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?