Brought over from the old site - 8/3//06

In the 1960's & early 70's, NASA sent a series of missions to Mars (and Venus) under the Mariner program. Of the probes headed to Mars, Mariner 3 failed on launch, Mariner 4, 6 and 7 turned up craters. No Marianas Trench, no Olympus Mons, nothing...except a surface that looked like our moon. Then Mariner 8 had a second stage failure that ended the mission before it could ever reach Mars.

NASA just kept launching and looking. Then, Mariner 9 hit the jackpot. The valleys, the volcanoes what looked like ancient rivers....it was all there. Mariner 9 *is* the reason that kids, today, think they want to go to Mars.

Now think about our own times. If we had found nothing on 3 previous missions and had two failures, to boot, do you think that Congress would give NASA more funding to go on what is, to a casual observer, a wild goose chase? Would you be supportive of continued exploration in the face of these facts? What wonders still lie undiscovered simply because we gave up looking for them, too soon?

Brought over from the old site - 8/8//06

I was listening to the news, this morning, and heard that BP lost a fair chunk of its supply because of a corroded section of pipeline. Apparently it may take up to three months to repair.

It will be interesting to see, over those months, if BP's direct costs (buying oil, shipping it to refineries, etc.) go up. One would expect that the pipeline was being used because it was cost-effective. That being said, one would further expect that (normalizing for the quantity sold, of course) the cost of doing business (raw materials and shipping in particular) will rise and the profit margin will fall during this quarter. Perhaps not massively, but losing a pipeline that supplies 2% of all US oil consumption would certainly make a measurable impact.

Brought over from the old site - 8/21//06

What does it take to be a "good citizen" in a democracy? Following the laws? Sure. Voting? Yep. How about displaying the flag? Many people do that. One thing that I never hear mentioned, though, is talking about ideas. Fundamental to every decision making process in our nation is the discussion that precedes that decision. Knowing and understanding the various points of view that feed any debate is critical to arriving at the most ethical and mutually beneficial outcome. That understanding can only come from talking with our fellow citizens.

That said, too often we only converse with those that hold opinions similar to our own. Many of us view those that hold different views as "wrong", "our opponents" and "stupid". Think about the news, think about congressmen and women who have recently spoken about an issue, think about comments that you have made. Isn't it time that we start viewing each other as citizens, instead of opponents?

We would all do well to move outside of our comfort zone and talk with "those people". Find out why they think what they do. Tell them why you feel like you do. You may find that you agree on more than you think.

Brought over from the old site - 9/30/06

The two-party system that has come to be the norm for the United States has always been one of my least favorite aspects of our culture. It naturally polarizes groups of people, but recently that polarization has become more acute. Why is it that we feel that our views are unilaterally correct and our "opponents" are 100% wrong in all that they do? Such a position defies common sense, yet we cling to it. Do you ever ask yourself why that is? Do you ever ask anyone else?

Brought over from the old site - 10/13//06

A progressive, "flat" tax:

Pick an income level...I'd toss out 2x the federal poverty line - to be clear about that, twice the poverty limit for a family of two would be $26,400 and $40,000 for a family of four.¹ Every dollar earned up to and including that amount would be tax-free. Every dollar over that amount would be taxed at 25% - no deductions, no loopholes - with one exception (below). The base amount is there to pay for housing, food and the basics (clothing, school supplies, etc.) you would only be paying taxes on what you make beyond what you need.

The only exception that I would propose is that contributions to retirement, (and perhaps college savings accounts and medical savings accounts) should be taken off your income - i.e. it is as if you never earned that income from a tax standpoint.

As an example...a family of 4, the total family income is, let's say $70,000². So, take $40,000 off the top and you are left with $30,000. You owe 25% of that, or $7,500...Make $100,000 - you'd owe $15,000.

Based on that sort of tax revenue coming in, the federal budget should receive approximately the same amount of revenue as it does today.³

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

1 - based on the Dept. of HHS 2006 Federal Poverty Guidelines
2 - the average family income in 2001-2004 was $70,700
3 - Based on census statistics and historical revenues that contribute to the federal budget

Brought over from the old site - 10/17//06

Do you know your local school board members? If not - why not? Even if you have no children, these people set the tone for your school system and they have a vast influence over the value of your home and the quality of people that will be attracted to your town. Don't think so? When businesses look at relocation - they look at the local school systems as a primary consideration (right behind how much they will owe in taxes¹ - to give you an idea of importance).

Take some time in the next few weeks to get to know these folks. Sure there are the national congressional contests and the race for Governor, but these local races are important, too. In many cases, these local politicians will have more of a direct, tangible impact on your life than your Senator will ever have.

1 - From a study conducted by the University of Pennsylvania that evaluated major factors in deciding corporate headquartering and relocation.

Brought over from the old site - 10/23//06

Video of war.

What do you think the reaction would have been if the invasion of Normandy Beach was aired, in its day? Please note - I am not drawing parallels between our current conflict and World War II, I'm simply talking about the effect of allowing people to see and understand the raw brutality of war.

