to the people seeking them. In short, does the average person really need a tank to protect his family from home intruders or to go hunting.

Nonsense Logic and Opportunity.

I was watching this interview on David Letterman with John Oliver about soccer. I had no idea what it was going to say and then I heard the line that mattered. Apparently, in England there are four different team structures of soccer players. The Premier League, Championship, First Division and Second Division and the Conference (amateurs). Now Letterman then asks if theoretically one could move from amateur to Premier and Oliver says that while it is theoretically possible, there is no chance it will happen because the Premier league can actually pay money to hire players and as much as they want.

YouTube - John Oliver Explains English Soccer to David Letterman.

Earlier Oliver had stated that the levels in soccer were basically the class system. It is the same in America and we accept that. There is pro-baseball, AA, triple A and all sort of other levels going down to T-Ball (for little children). Can you imagine the best junior high baseball team in the world playing against the Yankees being a fair competition in any manner way shape or form? That would be insanity; but, Letterman seems to think that it would be fair in English soccer teams. Putting 8 year olds against seasoned professional baseball players is not fair, it is not even a competition. Sure, theoretically angels could help the 8 year olds win; but, even there it would not be fair, would it?

Here is the reality. Right does not necessarily make right. If you think it does then explain the holocaust or the killing of 40 million Russians during the communist revolution or the killing of 60 million Chinese under Mao. Nope, if that is to tough for you, explain why the Romans could kill Jesus, was that right making might or might doing wrong. Might alone does not justify it's actions.

A merit based society is based on the idea that those who are better should rise to the top, not some of the time, all of the time. That opportunity should be based on merit rather than relations and birth or inheritance. If based on those things it is called an oligarchy. Do you think that your children have as much chance of succeeding as the children of the wealthy or famous? The difference between America and England is that their non-Premier people know they don't have the same opportunity.

More Baloney In The News - Media Propaganda

Fox - Gutfeld: Why America has trust issues with the media. The speakers opinion, from Conservative Fox, is convinced that the reason the media is no longer trusted is because it is liberal. He goes as far as to claim that Fox is not part of the media. The establishment cannot seem to understand why people jointed the Tea Party or Occupy movement a few years back and now cannot seem to understand the support for Sanders or Trump and the media is even more confused over why they are not trusted. The reason is quite simple, because everything they say is a sales job rather than an attempt to just present the facts in any in depth way. The hypocrisy of the media is only highlighted by the following video that literally auto played after the one above.

Fox - Anarchy in America. In this "report" Bill O'Reilly talks about how certain cities (he chooses San Francisco) are considering themselves "sanctuary cities" and not going after illegal aliens. I sort of agree with him on that, cities, counties and states need to keep the laws. Whether it be federal safety laws or any other laws. The problem is that O'Reilly said that the legislators who voted to remain a sanctuary city should all be jailed even if the law would not allow them to be prosecuted. Is this the same Fox News and O'Reilly that thought the clerk should not have to issue marriage licenses because it violated her religious beliefs and also supported that idiot farmer in Arizona who thought he had an innate right to graze on federal lands and not pay a fee? Well, yes it is. Fox is a bunch of hypocrites and it was funny to see this right after the video on the lack of trust in the media.

New Scientist - Carbon nanotubes found in children’s lungs for the first time. This is a really important finding. Carbon nanotubes are created in labs and may have many important uses down the road. We don't know if they are cancerous and it is believed they could be or at least increase the chance of cancer. It should also be noted that they have never been found in the air before; but, now are being found in the lungs of children in Paris and may also be in the lungs of adults in Paris. The big scary question is where are they coming from and how are they being released. If they are intentionally being released then we have an even bigger issue; but, we should at least be trying to find out how they are getting in the air. For my regular readers you may recall that not long ago the French also accidently sold some genetically modified sheep, illegally, that were put into the food supply "by accident". France might want to consider keeping a better eye on it's labs.

Fox - Business Insider - Donald Trump has experienced a major shift in one of the most significant predictors of electoral success. The short of the story is that 60% of Republicans have said that they could vote for Trump with 43% saying they think he will win the nomination. No matter how much support he has, the Republican party establishment does not want him because he is not already sold out to their traditional economic interests.

Yahoo - Reuters - Marijuana Use and Disorders Have Doubled Since 2001. The title and the way the article is written are both mislead. The article claims that Marijuana use has doubled according to surveys. Well, that would make sense as it is now legal in about half the states for medical uses. After having taken car of, helped and known people who have had cancer and gone through chemotherapy and radiation therapy, anyone who deny them marijuana to me is scum. It really upset me that my father could take morphine and was dying but it was still illegal for him to smoke weed even if it helped him to eat. He would not have taken it and did not want the morphine either; but, it really brought it home for me. This post is about marijuana though, it is about the media slant. The very first sentence of the article is a lie, it states that "abuse" of marijuana has doubled since 2001 because us of marijuana has doubled. Think about that. Do you honestly believe that people who are using medical marijuana are all "abusing" it? If you read the whole article you will find that 10% of the population is believed to have used marijuana in the last few years and of the roughly 320 million Americans that means that roughly 32 million have used marijuana in the last few years. I should point out that about 25% of the population had at least one day where they had at least 5 heavy drinks according to the CDC, or 2/12 times the number of people who even smoked marijuana once during that same period. Now, according to this article, the number of people that actually had a clinical problem with marijuana was roughly 3% of the 32 million who used it or a little more than 300,000. I am pretty sure the number of alcoholics is much higher than that. I should point out that it is believed that about 14 million people have problems with alcohol (Alcoholics Information - Statistics About Alcoholism). The statistic means that 2 1/2 times many people as have smoked marijuana in the past few years have serious problems with alcohol and the number of people wish serious problems with alcohol is about 50 times higher than the number of people who misuse marijuana. I should also state that later in the article it says that 3 out of 10 users were diagnosed with a marijuana disorder; but, aside from the fact that is 30% and not their earlier quoted 1.5% to 3% of users. The reason for the confusion is because they are playing games with numbers and they never define what this marijuana "disorder" is.

