Submarines, Drugs, Soda, and Cigarettes

You may have noticed my "Country Profile" yesterday. I've decided to do a series of those, which I'll disperse intermittently among my other posts. It's a good way for you and me to learn a little bit more about the world we live in. After all, who doesn't want to know more about countries like Eritrea, Azerbaijan, Andorra, and Brunei? Sounds interesting to me.

Yesterday I ran across an article in Time called "The Cocaine Wars: Invasion of the Drug Submarines." Wow. So, it's been fairly common knowledge that narco-traffickers have been using semi-submersibles for a while to move drugs from one location to another, and I feel like I've heard something about drug smuggling submarines before, but never to this scale. In February the Colombian military found a 70 foot long submarine near the Pacific coast of Colombia, and seven months prior to that the DEA helped the Colombian military find a 100 foot submarine, also on the Pacific coast of Colombia.

I've never built a submarine before, but I don't feel like it's extremely easy. Both submarines had special pipes that poke above the surface for air ventilation and exhaust, but they can cut their engines and dive about 30 feet in order to avoid being seen. I imagine that it's only so long before they can build subs that don't need special ventilation pipes.

What's worrisome about all of this is that the number of drug shipments intercepted by law enforcement in semi-submersibles has plummeted in the last few years, and they have yet to catch any full submarines shipping products, which very likely means that there are fully operational subs that are successfully making voyages between Colombia and Mexico and even the United States.

Troubling.

What if we caught a Chinese, Russian, or Iranian sub in our sovereign waters? It would be quite an incident. I doubt it would cause a war (unless that sub attacked us), but I know relations between us and whichever country put a sub in our waters would be very precarious for some time thereafter. But, what happens if we find a narco-trafficker sub in our waters? We catch it, try and get information from the individuals on board, and that's it. There is no country it belongs to, which means that the people running these don't have the same political or diplomatic incentives to not run these vessels right into our harbors. That won't do.

Here's the good news: I have a lot of confidence in the DEA, Coast Guard, Border Patrol, and other organizations that are dealing with this, and I believe that they are doing as much as possible to ensure our safety.

Speaking of our safety: I ran across this article in the LA Times about the soda tax, and how it won't actually work to edit people's choice of beverage based on some studies over the years. While that article is interesting and has it's own merits, I'm not really here to talk about the effectiveness of behavior modifying taxes. I'm here to talk about the validity of behavior modifying taxes. So, the government doesn't like smoking. In fact, many, many people don't like smoking. We decide it's not only bad for the users, but also for those in the vicinity of the users. We decide something must be done, it must be stopped. What would you do if you saw some one shooting people and taking the money in their wallets? You would stop them, right? You would at least call the police, and expect the police to stop them. I'll tell you what you probably wouldn't do. You probably wouldn't go up to the shooter, and tell him he can keep shooting people and taking their money as long as he gives you some of the from each wallet. Oh, moral qualms? Don't worry. A portion of that money (at least, initially) will be given to some of the families of the victims as well as to research organizations devoted to gathering more information on the harmful attributes of getting shot, as well potential cures for that particular ailment. Ridiculous, you say? But, that's what we're doing. We have decided that cigarettes are bad for you. Better yet, cigarettes kill. So, having decided that they are harmful to the population, we have allowed their sale and use to continue as long as we get a cut of the "blood money."

That's one way to look at it, and holds enough merit all by itself, but let's take another step back so we can see the entire picture. Who am I to tell you that you cannot smoke, or should not smoke, and as a result I'm going to take some of the money that you would otherwise use towards that end? Yes, clearly a significant portion of cigarette users suffer from lung cancer and other ailments, but what products aren't potentially harmful to a significant portion of the population? Food: a lot of it is unhealthy, and how many Americans suffer from obesity? A lot of them do. Cars: car accidents (and pollution). Airplanes: crashes, hijackings, and more pollution. Clothes: support sweat shops and potential slave labor in other countries. Guns: they're guns, right? Energy efficient light bulbs: have mercury in them, and if they break, you could suffer mercury poisoning. The list goes on and on and on.

Basically, I have no right to tell you not to purchase any of those things. Therefore, I should have no right to tax any of them extra based on my perception of how dangerous or evil they are. So, picture yourself. You're at the top of a lucrative industry. Some people have questioned the safety or healthiness of your products, but you're okay with that. You're making a lot of money. Suddenly, an exploratory committee declares your product to be unsafe to the public, files a lawsuit against you for billions of dollars, and places a tax on your product from here on out. You, my friend, have just been robbed. But, no one can arrest the perpetrator, and no one can stop it from happening again.

Welcome to America.

Country Profile: Equatorial Guinea

Equatorial Guinea: what an interesting place. A fairly small country, it's sandwiched between Cameroon and Gabon on the West coast of Africa just south of the equator. As you can see on the little map, the capital of the country is Malabo on a little island called Isla de Bioko.

One of the things that fascinates me about this country is that the official languages are French and Spanish. How awesome is that? The small country of around 650,000 inhabitants also happens to be very rich in oil, and has a decent GDP per capita, but unfortunately the vast majority of the population lives in abject poverty while the president, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, and his cronies maintain control of almost all of the money.

There are also human rights issues. Obiang's security forces have been known to conduct extrajudicial killings, kidnappings, detainments, and torture on a fairly regular basis. Obiang, who hails as a devout Catholic, is also outwardly declared a deity by his more avid supporters; a declaration that he does not dispute.

Personally, it reminds me of North Korea, but warmer and not so closed to the outside world.