To take Normandy, commanders sent young men to their deaths. Literally. It was a battle where, to take the beach, it was required. The tacticians knew that the bullets would not hit *everyone*, but that many would be cut down and killed before they ever touched the first blade of grass. The ones who lived killed the Axis forces defending the beach. That is war.

Knowing all that we know, now, I wonder what would our reaction have been, then?

Brought over from the old site - 11/1/06

Health Care

Meijer announced last week that they will offer several types of antibiotics free to anyone with a prescription - no strings attached. While I'm sure that the Meijer management feels that this will be economically good for the company, it is still an act worthy of praise. Others, like Wal-Mart and Giant Eagle, are offering $4 prescription-filling for many commonly prescribed drugs. While all of this is certainly helpful, it will not solve the problem of how our society pays for what seem like ever-increasing healthcare costs.

We live in a time where science and technology have made great strides. People live longer, their conditions can be treated and the quality of their lives improved. It all comes with a price tag, however. In the case of Medicare and Medicaid - you and I pay that price, along with every one else in the nation.

Many folks decried "universal healthcare" when it was discussed a decade ago. I'd suggest reviving a form of that discussion - namely tax payer funded, universal healthcare for everyone under the age of 18. Vaccinations, ear infections, broken bones, even well check-ups...everything that helps kids grow up to be healthy adults. I'd suspect that our long-term health care costs (Medicaid and Medicare) would drastically drop once this program was 10-20 years underway. Healthy kids have a tendency to be healthy adults; healthy adults cost tax payers, society and the GDP less, in the long run.

It isn't a program that you can start and stop on a whim. It is a long term commitment, but if we ever want to get a handle on the overall cost of healthcare, we have to start before people start to develop the habits and lifestyles that will ultimately lead to conditions like diabetes and heart disease. Teach them now or treat them later. Which do you think is less expensive?

Brought over from the old site - 11/3/06

Ohio Governor's Race

I heard a Ken Blackwell ad on the radio, today. It claimed that he was endorsed by the Cleveland Plain Dealer.....I know The Plain Dealer.....It's probably the left-most leaning paper in Ohio...so I was a bit suspicious. It turns out that The Plain Dealer has endorsed Ted Strickland....not Blackwell. hmmm....

Hmmmm is right - if you read the fine print on the TV version of the same ad - The Plain Dealer apparently did endorse him in a race a few years ago????

I'm sorry, but that is just too much for me. I personally do not like Ted Strickland's proposed policies all that much. But, for me, Blackwell has demonstrated, via this set of ads, that he most likely lacks the maturity to lead any state, much less the one in which I live.

Brought over from the old site - 11/7/06

It's election day.....so no politics today - LOL :) Instead, I'd like to hear your take on the whole HD Radio deal....I've heard a few people say that it really is amazing, and I've heard others say it's worthless.

Knowing that you are mostly limited by the quality of your speakers, what is the real benefit? Just the added channels? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on it.

Brought over from the old site - 11/11/06

True leadership comes from example.

Do you want to make the improve the environment? Do you pick up litter when you see it?

Do you want to make an impact in reducing fossil fuel use? Do you turn off your lights when you aren't in a room? Do you turn off the TV when you are not watching?

Do you want to improve our foreign policy? Do you speak with your congressmen? Do you read about and discuss the issues?

Do you respect others' opinions enough to allow them to influence you? How do they perceive your opinions?

Brought over from the old site - 11/15/06

Foreign policy by public opinion

I'm very glad to see that power has shifted in Washington...for a variety of reasons. One thing that does worry me, though, is the current tone of conversations that I hear about our foreign policy and our motivations for that policy.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - just because "the other side" did something doesn't make it inherently wrong or bad. We need to evaluate policies on their face; look at the probable outcomes of taking a certain action (and taking no action) determine a plan and go execute it. It may not be a plan that looks attractive in the short run. But that makes good foreign policy.

Foreign policy by public opinion doesn't work. It cannot - the result that you will have will be worse than what you have today.

Five minute attention spans and headline-driven news are not a good combination for pragmatic, in-depth thinking. We have to be willing to listen to others who may not think as we do, accept that we do not know or understand everything and hear others' opinions (and facts). Then we need to be willing to talk about options and outcomes. Finally we need to accept that our way is not always the best way.

Brought over from the old site - 11/28/06

"We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm." - Winston Churchill

Brought over from the old site - 12/13/06

One of my friends recently gave as a reason against states being compelled to use open source software: "..it is hard and a lot of work to deal with the problems...".

Now let's forget software for a minute. What if, in 1954, the Supreme Court had ruled that "while school integration is a noble goal, the practicalities make it too difficult to actually implement."? Think about it...states had to call out the National Guard to keep the peace, they spent hundreds of thousands of dollars (millions in today's $) in police overtime and the political costs were enormous.

Sometimes, the best path is the most difficult to walk.