Now the source article came from JAMA which is publication of the Psychiatrists in America. You know, the people I wrote about recently who push psychotropic drugs like Ritalin and Prozac and Valium and, well, the list goes on and on. I hate to say this; but, I don't articles about medicine very much anymore. In fact, I lost most of my faith in the articles when I discovered that the number one study quoted that claimed second hand smoke was worse than first hand smoke was not based on second hand smoke; but, was instead based on the effect of smoking on babies when they were still in the womb. If someone wants me to trust what they say about a study, they have to provide me with the name of the study and where I can read it myself. I don't expect my readers to trust that I am accurately reporting on news articles, I provide a link to the article itself.

UPDATE:

I had just posted the above and I returned to read news articles when I came across this.

Fox - Bill Murray reportedly dating former child star Jenny Lewis.

Personally, I had never heard of Jenny Lewis and there is a good reason, she was not a "child star", at best she had been a child actor. She has actually been better known for music since 1998. I should also point out that she is 38 years old. What do you think sounds more shocking that Bill Murray is dating a 38 year old musician or a "former child star"? The truth is the article cannot even state that Murray is dating her, it is a "rumor".

Paul Ryan Full of Nonsense

The speaker of the House of Representatives quit, his name was Boehner. Now people in the media pronounce it Bayner; but, lets be truthful nowhere in English does oe make the ayyyy sound. The rules of English tell us that when a vowel is followed by another vowel, the first vowel is pronounced in its whole sound. Boner. We are not a nation of 12 year old boys in school and shouldn't change the rules of English to accommodate foolishness.

Be that as it may. Nobody in the Republican house wants the job as speaker as that would require them actually trying to work with Democrats to get laws passed, you know, doing their job. The one person who appears to be able to get sufficient support is Paul Ryan, you know, the guy who wants to be President. After a lot of pressure he has said he will accept the job; but, only if every Republican in congress supports him. What???

Yahoo - AP - Ryan to seek speakership if House GOP unifies behind him.

Why is it so hard to find a Republican that wants to lead his party in the House of Representatives? I have never seen or read of this in history. What is it this year, I mean, Vice President Joe Biden is being begged to run for President by his party and he doesn't want to. Actually, Joe Biden lost his son and is looking to retire so I can appreciate his position. Ryan actually wants to be President. Can you imagine his campaign, "I will only accept being President if all the Republicans and Democrats support me". He has all the backbone and courage of a jellyfish. Ryan is claiming that he wants to not spend less time with his family or travel for fundraisers, he didn't have a problem with either of those things when running for President. The truth is that the Republican party is no longer a party of consensus and nobody can get it's support. Currently, it is a party of corporate whores and extremists, not the conservative, pro-American party of the past and even the Republican voters know it.

Unexplained Changes In Your Life

Fox - DC church calls proposed bike lanes unconstitutional.

The article itself is about a church suing over bike lanes taking out their parking. I know a lot about transportation laws, I have been asked to write a book about public easements and I am telling you right now that the church does not have a leg to stand on and will lose horribly thereby setting the legal precedent for cities to put in bike lanes and take away parking and traffic lanes.

Here is what you need to consider. All across the nation crosswalks are being modified, they now resemble the crosswalk on the cover of the Beatle's Abbey Road cover. At the same time all across the nation bike lanes are being put in at the same time. Do you ever wonder why? Funding determines what gets built and federal funding has a big impact on local paving. Local municipalities are responding to the Federal governments call for an "intermodal" approach to streets; but, there is a problem. Municipalities do not own their streets, they only have a public easement (the right to traverse the streets and keep them clear for such purpose).

Traditionally, sidewalks were for foot traffic and streets were for wheeled traffic (originally for horse drawn traffic). The law also frequently prohibits pedestrians from walking on street if there is a sidewalk and from driving on sidewalks almost always. Those laws are established. Creating a new type of public easement limited to bikes is an outgrowth of laws allowing for bus only lanes. This is why I did not write the book on public easements, I bore myself when discussing these things; but, they are relevant to our lives. The truth is that bus lanes are not needed, one can make an argument for ride share lanes as they were, in at least California, required to be built with funds specifically for such a thing and lanes that had previously been built could not be re-purposed (yes, there is actually a court case over that).