In fact, it's not very closed at all. Equatorial Guinea enjoys a close relationship with the United States, and US Citizens are the only foreigners allowed to enter the country without a visa. The relationship between the US and Equatorial Guinea is characterized by the Department of State as "positive and constructive."

While we're heavily involved in trade with this small nation, but I haven't heard of or read anything that would indicate that we are trying very hard to influence Obiang to make major changes. Of course, why would we? Most Americans don't even know this country exists, and it's not like it's the only one with problems. Besides, what is our influence going to do? Is a man like Obiang going to loosen his grip on power just because we very nicely suggest that he does? And then, why focus so directly on Equatorial Guinea when there are so many other countries that need the same kind of attention? All good questions, but I would still like to see some effort there. I would like to see some change. Perhaps we're on the right path in that we're at least closely involved with them in trade. Or, does that kind of thing only encourage (and fund) the current ruler so that he can continue to abuse and oppress his people?

I would love to hear what you think, and if anyone has been to or knows more about Equatorial Guinea, please let me know. I would really like to learn more, myself.

Budget Watch: Countdown 2011

How did you like that title? If you were watching TV right now, those words would be crashing through some glass or something and slamming into the background with dramatic music. Maybe throw in a stop watch, a graph, and a dollar sign in there too.

But seriously. Am I the only one wondering why we're not seeing copious coverage of budget negotiations in Congress? Well, I did some digging, and found this story in the Wall Street Journal where it mentions that Congress will be returning from a week long recess on Monday to resume budget talks as well as other issues.

Firstly, what were they doing during the week long recess? I want to believe that all of them were pounding their heads together until deficit money starts falling out of their ears, but that seems a little hopeful.

Secondly, recess or not, where are all the big proposals and ideas that should be coming from all over Washington about how we can fix this? Let me reemphasize what I've written on here before: we, the people of the United States, are in the hole by over 14 trillion dollars, and we're scheduled to dig over 1.5 trillion dollars deeper in the next year. Tell me you don't want to be responsible for that debt. Tell me you don't want your children and grandchildren to be responsible for that debt. Now, wake up, because responsible or not, that's who will likely be held responsible: our kids, and their kids, and their kids.

But, what will fix this? I'm constantly running across articles that say, "Now is not the time to spend less. Now, of all times, is the time to spend more, while we get the economy back on track, and once it's back on track we can spend less!"

I'm not going to lie. I don't have a PhD in economics or finance. I don't have a masters degree. I don't even have a bachelors degree. I recently enrolled at the University of Phoenix, where I should start taking classes in August. Let me say this: I didn't choose the school because of it's prestigious reputation or rigorous academia. So, due to my extensive lack of education I may be off track here, but I think that spending more at a a time like this is lunacy. Is it just "too complex" a concept for me to grasp? Is that what I should believe? You can't oversimplify it and compare it to personal finances or anything. Is that it? I don't know what they want us to think, but I think most things can be simplified to how they would play out at a personal level. I, as an individual, should not spend one and a half times what I make each year, especially when I'm up to my ears in debt. Wars can be compared to personal combat. Don't hit random people for no reason. Don't let people draw you into fights for no reason. If you have to fight (and if you've decided you must, it had better be serious), hit the enemy as hard as you can where it hurts most. Don't enter a fight without willing to get hurt, because it will happen. There are more examples, but I feel like I've made my point.

I want to go back to the one week recess Congress just took. Do you know how much members of congress make per year? Apparently, as of 2011, it's $174,000 per year. Awesome. Well, I can just forget about all this and come to grips with the fact that we must be in good hands because we're paying these guys good money to run our country.

Sorry, I didn't mean to get so sarcastic back there, but what can I do? Who is in charge of Congress' pay? Congress is. How can we fight the corruption: term limits? Who is in charge of that? Oh yeah, Congress is. Well, what else can we do?

We can vote. We can vote for people who will stop robbing us blind, and will start representing us in a responsible manner. Other than that, we're running out of options.

The Art of War

Therefore one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the most skillful. Seizing the enemy without fighting is the most skillful.


This passage from Sun Tzu's The Art of War sums up what I want to say here. What are we doing now? 

A lot of people are criticizing the Obama administration for our involvement in Libya. Why have we chosen to get involved there when killing of innocent civilians by their own governments occurs throughout Africa, and around the world? 


Does it have anything to do with oil? Well, let's look at some of the facts. Based on this list on Wikipedia Libya ranks ninth in the world for oil reserves making up about 3.38% of the world's oil share. As a comparison, Sudan ranks 20th in the world for oil reserves, with a share of about .49%. 


Somehow, I don't think that's the main reason we're involved. Only 5% of Libyan oil ends up in the US, and a whopping 32% ends up in  Italy, which has the largest share of Libyan oil. France, which seems like the biggest proponent of operations in Libya, gets 10% of Libyan oil, but gets most of it's oil from Norway, Saudi Arabia, Russia, and the United Kingdom. Do you think, maybe, the Italians are behind all this? Me neither. 


Who remembers Operation Desert Fox? I'm going to guess that the answer is "almost no one." 


Let's take a look back in history. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice when he lied about Monica Lewinsky. He was later acquitted by the Senate, and went on to finish his second term as President.