If you cannot repurpose existing highways lanes for limited uses, why should municipalities be allowed to repurpose traffic lanes for only one type of traffic. Why should we have traffic lanes limited to bikes when bikes can ride in car lanes. Bikes are not limited to any lane, buses are not limited to any lane; but, cars and trucks are. Is that legal, probably not if the right law suit was brought. One that questioned why streets were allowed to be made into public easements for limited use by vehicles.

Alien Worlds and Politics

The Atlantic - The Most Mysterious Star in Our Galaxy.

Scientists have found a star that apparently has objects circling it that may have been made by intelligent life. That is the short of the article. Now, the reasons that they believe this has to do with the age of the star, the lack of consistency of the circling objects and some other observations. The fact is that it is only a question of when we find other intelligent life in the universe. If you believe in God then you have to believe that he didn't need to make so many planets if we were going to be the only sentient beings using them and if you are an atheist you have to believe that planets similar to ours would have had similar results.

There is one philosophy that might assume that there is no other life in the universe. If you believe God made the universe so that we could discover that we were his only creation. Of course, that doesn't explain angels. If you believe that God made the universe and angels then you already believe in aliens.

I personally don't think we have a clue what is circling that planet. I sure don't know. My thoughts on aliens are sort of limited. I do believe there is life on other planets, what kind and why, I have no idea. I believe something happened at Roswell and that we have still not been told the truth. I am far from convinced it was aliens. I do not believe that aliens from other planets are regularly visiting the earth. I do believe that reports of flying saucers represent something people are seeing and are not all hoaxes. Finally, I believe the media regularly ridicules strange phenomenon because they don't want to be seen as not knowing more than the rest of us. The media saying they don't know the truth is like a police officer arresting you and saying he doesn't have the authority. I don't expect to see either happen.

Here is my question. If one day we actually communicate via any method with alien life (lets say laser beam communication that takes 5,000 years to reach the other planet), how will the media react? If we received a message from an alien planet that had been sent 5,000 years ago I think most people would accept it pretty quick and not even be surprised. The media, government and business would freak out and be scared, then they would try to scare us too. Alien life is only a threat to the people in charge. People who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans were not half as afraid of the conquistadores as the people who ruled the empire. The people who were about to be sacrificed by the Incans had nothing to lose and often sided against the Incans.

What would an alien race have to offer the world that might cause 99% to go along. What if they promised that all people would have medicine or homes or food or protection from aggression? If you want to take over a country or society and not have to spend all your time managing and fighting them, you have to offer to be better than the people they used to be under and that is our problem in IRAQ.

It is pretty hard to tell people in Iraq that America is better for them because Hussein used to torture them when we also torture them. How do we tell Iraqis they are better off under us when their houses are all destroyed and are even more likely to have their children killed? If the Iraqis and Afghanis don't believe us then why would they not accept the promises of aliens over ours?

There is a part of the bible that has always confused me. After the final battle at Armageddon, Jesus takes over and rules for 1,000 years. At the end of that time he releases Satan and some of the people on earth fight against Jesus with Satan. Why? What if it is because they believe they can get a better deal than others? What if it is all the believers of Ayn Rand, those who think that helping one another is the despised "collectivist mentality". The most hardcore believers in dog eat dog capitalism believe that working together and helping the less fortunate is the sin and that selfishness is being godlike. Psychopaths and Sociopaths. If ever aliens come here, it will be the rich and powerful that will have to change their ways if we are to stay in charge of our own future.

Outsourcing To China Versus American Production

I was getting ready to go to bed and I read and saw a couple of news articles. One was about all the toxic products, like toys and sheetrock, that China sells to the rest of the world and the other about clothes made in foreign countries using child labor and having little if any safety checks. Anyways, I had a thought about how to improve the products sold here and make American producers more competitive. What if we required all products sold in America to meet the same requirements that we make of American companies?

I know this is crazy; but, what if we held foreign companies selling in the United States to the same rules that we hold our own companies to? Why does our government allow foreign companies to sell in America; but, not require them to not use slave labor or children or put toxins in the products they sell here? Does allowing toxic products from foreign countries to be sold in America protect Americans? I don't see how. And if you think about it, making that requirement would increase the profitability of American manufacturers. Heck, if you are liberal and believe in global warming, the requirement that other countries companies meet American pollution standards to sell in America you would decrease global warming. For conservatives, making foreign countries follow the same rules for selling in America as we do our own companies is even better than a tariff. It takes longer to meet health and safety laws than to pay an extra fee. Oh, and buy the way, the United States holds a lot more patents on clean air products than China, just look at their smog and it should be clear. They haven't invested much in clean technology.

Let's go a little bit deeper. Every American company should be in favor of what I have proposed. Heck, if the real problem is American wages or unions then it will still make sense to outsource our jobs because our competitors in foreign countries would still be cheaper. We are willing to tell other countries what weapons they can and cannot make; but, don't believe it is right to tell them what products they can sell here?

By the way, the free trade agreements make it so we cannot question the methods employed by foreign countries in making products for sale in the United States and also allows corporations to sue the United States for having standards, like age and safety requirements. That is what the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) is all about. Fight any trade agreements that do not put basic health and safety requirements on goods to be sold in this country.

It Is Not News It Is Propaganda

I went out with friends and had a very nice meal  When I got home I read the news and saw the following article.

Yahoo - Reuters - U.S. confirms Iran tested nuclear-capable ballistic missile.

If you read the article and pay attention, you discover that what they said is not true. There is absolutely no proof the missile could carry nuclear weapons. The article states that the problem with the missiles is that they are medium range ballistic missile, that means it can travel far and that is all it means. An Inter-Continental Ballistic is one that can reach half way across the world, so whatever missile they tested is not capable of reaching America from Iran.

Now, if we accept that statement from the author that every missile is "inherently" capable of carrying nuclear weapons then it is also saying that no other nations should have rockets capable of delivering satellites into space, same technology. Here is an important line from the end of the article.

"The missile test is not a violation of the nuclear deal, which focuses on Iran's atomic program, U.S. officials have said."

Lets be clear, under the proposed Iran Nuke Deal, they would even be allowed to buy ballistic missile technology from other countries including the United States so long as it was not designed for nuclear missiles. That strongly suggests that not all ballistic missiles are capable of launching nuclear weapons. This article by Reuters is a series of internal contradictions. Whether you like Iran, hate it, trust it, love it or think it is just a bad place to go on your honeymoon, the article is a giant lie and that is the issue I am addressing.

I want you to consider the linked article again. It basically said that Iran tested trucks capable of carrying nuclear bombs. That would include every truck if you believe nuclear bombs can be made the size of a barbecue from Home Depot and not weigh more than a quarter ton. What about this, what if it said that Iran tested software capable of detonating a nuclear missile? That would include any program and not even a complicated one. It would include every cell phone as detonating a bomb is not that complicated and neither is making a rocket, the Germans were doing it in the 1940s.

Medical Dramas and Cop Shows

Other than "reality shows" that are not real and are just an excuse to hire cheap actors, the two biggest types of shows on television seem to be medical dramas and dramas about arresting people. Here is just how silly these three types of shows are.

Reality shows spend all their time with people yelling unrestrained at one another and spending time together willingly. Other than your children and possibly your spouse, how long would you put up with someone freaking out at you every two minutes if they were not under medical care? I especially like the shows about rich housewives who put up with psychotic friends who are always yelling and talking garbage, if you are a rich housewife, why are you with them and not getting a massage or in Hawaii?

Lets think about reality shows a little more. When my eldest daughter was about 6 we had some offers to put her in commercials. I was against it. She had not expressed an interest in acting at the time, nor at any time since. I don't remember her ever asking to take drama class. I grew up with kids in the industry including ones that you would know. I cannot think of one that benefited from the experience other that for short term monetary gain, which few if any managed to keep or put to beneficial use. So here is my question, if you wouldn't want to be a show biz mother, why would you let your family be filmed all day for a reality show and get paid pennies?

I don't know if Bruce Jenner really had a sex change operation, nor do I care one way or another; but, I am disgusted that he participated in having his children portrayed as vain, idiotic tools of the media. They are spectacle and not actors or performers. He participated in that. As bad as that is, Miley Cyrus's dad is worse. Currently, the 22 year old Miley is considering doing a naked concert. Her dad has supported her in her endeavors. Wow. Although I have known at least two women who have posed in men's magazines, I am not aware of any of their parents thinking it was a good thing. How many of us would actually promote our children posing nude, basically, selling their bodies for money? It is not reality television, it is perversity television where the lowest common denominator gets the highest revenue from advertisers.

Now let us consider medical dramas. In the last few years the two most popular were House, about a doctor who is a drug addict and "Grey's Anatomy" about a bunch of young doctors who all sleep with each other and have the emotional maturity of 13 year olds with limited parental supervision. I have to give some history. I have had arthritis since I was about 19, I have mechanical arthritis from being a gymnast and being one of the most highly ranked in pull ups in history. That is actually true about me. It cost me my hands as I was 15 by the time I had earned that recognition. Years later I had severe arthritic attacks and the doctors wanted to remove my knuckles and replace them with plastic. That is also true. After years of misdiagnosis it turned out that those severe bouts were not from the arthritis alone; but, from gout which inflamed my arthritis. A simple blood test showed that and after changing my diet I have avoided those except on very rare occasions and I now know what to do to prevent that again, it is called changing my diet and I have. Once identified it was pretty easy to avoid it.

Here is another interesting fact. My mother had cervical cancer and went misdiagnosed for a decade. Yeah, they missed it. Yet, on television medical dramas, they all seem to be about great doctors who misdiagnose diseases that are so rare that they have only been seen once or twice in history. Still, Dr House and the people of Grey seem to figure out, in the last 10 minutes, what the obscure and unlikely disease is. It took 20 years for my doctors to figure out that I had gout and I don't know if my current doctor even knows that and he is a really, really good doctor. His problem is that because I haven't complained about arthritis, having changed my diet decades ago, it is no longer in my medical records. Wouldn't medical dramas be more pertinent and useful if they brought up the diseases most commonly misdiagnosed? They are neither reality based nor useful.

Finally we come to police dramas. I want you to think back to all of the worst and most extreme crimes portrayed in police dramas and then ask yourself, how many times have police vehicles actually been blown up by hand grenades? Okay how many times have police vehicles been blow up by IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices as are used in Iraq and Afghanistan)? The answer is zero; but, that doesn't stop us from having local police buy vehicles to protect them from such threats, threats that they have never faced in their history and you are paying for them.