Why is this relevant? Clinton was impeached on December 19, 1998. Operation Desert Fox was a bombing campaign conducted against Iraq from December 16 to December 19, 1998. The justification for the attack was Saddam Hussein's failure to comply with UN Security Council resolutions, as well as his interference with UN inspectors. The stated goal was to disrupt Saddam's grip on power. But, did it? No, not at all, and why would it? Cruise missiles and bombs landing on random anti-aircraft platforms, barracks, research facilities, and one or two of Saddam's palaces accomplishes little besides very temporary physical damage, unless there are planned follow-on operations, which there were not. And, here's some interesting information: it's not like Saddam just started breaking rules in 1998. He had been consistently violating mandates imposed against him on weapons testing, WMD development, and the no-fly zone since almost right after Operation Desert Storm. Why suddenly bomb Iraq for four days in December?


I'm not the first person to say it, and I may not be the last, but there clearly seems to be some sort of correlation between the impeachment and Operation Desert Fox. I think it was a distraction. Can I prove that was the motive behind the decisions made to take that action? Absolutely not. But, that seems like an incredibly plausible, and logical explanation. 


So, what does that have to do with Operation Odyssey Dawn? Could this just be another distraction? What would the administration be distracting us from? The President does not seem to be in danger of being impeached any time soon. Maybe it's to distract us from the state of the economy and budget talks. If we have this operation in place to take down an evil dictator, maybe people won't be focused on economic conditions, or concerned about the budget. Does that sound plausible? Well, let's go to the polls. According to Gallup 47% of Americans approve of US military action in Libya, while 37% disapprove. Sounds like a decent approval rate. Of course, that's the lowest approval rate for undertaking any military action (according to Gallup) out of 10 other military operations conducted in the last 20 years, including Grenada, Haiti, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan. But, frankly, the action in Libya has a higher approval rate than I would have expected. 


There are a lot of unanswered questions. Why are we involved militarily with Libya, but in Darfur all we could seem to do was "raise awareness?" Why do we want to stop Gaddafi from killing his people, but we weren't concerned about the 800,000 or more innocent people who were slaughtered in Rwanda from April to July, 1994? 


The easiest link to pinpoint is oil, but while that may be part of the answer, it's more complicated than that. Much of it goes back to our support of Israel. We first started selling arms in the form of aircraft to Israel in 1966. As the entire Middle East saw Israel as an enemy, the US then fell into the awkward category of "frenemy." We were a nation which supported the people that the Arabs and Persians hated most, but we bought a lot of their oil. So began the complicated dance of trying to maintain close enough relations to do business while juggling military operations, covert influence, and not to mention the long lasting tension with the Soviet Union, much of which occurred by proxy through support and undermining of various nations in the Middle East.


Here's what I think. I don't know all the reasons and motives for our involvement in Libya. I'm not really sure whether I can say with complete confidence that I do or do not support our actions there. I can say that I agree with our attacks in Afghanistan, that began in October 2002, just under a month after Al-Qaida


My friends, the cost of doing business in the Middle East has risen steadily in the last 50 years. Bombings, kidnappings, wars, and genocides. What are we waiting for? Is there a straw that will break the camel's back? We are an enemy because we're visible. We're there. We're involved. I call for an end in business relations in the region. It's time to drill in Alaska. I've talked about this plan before. The sooner we can depend on our own oil the better. And we don't have to depend on our oil alone. What's the number one nation we import oil from? It's Canada. Number two is Mexico. 


Ladies and gentlemen, many would argue that the best art is subtle. Sun Tzu argues that the art of war, when practiced diligently, is subtle. We can defeat these threats to our way of life that seem to pop up in the Middle East without end, but we have to realign our position and relationship with the region entirely.


Marksmen must learn many things in order to shoot accurately. Marines, who must qualify by shooting accurately with iron sites (no scope) at 200, 300, and 500 yards, are taught not to move the rifle with their hands or arms when trying to line up the target with the sites, but instead to realign their bodies. In this way the rifle has a solid platform, which is lined up perfectly behind the force of the action, giving the Marine the most accurate shot. 


It's time for us to realign. We can't keep dealing with these situations with just our arms (pun intended). We need to change our entire position, so that we can shoot accurately. 

Working For Free

I came across this article on CNN about a new wave of people working for companies for free in order to get experience, resume bullets, or simply a better chance at getting a job at their respective companies.

The article talks about how people are hurting for money and jobs, and therefore some rolling the dice, hoping for a good outcome with the free work situation. Beats doing nothing.

It's also a boost to the companies they're working for. What's cheaper than free?

You may have heard the phrase, "There's no such thing as a free lunch." The article goes on to explain that the companies are opening themselves up to the possibility of lawsuits when they allow employees to work for them for free, and then there's the government. Since zero dollars per hour falls well below minimum wage, investigators from the Labor Department could be going after a lot of companies that are using these tactics.

Unfortunate.

I have to say, I've never believed in a minimum wage, and this is one of the reasons why. A free market works more smoothly when products and services are exchanged at a rate which the market can bear. Right now, apparently, the market can bear "free." We're adults here. If I'm willing to work for free because I put value in the experience I'm going to get, I should have the right to do so. If I'm a company that wants to pay my employees nothing, I have the right to put that out there. If people work for me, awesome. If not, I raise my salary offerings until people are willing to work for me. We're worried about the little guy. I can totally understand that, but the little guy doesn't have to take a job where he's getting paid nothing. No one does. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that most companies aren't going to get to pay their employees nothing, at least not the bulk of their employees. But, what a great opportunity to get more production, while giving workers much needed experience while demonstrating their individual work ethics. As I said before, it beats doing nothing. The current system encourages people to do nothing. Don't have a job? Just sign up for unemployment. A lot of people do the right thing when they're unemployed: they look for jobs non-stop. But, unfortunately, a lot of people take advantage, and avoid getting a job.