I don't understand right wing extremists like Alex Jones complaining that the police are being more militarized, which they are, and then claiming that the second amendment should allow them to personally own military equipment. I do not believe either individuals nor the police need tactical nuclear weapons, tanks or bazookas to protect themselves. Do you? I am okay with the military having such weapons, I am a pacifist; but, I cannot understand the military thinking them these weapons will at least let them do what they perceive to be their job. As a Christian I also believe that God said that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword; but, I don't expect non Christians to adhere to that belief. My problem is with Christians who do not.

Here is the problem. How many shows really deal with the most common problems faced by people and families. Sorry, the number of fathers who want to have sex changes, the number of people faced with exotic diseases and the number of people faced with being blown up by terrorists while in police cars is so minimal as to be ludicrous and fantasy. How many shows actually deal with real family issues?

We laugh at shows like Adam 12 and Dragnet today; but, at least they dealt with the real issues of the day. Dragnet tried to make us believe that people who smoked Marijuana killed their children; ludicrous, but at least they didn't know what Marijuana did. The original medical shows were about diseases that you or your family might actually get and the decisions you might have to make. The first reality show was called "An American Family" about the Loud family and it was real. It was on PBS, regular television would not show it. Most of the family hated the fact they ever did it. Why don't we have television focused on the real problems we face, like a cop show where the cops fight to keep their pensions or a medical show about how many people they don't serve. Think about it.

Now here is an interesting fact, how much money was stolen during the "financial crisis", lol, how many billions did the big banks steal by rigging all the markets with them paying tens upon tens of billions in legal fines, JP Morgan paid over $25 Billion in fines. Remember they stole more than they paid in fines by hundreds of billions and cost this country Trillions in losses. Neither the Mafia nor the Mexican drug cartels could possibly steal as much from the average US worker as our friends on Wall Street have, tell me I am wrong. By the way, the banks gave a higher return on interest to the people that laundered drug money than they did to you and I They did however charge them higher fees, to be fair. Maybe not as high as the fee they charged your pension fund.

A Self Driving Car In Action

YouTube - Tesla's Autopilot System Is Creepy And Wonderful.

YouTube - A Ride in the Google Self Driving Car.

I want my readers to think about how self driving cars will change your lives in the very near future, remember, the technology is already here. Firstly, self driving cars don't break the speed limit so no more speeding tickets. They can also be programmed to avoid all parking violations. They are safer in heavy rain, snow and fog because they see using multiple sensors. Self driving cars also are not impaired by marijuana, alcohol or being tired on long trips. I forgot to mention that they also don't get lost and can automatically find the best way from one destination to another using real time traffic information.

Now lets consider how they will be used to control drivers and their choice of destinations. Parents will want their teenagers to be in self driving cars so that they can determine where those vehicles go. There will be no telling your parents that you are going to a friends house to study and going to a party somewhere else instead. Self driving cars will also be the end of taxi drivers and long haul truckers killing millions of jobs.

In 2016 Japan Will Begin Using Self Driving Cabs

The Wall Street Journal - RoboCab: Driverless Taxi Experiment to Start in Japan.

If after reading the link you still believe self driving cards are decades away, I don't know what to tell you.

A Link For A Friend

YouTube - Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors (HBO).

I was talking to a friend who couldn't understand why he was being given blood pressure medicine when he had never had a problem with his blood pressure. This humorous video explains why.

I Deleted a Comment

This is a moderated blog, no comments are posted unless I have read them and found them acceptable. Cussing is not allowed and hijacking the blog is not allowed. In 7 years I have only deleted a handful of comments. I have even posted ones that were attacks on me. Most of the few posts I have deleted were accusations against specific people, without evidence, of committing crimes. Such things are for the police and not some random blogger.

Tonight I got a comment from someone claiming to represent "The Illuminati". LOL. I was even given a phone number to call. LMAO. I posted it for two seconds, so I could read all of it, and then deleted it. If someone really wants to give you a million dollars, they will not use the internet or e-mail to notify you. They will come in person. Please, don't fall for internet hoaxes.

Ben Carson is an Idiot and Hypocrite

I just finished a post on gun ownership that I will not release for awhile, at least not until the discussion of the multiple recent school shootings has died down and people are ready to actually think, rather than take presupposed positions, again. This discussion is not about gun ownership, it is about the hypocrisy and or lunacy of Ben Carson, Republican candidate for President.

Ben Carson would outlaw abortion and let just about everyone own machine guns. Is that rational or consistent? He would outlaw abortions because it kills people and what, let everyone own guns because they don't? Does that make any sense? I freely admit I am a pacifist; but, I would allow people to own guns to hunt for food or protect their families. I might not allow people to own nuclear bombs; but, just because I am a pacifist does not mean I would prevent people from owning tools, like guns, for lawful purposes. I am also not a vegetarian; but, I find I don't have to kill animals to get meat for myself. I am also not for killing animals for sport if the meat will not be eaten. It seems wasteful to me and unnecessary. That is not a good steward.

I had a friend, I don't know that we are friends anymore as I no longer trust him to do the right thing. He went fishing in Alaska and brought back more fish than he and his family could eat before it spoiled, a lot more. I was talking to him and he asked me to take some of the fish. I did. I said I would take enough for a meal, there were just two of us at the time. He insisted on giving me more than I could eat before it spoiled and still had more than he and all his friends could eat before it spoiled. I had one meal of it, the rest was eventually disposed of as I could not sell it or even give it away lawfully. Why did he catch more than he could ever use? How did that benefit society?

Here is a question for Mr. Carson. Should men and women be allowed to sterilize themselves? The Catholic church has said no in the past, would he side with them on this issue? I am against abortion in concept and have said so many times in the past. I am also against slavery and controlling others bodies. I would not outlaw suicide and I am against that too. Would Mr. Carson outlaw old people with terminal illnesses killing themselves or being assisted in doing so if they were not insane?

Did you know that technically, if you tried to commit suicide by jumping off a building and you survived because you landed on someone else and they died instead, you could be given the death penalty? Does that make sense? If not, why should crazy people be allowed to own machine guns? No matter what law we pass, we cannot stop abortions, there are too many pills and products that can induce an abortion or allow one to kill themselves. If you cannot stop someone from killing themselves then you cannot prevent abortions, the is just a fact. Oh, you might be able to induce a coma in people who are pregnant or suicidal and keep them in that state; but, would you actually be in favor of that?

I also want to know if Ben Carson is in favor of the death penalty. I can actually tell you why abortion is worse than the death penalty. Abortion kills the innocent and presumably some that will be guilty in the future, the death penalty does not kill as many innocents. Both kill innocents; but, the death penalty is more targeted to the guilty. With the thousands of people who have been killed in mass murders in the last decade alone, some of them had criminal records and some of them were bad people, I would bet money on that, not all of them were angels. If mass murderers kill as many innocents as abortion, they are as random, why would he support everyone owning a machine gun and be against abortion. Both are as likely to be used to kill innocents.

If Mr. Carson is against all murder then I would assume he would limit gun ownership to people who kill animals for food and not self protection. Your reasons must be consistent with your laws or you are a hypocrite. Perhaps, if Mr. Carson relies on the bible there is another passage or commandment that allows for the killing of others in the New Testament. Remember the adulterer that was to be stoned and Jesus stopped her stoning. Adultery is in the ten commandments, it made the top ten. If Mr. Carson is willing to allow insane people access to guns because things happen, would he allow adulterers to be stoned to death? Would you, I don't believe in murder so I would not.

Here is the biggest question for Mr. Carson. Who should be able to kill others, in groups or alone. If the answer is nobody, why should be have a military? If there are reasons why one should be allowed to kill others, what should the rules be? If the answer is because God said it, then do you believe in Jesus because he said we had to love our neighbor as ourselves and stopped the stoning of an adulterer. The answers to these questions may be completely different for Atheists and I am okay with that. I am not however for someone claiming biblical authority to ignore the bible when it calls for the tough answers and that is why I believe Mr. Carson is a weasel and a hypocrite.

Merit or Inherited Wealth Based Opportunity.

I read an article recently on how income inequality wasn't the real issue and that poverty was. I apologize for not having a link. I think I read it in the Huffington Post. I found the article interesting and agreed partially; but, I think it missed the second half of the equation.

Income inequality is not in of itself a bad thing. We should reward people for their contributions and the more you contribute, the more you should benefit. I think all capitalists and socialist would agree with that. It is only Communists that would disagree. Communism claims that we should take from each according to his abilities and give to each according to his needs. It sort of defeats the purpose of putting a lot of effort into anything. Unrestricted capitalism is a sort of everyman for himself philosophy where there is no room for working as a society.

Not very long ago we used to live in a world controlled and owned by kings and queens. It was a horrible world for most people and the monarchies could do whatever they wanted while the rest of the people had no rights and were constructively slaves. In England you could actually kill your wife for adultery and not go to jail; but, if you stole you would be killed. The same was true in many countries and is still true in parts of the Arab world. I guess it is all a matter of priorities. It was also a bigger crime to abuse your animals then your children or wife. In America you could own slaves, rape, beat and kill them and that wasn't that long ago. It was just capitalism at work.

Lets get back to my point. The two problems I see with where we are headed is the creation of extreme poverty which gives the disadvantaged practically no chance at improving their lot based on effort and the second problem is that those with certain advantages are not put under the same rules. The second part has to do with fairness. It is that all men are created equal concept and that everyone should have the right to pursue improving their life, everyone.

Every society decides how opportunities are given out and that aspect is more important than how money is distributed. Not everyone can become a doctor or a lawyer or even a scientist. Who gets to pursue those careers and who gets into college to learn those skills is determined in a limited number of ways. We can distribute those opportunities based on a lottery approach; but, I think that is foolishness. We can distribute it based on who can pay the most or even family lineage; but, that doesn't really serve any societal benefit and doesn't really seem fair or in keeping with our concept of democracy. We can also distribute based on merit. Merit includes more than just scoring high on tests, it would also look at how likely you were to benefit society if you were allowed those opportunities.

Meaningless Babble and Music

A couple of articles that I read a little bit ago; but, forgot to post and then some general discussion about the media and this election.

Huffington Post - Technology Might Kill The Idea Of Car Ownership -- And That's A Good Thing.