What about deflation? I don't know. I hear deflation is bad. I don't like it when my tires deflate, so I'm going to agree that deflation sounds pretty bad. If we were an isolated society, maybe it wouldn't be so bad, but if deflation involves the devaluation of our currency against other currencies, I can see how that would be totally bad. I can already see Europeans sweeping in by the thousands, buying our cars, and whatever else they think is cool.

Please, some one with an economic background let me know if I'm on track with this deflation thing.

Now, let's get into a grayer area: child labor. What do you think about child labor? Most people seem to think it's pretty bad. I would have loved to work as a child. Actually, I got my first job at the age of 15. I was a janitor. But, given the opportunity, I think I would have started working when I was about eight years old. That's when I started to feel like it might be nice to have my own spending money. I believe it's a good way to cultivate a good work ethic, while someone how to save, and use money from an early age. When you're a child, there's no such thing as credit. You can't spend money you don't have. If you earned 50 dollars mowing lawns in a week, and you spend those 50 dollars, you can't put another 12 dollars on the ol' credit card for movie tickets. You just don't go to the movies.

Okay. Yes, I know there's a way bigger issue at hand here. What about people who will take advantage of children? They might make them work late, or in unsafe conditions. They may make them work at a detriment to their studies, and so on. What if parents make their kids work? What if the parents isn't even working, and makes the child work? This is what I have to say about that. Most states seem to allow kids to start working at the age of 15. They typically have pretty strict rules about how many hours they can do, how late they can work, what jobs they can do, etc. Just drop the age a few more years, and extend those same laws, maybe making them a little more strict as the age gets lower. And yes, there will be bad situations, but there already are. People who are willing to illegally employ children already do.

This is kind of a touchy topic, and I definitely understand why the other side is in place. I just wish I had had the opportunity to start working earlier, and I think our youth deserve that opportunity as well.

What do you think?

Stolen Valor Act

The Stolen Valor Act was a Federal law that prohibited anyone from falsely claiming to have served in the military under penalty of jail time and fines. At first glance, it seems like a good law, one that I can get behind. No one should claim to have been in the military when he wasn't, right? Of course.

Well, at second glance, it's kind of unconstitutional. That's why I have to give props to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals for overturning the law in this case involving a man named Xavier Alvarez who claimed to have served in the Marine Corps for 25 years, and to have received the Medal of Honor. Neither of these claims were true.

I'm not going to lie. I want to see this guy go to jail. Apparently, he's in jail for defrauding the Three Valleys Municipal Water District in Claremont, Califorinia, where he was a board member. So, I guess that he got what he deserved, but had he not gone to jail, I hope he would have at least lost his job or something. That probably sounds a little vindictive.

Anyway, I'm always happy to see people defending our constitutional rights.

400 Pound Marathon Runner

I had to write about this. This guy, Kelly Gneiting, ran the LA Marathon this year, and he weighs 400 pounds.

Granted, he trotted at the beginning, and at some point transitioned to a brisk walk, and later a slow walk, but still! He finished in nine hours, 48 minutes, and 52 seconds. Slow, but he finished, which is better than most people.

Anyway, if he can run 26.2 miles, weighing at 400 pounds, then I'm pretty sure you can get out there and exercise for half an hour today. Maybe an hour. I don't know. See what you can do.

What You Need And What You Deserve

I know that I write a lot about financial/economic topics, but there just seems to be so much to say regarding all of it.

I want to say a little bit today about what you need vs. what you deserve, because I think that we're beginning to blur the lines between the two.

I need food and water to live. To some degree I also need shelter and clothing, and from time to time I may need medical care. In order to get these things, unless I'm living under someone else's care, I need to pay for them. For that I need money, which I can work for, steal, or be given by the government or some other entity. There are other options, such as living in the forest and hunting, building a log cabin, and so forth, but let's stick to what applies to most people in America right now.

So, I need money. I deserve food. I deserve a place to sleep. I at least deserve to have enough money to live, right? I don't think so. Like everyone else, I deserve what I earn, which depends on what the market can bear. We have come to believe that our need constitutes our right to something. It doesn't, and let me start explaining this with an analogy.

You and I live in the forest. In order to survive we have to forage and hunt for food, build our shelter, and find ways to provide warmth such as fire, and deer hides. You spend all day building a log cabin, and hunting, and collecting firewood. I spend all day sleeping on a pile of leaves. Now it's dinner time, and the deer that you killed is roasting nicely over the fire you built in front of the cabin you built. And, I'm hungry. So, I explain that I deserve to sit by your fire and eat your food and sleep in your cabin. Do you think I do? You might let me if we're related or good friends or even if you don't know me, but take pity on me. At this point, though, doesn't it seem a little bit ridiculous that I claim to deserve to take what's yours? Certainly, I can always ask for help, but do you have an obligation to give me that help? Well, maybe you don't want to. Maybe you only have enough deer for yourself. Maybe you have been working all day, and you know you deserve to enjoy every last ounce of that deer meat, so even though you have extra you don't share.