As we get closer and closer to self-driving vehicles, the push for gaining public acceptance will increase and in the end only the wealthy will have personal vehicles and unlimited mobility. It is coming, read the article and see the joy the writer has at the thought of it.

Huffington Post - Big Banks Call For 'Strong' Climate Deal.

Do you really believe that the big banks care about the environment. The CEOs will tell you that their only job is to increase stock prices for the shareholders. So why are they so interested in the climate. Oh, yeah, to profit from a carbon tax and speculation on carbon credits valuation.

General Discussion:

I was reading an article today about how Trump and Sanders needed to go away so that the parties could focus on candidates who could win. You know, candidates who wouldn't change anything. The media is clearly frustrated by the fact than neither Clinton or Bush is the frontrunner. I especially like the articles that claim Trump is a liberal and Sanders is not, Sanders is supposedly a commie. LOL. The media sees their role as setting the framework for the political debate we are to have and they want the issues to stay status quo and meaningless. The alternative media is as bad. The biggest internet media draws are Ayn Rand following "libertarians" who are little more than bizarro fascists.

Musical Interlude - YouTube - Pilot - Magic (1975 - HD).

YouTube - Stampeders - Sweet City Woman (1971 - HD).

YouTube - Raspberries Go All The Way Mike Douglas Show 1974.

YouTube - The Blues Image - Ride Captain Ride.

YouTube - BREWER AND SHIPLEY- " ONE TOKE OVER THE LINE ".

YouTube - Three Dog Night - Never Been To Spain.

YouTube - Crosby, Stills & Nash - Southern Cross.

Who Should Not Have Health Insurance?

All my friends and conservative and most of them believe that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) is bad. I have asked them why; but, the answers are always related to non-essentials such as the websites not working immediately. Does that mean they would have been in favor of the law if the websites had worked perfectly? Yeah, I don't think so, they would have still been against it as they act like sheep and follow party lines, knee jerk reactions. These are divisive times and people do not look beyond their fears.

In regards to medical insurance I ask simply, who should not have it? Would you tell your family to not buy medical insurance? What should happen to people who cannot afford medical insurance, maybe they make minimum wage at McDonalds or WalMart, should they just die when they get sick?

Please dear readers, don't let the media determine the issues for you. Think about the bigger questions, should we be a community or not? Should we work together and help one another or not? If we should work together and help one another, to what degree? I went as far as having more homeless people in my home than family members. It should be obvious that I want everyone to have medical attention when needed. I believe in entitlements, I believe our soldiers deserve medical care, especially when injured in a war. Don't you?

A Very Old Drawing

Those who know me as an adult see me in a certain light. Many see me as a organizational planner of some type. Some know me as a political or contractual strategist. Most see me in some technical light, accounting and systems often come up. Those who know me the best think of me as a legal strategist or a predictive analyst. While I have worked in all those areas, my approach has always been one of an artistic bent.

While my readers may believe my artistic interests are mainly about writing, in fact, my first love was drawing and then stage. I cannot say which of the two was closest to my heart; but, I can say that I am no longer able to draw at all due to my arthritis which was caused by my years of gymnastic preparation. In fact, I find it difficult to write checks or even sign my name and the doctors have wanted to replace my knuckles for at least 20 years to alleviate the pain from the arthritis. I will never draw again and have known that for quite some time. The last picture I drew was about 29 years ago and was of my wife. I have no idea of what happened to it, I hope it was destroyed.

After moving out of my house because of my divorce, I had to throw out a few tons of belongings. The remaining belongings were put in storage in another state. Last week I began sifting through and throwing out the majority of what remains. I ended up going through too many boxes of stuff to count. While examining one of the boxes I came across  some of my drawings. My children and their spouses are only aware of one of my drawings, it was done when I was 12 and is a panorama of visions from the perspective of characters originally drawn in Mad Magazine. It was a fluke, a practice drawing with no intent that acquired a life of it's own and ended up as part of a piece of furniture, a table, that was also an experiment. It was never a serious drawing until it was almost complete. It was a scratch pad.

During college I worked as a cabinet maker. I have only two of my pieces, the others had all been pre-sold. Most on commission. My love was all the arts. People don't see me in that light. When my son-in-laws saw the one example of my art that they know of, it was a comic piece on a table that was not meant to last. It was a test of a new material for wood. LOL. They have never seen what I was taking my art to. They have never seen a serious drawing of mine. Well, while going through the boxes I found one and I don't know how many more.

Both of my son in laws are very talented artists. One of them is a professional artist who is well respected within his craft. I don't believe I could have ever matched his skill. It may have taken him longer; but, everything he has done has amazed me and I am fortunate to have one of his first painting, it hangs in my hallway. My other son in laws painting is in my bedroom, he never finished it; but, I like it anyways.

My children and their spouses never saw my art other than the one table piece. Juvenilia with no intent. The son in laws were surprised that I had been interested in drawing and art. They based their assumptions about me on what I did for work to feed my family. I was not good enough, in my opinion, to be a professional artist. In either case, I thought it was more important to follow another career, one of public service and I did not and I don't regret it. I also do not regret having been in gymnastics and ruining my hands. I believe I made the right choice and did what was best.

The next time I go to my storage facility I shall retrieve one of my drawings and post it here for all to see and judge. I will decide later whether or not to also post a picture of the one piece that they have already seen. I was a better artist than writer. It was more expressive of my feelings. It was more truthful and heartfelt than anything else I have ever used to express my feelings. Art is a way to express that which one cannot verbalize.

When I do post the drawing perhaps it will show my readers another side of me rather than just my analytical side. I hope so. Peace.

The Never Give Up Postal Service

I was out of state when I wrote this post and using someone's Apple computer and I don't know how to use Apple products. I couldn't figure out how to use the link commands to provide the link below so I waited till I got home to post the article and create the link.

Huffington Post - Dave Johnson - Another Attack on Our Postal Service

I have written about this subject before; but, just read the above article and would recommend you read it too. What follows is my take on this newest attack; but, I don't think I have really added much to the article, in fact, I find myself in almost total agreement with the writer which is why I have included his name in the link. I don't do that often as my readers know.

Since Benjamin Franklin began the post office it has been one of the greatest examples of public sector service delivery. Neither rain, nor sleet nor dark of night stopped people from getting their mail. Even better, the first attempt to destroy it came when it had to be 100% self sufficient and it did so. It has not received money from the government in decades. It has met every challenge that has faced it and has continued to find innovative and inventive solutions. It is also the only mail service that is required to keep your mail and transactions confidential. As most people know now, your cell phone communications are not confidential; but, land lines are. The similar situation is true with the post office, court orders are needed to read your mail, that is not true for FedEx or UPS.

The post office is also still the cheapest way to communicate with others. It costs less than 50 cents to send a letter. Check out what it costs to send a letter using FedEx. Heck, check out what it costs to send a small package at the postal service compared to private companies. As people increased the us of e-mail, the post office continued to find ways to supplement it's income without getting any money from the government. When a crazy law was passed to require the post office to put all of a person's possible retirement costs up front rather than over the course of their employment, they managed to do that to. No private company and no government agency has to do that. The law was written to kill the post office and they still found a way to succeed.

Many people believe that "government should be run like a business" and the post office found ways to run better that any other business or government agency. In comparrison, the military is not as efficient, especially when it comes to their purchases. Recently, the Navy gave tens of billions to companies to build a new destroyer and in the end, the destroyer did not perform. All the money for the destroyers (we are buying 3 even though they don't work as needed) went to private industry, along with the technology we paid for them to design them.

There are those who would benefit from the elimination of the post office; but, it would mean that the cost for mailing things would go up, there would no longer be any privacy of the mail and the only people who would profit would be about two or three companies. The public would only lose. Does that sound good to you? Well it is being promoted by some conservative politicians. They want to use a trick that large companies use to avoid taxes, take all the good parts, sell them off (privatize) and leave all the parts that don't do as well to be serviced by a post office that will then die on it's own. These are the same politicians who said that government should run like private industry and because it is efficient want to destroy it.

Guns, Murder and Delusional Politicians

A whole lot of people were killed and wounded at a college in Oregon. It is a tragedy and our hearts and prayers should go out to their families and friends. I personally have known six people killed in workplace violence in two separate events. I have written previously how there are no winners when these things happen and that the family and friends of the killer often are harmed as much as the family and friends of the victims. Having said that,  I am not for outlawing guns; but, I also don't think everyone needs to own a machine gun. I don't even think the police need machine guns and I have written about that also. While I believe in the right to own a gun, I am also willing to have a rational discussion on the matter and not just make believe there are no issues to address. This however is not the discussion I plan on having at the moment.

After hearing about the mass shooting in Oregon I knew what the conservative politicians would say, more of the garbage they always say about it. They talk about how there are unstable people out there and they could have killed with a knife or as Jeb Bush said, things happen. The truly insane right wingers claim that when these things happen, they never really happened or that they were staged. Sorry, these things do and have happened. When they do discuss these events in such a manner, they lose all credibility and respect.

There is a problem with the discussion. It is extremist on both sides and delusional on the right. The constitution did not give a right to gun ownership so that people could kill their spouses, rob liquor stores or commit mass murder. The right is not absolute and was not intended to be. You do not have the right to own nuclear bombs. Not all weapons are to be in the hands of the citizens without having certain limitations. The constitution guaranteed the right to own weapons for self protection and for citizen militias under the control of the state government. Now, as long as the constitution protects the right to gun ownership, we may have to accept that sometimes they will be misused. If you disagree with that result then one would need to attempt to change the constitution to outlaw guns, it cannot be legally done by simple local legislation. What the proper level of weapons regulation is is a question that should be openly addressed and not ignored or cheated.

The biggest problem we face right now is a refusal by the left to concede that gun ownership is guaranteed by the constitution and the rights refusal to admit that there may be a problem when 17 year olds can own automatic rifles and kill their classmates in large numbers. I do not believe now is the time for the discussion on gun control as it is disrespectful of the families of the victims and I also do not believe it is time for disregarding people's concerns over the matter, it is a time for grieving, not decision making, that can wait until after all the victims have been buried. When a discussion is to be had regarding what the constitutional right should entail, it should be done dispassionately and with cool heads. I don't see that from our politicians, instead I see both sides whipping up their followers into a frenzy and that is what disgusts me at the moment.