Let's take it a step further. There are hundreds of people like me, just sleeping on piles of leaves in the forest while you work hard to survive. At this point you've perfected your craft, and you not only survive; you thrive. You have all the deer, squirrel, and wild boar you could ask for. You have a two room cabin, complete with a wood burning stove, and a pump from a well. You might have even planted some corn out back. But, look on the bright side. It's enough to feed all of us, right? But, what right do we have to take your food? Maybe we can't work. Some of us are injured. Or, perhaps some of us can work, but we're looking for forest jobs that fit our station. After all, before I came to this forest I was a forest village planner. I'm much too far along in my career to go back to carrying firewood. Surely, until another forest village planner position opens up you can afford to give up some food every now and then to make sure I survive. I need that food to survive anyway, and you don't, because you have more than enough for yourself. So, who really deserves it?

Let's take it one step further. Now there's a king of the forest. He cares about his forest people, and doesn't want to see any of them starve. He's tired of seeing certain forest people (such as yourself) hogging so many resources, holding on to so much food and firewood when there are so many others who are too weak to even get up from their pile of leaves. So, the forest king sends his men to take half of all your food to give to the other forest people. Is that okay? You worked for that, and now it's being taken from you, to be given to those who don't work. And, what are you going to do about it? Even if you do continue to produce more than average, you're probably not going to work quite as hard, knowing that so much of what you make is going to be taken from you anyway. It's no longer worth it. You have been robbed of your goods, and therefore robbed of your incentive to create goods.

Well, that's what we're doing. The "fat cats" have so much, and they don't need it. CEOs are overpaid. They don't need all that money. Supposedly, the 400 richest people in the nation have more money than the poorest half of the nation. What are they going to do with all that money? They don't need it. Well, let's start with this: they've already given up at least a third of it. For those making over $379,150 per year, they are paying 35% in federal taxes. That's not even counting any state or municipal taxes. It's not like the people who make more money aren't paying more. Even if there was a flat tax, and we all paid the same percentage, like 10%, for instance, the people who make the most would still be paying the most. If I make $45,000 this year, and you make $150,000 this year, that means that I'd be paying the federal government $4,500, and you'd be paying $15,000 (at a rate of 10%). Currently, if I make 45k and you make 150k, I'll actually be paying about $5,606 in federal taxes, and you'll be paying a whopping $34,113. We're obviously not taking into account exemptions, deductions, capital gains/loss, etc. That's interesting. You make about three times as much money as I do, but you pay at least six times as much as I do in taxes. Is that fair? Well, it's not like you need that extra money, right? When you went to college, and grad school, and worked your way towards the top in a competitive and challenging professional environment, you weren't concerned about how you would be compensated, right? And, after all, it's not like you need to save up a lot for retirement. That's why we have Social Security. You don't need a "nest egg."

Have I made my point? Regardless of what I need, I have no right to take it from you, whether directly or indirectly. I'm not advocating that we ignore the needs of others. Charity is awesome. Helping those in need is also awesome. Taking money you earn and giving it to someone else who has not earned it is not sustainable. It hurts production, which hurts the overall pool of resources that are available, hurting everyone in the economy. Now, I'm not advocating that we do away with taxes entirely. Governments exist for the purpose of protecting and organizing their people. That costs money, and anyone who wants to live under those benefits should pay for them, but when we start giving money to special interest groups, or any kind of welfare, we shoot ourselves in the foot.

Clearly, I have a lot to say about this, and I would like to say a lot more, but I'm afraid I'm out of time for the moment. Thanks for reading.

Blogging

As you may have noticed, nothing got posted yesterday.

I've been fairly busy, and am actually fairly busy today, so I don't have much to say.

I do want to say "Thank you" to everyone who has been visiting, reading, and sharing my blog. I definitely aprpecaite it, and as always, am happy to get comments, questions, or feedback.

Thanks for tuning in.

Marines Helping Egyptians

I feel like this one fell below the media radar, for the most part: Marines Airlift 45 Egyptians Home From Tunisia.

This was the eleventh such flight conducted by US Marines, bringing the total number of Egyptians evacuated from the Tunisia/Libya border area to 835. Basically, these were Egyptian citizens in Libya, who fled to Tunisia, who we are now helping. I'm not sure what the general public opinion on this is (or would be if it were more publicized), but I like it.

Egypt has begun a new chapter. In the opening paragraph of said chapter we were less than perfect in our support of the new movement. But, I have to give the administration props for this action, and actions do speak louder than words. Now let's get the word out. I hope that this is being very publicly reported in Egypt, and if not, someone should get on that.

Besides being good for continuing relations between our nations, I think this is just generally a good thing for us to do. It's the kind of thing I can easily see us doing for Canadians, Australians, or Brits. To me it says, "You're a partner." Partner. Doesn't that sound nice? I really like the sound of that, and I'm not even the one getting told that. But still, doesn't it just give you this warm feeling inside?

Partners.

Needless to say, no one knows what will happen in the Middle East in the coming months, years, or decades. But, I think we're taking some of the right steps towards better stability. We just have to be smart, and intentional on how we deal with Libya. Whether we should have gotten involved with Libya militarily or not, it's kind of too late to go back on. From here we have to make sure that action is short and deliberate, or the conflict there may become civil war that could last for years. Remind you of anywhere?

It reminds me of Somalia: one of the most tumultuous countries in the world is now a breeding ground for extremists and Pirates who already present a threat to anyone who comes within 1000 miles of the area, as well as a threat to our own national security in the form of occasional extremists who attempt to carry out action against us on our soil.

We have perfect examples in history, both recent and not so recent of what not to do. Hopefully the decision makers will take that into account as they create and implement policy throughout the Middle East, and the world.

Fitness Talk

Happy Saturday! And, welcome to Fitness Talk With Paul!

I hope everyone just envisioned game show music and lights, with maybe a canned audience, because if not, I have no idea how that first line could make any sense.

So, as I may have mentioned in past posts, I tend to run from time to time. In past years I tended to run all the time, but now it's not so often. After I got out of the Marine Corps I found that I was having trouble with my hip, which continued to get worse as I continued to behave like the Energizer Bunny. As a result, I had to stop running for 6 to 9 months. Therefore, as I am starting up again, I am finding it quite difficult to get back into the swing of things.

Well, I thought back to when I first started running regularly, and I decided this might be something worth sharing. As I've stated before, I believe that we are in a sad state of fitness as Americans, and so I'm happy to do whatever I need to in order to help change that.

I started Marine Corps Boot Camp on March 14, 2005. I had signed up to go on February 16, and a few days before that I had decided that I should start running, if I was serious about this whole Marine Corps thing.

Side note: You'll find that most Marines say, "When I was in the Marine Corps," as opposed to "When I was in the Marines." I think it's a cultural thing; something about the formality of "Marine Corps," I think it condones more respect. Anyway.

I remember that first run, vividly. It was about 40 of 50 degrees, and I wore sweats, since that was about as cold as the Dallas winter got, and I didn't want to freeze to death. I set out to run an ambitious two and a half miles, but I ran a total of 1.23 miles before turning around and walking back. I'll tell you what it felt like. It felt like dying. It felt like I was breathing nails. It felt like my legs were made of pudding. It felt like there was an anvil resting on my chest. It felt like I had to quit and never run again. And, I probably would have if I didn't have a good reason to keep running: I didn't want to die in boot camp. More realistically, I didn't want to get sent home. I didn't want to have drill instructors breathing fire down my neck, telling me that I was the slowest life form they had ever laid eyes on, and that if I didn't speed up, they were going to break me into little pieces, and sell me for parts. Who does that? Drill instructors do, that's who.

So, I persisted. Even though I felt like I would never walk again, much less run, I went on a two or three mile run with some other prospective recruits, who were much faster than I was, but I had to keep up, and somehow I did for most of the run, until they left me behind. After that I ran every other day, right up until two days before I left Dallas for Marine Corps Recruit Depot, San Diego. My last distance before leaving: five and a half miles. I still wasn't incredibly fast, but over the years I improved in speed and endurance, and have now run four full marathons.

I say all this, not to brag, but hopefully as inspiration. You have to understand that February 2005 was not the first time that I ever "started" running. I can remember to at least three or four other times in my life prior to that where I had tried to start running. The most serious I ever got about it was my junior or senior year of high school. I decided one day that I was going to wake up at 6:00 a.m., go running, come home and lift weights, and then shower before going to school each day. Day one and two: success. Day three: my alarm went off, I took about three steps away from my bed, turned around, dived back under the covers, and set my alarm for 7:45 (enough time to make it to school by 8:15). Getting enough sleep was certainly a huge part of the equation in that situation, but I wish I had realized how worth while it would have been to keep trying.

So, now, to those of you who have tried and given up, who have never tried, or who were once in shape, but are now finding it hard to get the motivation to get back in it, I have something to say. I'll tell you what I would say to my younger self: keep trying. It is worth it. You're not good at running/swimming/push ups/pull ups/weight lifting now, but no one is starting out. You have to keep at it, and it takes time, a lot of time. It will be worth it. If you don't quit, you'll look back and be proud of what you've accomplished. If you have the ability to exercise, be thankful for that, and take advantage of it.

Defunding NPR

The House of Representatives voted on Thursday to cease funding National Public Radio.

The bill has yet to make its way through the Democrat controlled Senate, and the President could always veto it, so don't hold your breath. That is to say, if you're not cool with your tax dollars going to the NPR, don't hold your breath. If you're all about it, then sigh in relief, because I kind of doubt that this one will make it all the way through.

In the big scheme of things it's not that much money. The federal government provides the NPR with about $60 million pear year, which apparently only accounts for about 2% of the NPR budget. That being said, I believe that one dollar per year is too much. Even 50 cents per year is too much, which is nearly what that amount comes out to per tax payer. The fact of the matter is, there are plenty of other news organizations available, none of which I have to pay for. It makes sense for the government to provide services that private industry can't provide as effectively if at all. Take roads, for instance. We need roads, and they're an important part of our infrastructure and economy. Letting the government organize and pay for our roads makes complete sense, and it's one area I'm happy to pay for with my taxes. I use roads every day, and so do the vast majority of Americans.

I do not, on the other hand, listen to NPR every day, or almost ever for that matter. And if I do, that's my choice. But, I can just as easily get my news from CNN, BBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, Al-Jazeera, Reuters, or the Daily Show with John Stewart, and I don't have to pay for those, and neither do you.

It just doesn't make sense for us to spend any amount of money on anything that's not completely necessary. NPR is a luxury. Don't get attached to spending your money on things you don't need when you have to save money. We have to save money.

I haven't even gotten into the "ethics" of endorsing NPRs message with our Federal Dollars. Let me start with this. I don't think it is ethical. Journalism is a profession fraught with bias. Some journalists attempt to avoid bias, some do not, but it is always present. I just don't think it's right that our tax dollars should fund an organization that presents itself as unbiased (which no organization can truly be), and comments on government and international issues. It creates the perception that NPR is endorsed by the Federal Government, and perhaps by the American people.

I believe this is unacceptable, and I have this challenge for the NPR: Don't avoid this loss of funding. Embrace it. This is your opportunity to stand on your own two feet and become a real news organization, which relies on quality of reporting to attract viewers instead of some kind of governmental blessing.

It is possible that I'm off base on this one, but I feel like I'm being pretty reasonable. What do you think? Should we continue to fun NPR and other non-necessities? Why, or why not?

Financial Education

I've written on here before about the areas in which the US education system needs improvement. Financial education was one of those areas, and I believe that the shortcomings in that area are evidenced by the state of our economy as well as the financial state of the average US household.

I'm not going to get into the statistics, but we have quite a bit of debt at the household level. What are our children and grandchildren learning from all this? Hopefully they're learning from our mistakes. Hopefully they'll be "rebels" who don't spend what they don't have.

I don't believe that we should just hope that this is the case, though. It comes down to training. Why does our education system find it important to teach kids algebra and geometry, but not finance? Is finding x, learning about sin, cosin, and tangent, and memorizing the Pythagorean Theorem really more important than understanding the intricacies of interest on loans, or investment strategies? Why is chemistry considered more important than knowing how to conduct basic banking? I've got an answer. It's not.

The crazy thing about all this is that a basic financial education isn't even that difficult to give. Two semesters of high school can be devoted to it, and everyone who takes it seriously can take an educated and confident approach to handling money.

And, let's face it. At the rate our individual and collective debts are rising, the next generation is not only going to have to avoid making the same mistakes. It will have to correct many of ours.

Let's assume some responsibility, and at least have the decency to equip our youth with the tools and understanding they'll need to fix the financial mess we're handing them.

Do The Best Articles Always Begin With Questions?

No.

But it sure seems like a good way to draw in a reader, right? It usually gets me, and I tend to use it fairly often as well.

News article titles are more important than ever these days. While titles have always been at least somewhat useful in drawing in a reader, in the days of news papers, the only title that mattered much was the biggest front page article. By the time the reader saw the other headlines, the newspaper was likely in hand, and the reader was likely to read whatever sections tended to gather his interest. That's still not to say that the titles didn't matter at all.

But, let's compare it to today. Many articles online are only advertised by the title, especially when using Google News or other sites that pool articles from various news sources. The reader, therefore, has to gather from the title what the article is about, how interesting it is, how relevant it is, how current it is, and whether it's a better use of time to read that article rather than the other 500 articles covering the exact same subject. That is a lot to convey with one title. Granted, there are other factors at work here. The source of the article can be taken into account, and that is usually displayed below the title. A lot of these sites use data about the user to personalize the kinds of articles that are displayed to read, which improves the chance of reaching the reader with something to his taste.

So, are writers and news outlets taking these facts into consideration in order to ensure the maximum number of readers? I don't know. Let's check.

Genius that I am, I haven't figured out how to grab parts of my screen and save them as JPG so that I can transfer them to this blog, so I'll do it the old fashioned way. I've copy/pasted the list in a text format, and put them at the bottom of this post, because when I tried to put them in the middle it messed up my format.

Let's look at some key articles:

 'Saturday Night Live' recap: Zach Galifianakis, bursting with wit, energy, and ...


Dead Men Risen: The snipers' story

Clues to Gluten Sensitivity


 What do you think? Do they grab you? My vote is "no" on the first one. Dead men risen looks somewhat interesting. Clues to Gluten Sensitivity seems like it would only appeal to those who have gluten sensitivity, though that's not to say that I wouldn't click on it at all. It would just be a last resort after I had already checked out the others. 


I'm going to be real, though. None of this seems very interesting to me at the moment, so it can't be that interesting to you.

Let me know.


Lame list:

'Saturday Night Live' recap: Zach Galifianakis, bursting with wit, energy, and ...

Entertainment Weekly

 - Ken Tucker - ‎Mar 13, 2011‎

The Famous Meet Gory Ends In 'How They Croaked'

NPR

 - Georgia Bragg - ‎Mar 12, 2011‎

Clues to Gluten Sensitivity

Wall Street Journal (blog)

 - Melinda Beck -‎Mar 14, 2011‎

Japan Earthquake 2011: Devastating Photos Of The Wreckage

Huffington Post

 - ‎Mar 12, 2011‎

Sayings of Chairman Maobama

New York Post

 - ‎Mar 13, 2011‎

Two Dogs Defy the Wave

Wall Street Journal

 - Daisuke Wakabayashi,Eric Bellman - ‎Mar 14, 2011‎

Owsley Stanley dies at 76; 'Acid King' of the '60s psychedelic era

Los Angeles Times

 - Elaine Woo - ‎Mar 15, 2011‎

Dead Men Risen: The snipers' story

Telegraph.co.uk

 - Toby Harnden - ‎Mar 13, 2011‎

A Superhero Scrubs the Air: The Mighty Houseplant

Wall Street Journal

 - Gwendolyn Bounds -‎Mar 14, 2011‎

Lost city of Atlantis, swamped by tsunami, may be found

Reuters

 - Zach Howard, Barbara Goldberg -‎Mar 12, 2011‎

Last Defense at Troubled Reactors: 50 Japanese Workers

New York Times

 - Keith Bradsher, Hiroko Tabuchi -‎21 hours ago‎

How the highly effective habits of millionaires could help you

The Federal Budget

I am sure that most of you have heard at least something about the budget in the last couple of days.

Apparently on Tuesday, March 15th (yesterday) the House of Representatives voted again to provide enough money to keep the government running for three more weeks.

Is anyone else getting deja vu? Is it just me, or did this happen like a week or two ago already? Apparently our current debt limit is around $14.3 trillion, which according to the Treasury Department, we may reach by next month, at which point we would have to shut down the government unless congress raises that limit before April 8th (or whenever they want, since they appear to just continue to extend these temporary budgets every two or three weeks).

It appears to me that a very large portion of our government has gone from doing a bad job to just not doing it's job at all. And all of this over 50 to 100 billion dollars in cuts. The republicans are pushing for around 100 billion, and the democrats want to cut about 50 billion. This year's deficit is expected to reach $1.65 trillion. So, with these cuts we're talking about pushing it to $1.6 or $1.55 trillion. It sounds like even if they do their jobs they won't be doing anything at all. That still puts us at well over $15 trillion in debt by the end of 2011. Let's work with numbers that make a little more sense. The current estimated US populations is 310,994,086. A $15 trillion debt comes out to about $48,000 per person. That's all the people in the United States, including children and those that don't pay taxes. Let's break this down even further. In 2003 about 130 million Americans paid federal income tax. Let's bump that number up to 140 million for today's purposes. That ends up being over $107,000 per tax payer. That is what you and I owe in federal debt. Forget about the state that you live in.

Who is okay with cutting a few programs? Better yet, who is not okay with just cutting $50 billion to $100 billion in programs for this year?

What do you think? I mean, it's only money, right?

Posting

It has come to my attention that I have not posted any blogs today.

Well, that has now been remedied.

By the way, it looks like Saudi Arabia has found it necessary to deploy at least 1,000 troops to Bahrain for.... peace keeping? I guess? Maybe?

Of course. And, I am sure that it has nothing to do with fear that protest and civil unrest in Bahrain might spark the same in Saudi Arabia. Surely, a country so close in government style and geography being swept by political change is of no concern to the Saudi Kingdom.

Anyway, regarding social security: I don't want anyone to think that I meant that those who have paid in to social security from years of their hard work are not getting it deservedly. I did want to point out that it's a bad program, and that many people are getting it undeservedly.

That's it for tonight.

Daylight Savings Time

Is it me, or does it feel like it's about 3:00 a.m.? Better yet, why was it so dark when I pulled up to work this morning? I'm going to go out on a limb and say it has something to do with Daylight Savings Time.

Does anyone else think that maybe it's time to move past this spring forward/fall back thing? It's like a game we play, where we pretend that the number we ascribe to the time of day will dictate when we do whatever it is we do. Can I be real? I kind of feel like we're losing that game.

How dark it was outside when I rolled into work this morning.

And, is anyone with me when I say that maybe we're too old to be playing these games? It's like an entire civilization that both believes in Santa Clause, and lets him make our schedule for us.

I don't know. Maybe I'm just being extreme. Speaking of extreme, check out this article. It's titled "Welfare State: Handouts Make Up One-Third of U.S. Wages."

Should I not get up on my soapbox this morning, considering how dark it is outside, and I might trip? You think "no," maybe? No? Okay, great, I will.

Maybe I won't, because I almost don't know what to say. Doubtlessly, someone will offer the defense that those are people who need it, and if we don't give them those hand outs, then they will be an even bigger drain on society when we have to scoop them off the street and give them meals and healthcare and rides and clothes.

And yes, I know, not all of those funds are going to people who don't have jobs. Many of those people did have jobs for many, many years, and they paid in to social security, and now they're getting it back, and it's a system we're a part of. Will you refuse to receive your social security benefits when you retire? Will I? I kind of doubt it.

I'm going to get slightly off topic and talk a little bit more about social security. How many people knew that social security is a Ponzi scheme? Disagree? Here is an introduction to what a Ponzi scheme is as per Wikipedia (yes, we are using that as a source now):

"A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to separate investors, not from any actual profit earned by the organization, but from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors. The Ponzi scheme usually entices new investors by offering returns other investments cannot guarantee, in the form of short-term returns that are either abnormally high or unusually consistent. The perpetuation of the returns that a Ponzi scheme advertises and pays requires an ever-increasing flow of money from investors to keep the scheme going."

In essence, social security is the perfect Ponzi scheme, since we all have to invest, and the institution we invest it to tells us how much we get back and when. But, the system is obviously not sustainable. The red numbers continue to grow larger, leaving no apparent way for us to continue paying out benefits in the future. Yet, we continue.

It was also a more effective Ponzi scheme at the advent of its creation in 1935 because the life expectancy for Americans at that time was 61.7 years, meaning most Americans were not expected to live to receive payouts in the first place, and most who did were not expected to receive payouts for very long. So, the implimentors of social security in the United States were knowingly taking money from working men and women with the intent to never give it back under the guise of a system built to help the eventual elderly. Disgraceful.

Too bad no one could even keep track of how to run it properly. By 1950 the average life expectancy for Americans had risen to 68.2 years. You may have noticed that it has risen fairly consistently since then, and as of 2008 it was at about 78.4. Now, they have since risen the age of full payout to 67, but you can start taking reduced payments at 62, which some financial experts would advise is actually better to do if you are still working during that time period and can put that money aside for later.

Well, I think I've talked enough about "silly games" that we all play. I mean, who knows. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Santa Clause is real, and this year he's bringing us around 13 trillion dollars of debt repayment money.

What do you think?

Weekend Update

It's Saturday. I'm sick. I've actually been sick all week, but I decided to take it easy this weekend so I can hopefully get back up to speed by Monday.

Couple of things, though:

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to take a look at my posts this week. Writing has been both fun, and useful in that now I can document and keep track of my various rants so that my wife doesn't have to hear them more than two or three times in a row anymore.

Have a great weekend, and tune in again on Monday!