Nutmegger Articles

 

Information Overload

 

Has 'civilized' man reached the point of information saturation? Does the 'uncivilized' man need more information? How are those -non-internet' users surviving? Experts disagree on how much information we require daily. How much information do we need to enjoy life? Is it time for an 'Information Revolution?' What's your 'recommended daily allowance' of information?

Has 'civilized' man reached the point of information saturation? How much information is needed to enjoy life? Has anyone studied the cumulative effect of 'information bombardment' on humans?

Perhaps mankind is simply in a state of flux, for the next few generations, while transitioning from a non-digital to a digital world.  Maybe we need time to understand the new technology. Adapt and change the way we teach and learn. Change what's important. Just not the best things - we should keep those. Well, maybe just the ones that will directly benefit the individuals of the world and not the governments and businesses. Unless they are providing individual benefit then they should be vociferously protected. What a quandry.

A recent internet search of the words 'made in the usa' resulted in 654,000,000 results. 654,000,000!!! How is any human supposed to review those results? If you could review one site per second, that would take 7,570 DAYS! What nornal person would even think that there are that many sites on the internet? It's appears that we now need computers to keep track of what's being created by computer users and other computers.

One of the byproducts of computerization and standardization is efficiency. Man (advanced civilzations) needs to prepare for less work. A strong, well-balanced country should be able to handle up to 35 to 55 percent unemployment without civil unrest. That means more of the currently untrained need to be trained and some of the trained and currently employed need to work less. We need to learn how to do nothing profitable and be happy at it.

Backfiring Computers? With the advent of the internet (Thanks, Mr. Gore!) addiction to pornography has skyrocketed (along with divorce); with the advent of superfast, computerized stock trading we get a more volatile marketplace; with all the technology available to companies, we have rampant consumer identity theft and automated fraud crimes simply because it's less 'costly' (i.e., more profitable) to not attempt perfection, but rather, accept some losses.

Just because a newspaper columnist tells me how to build my own resistor and attach it to my car's ignition system, doesn't mean an ordinary car owner should be mucking around with something like his car's ignition.

Somehow, we need to stop the information avalanche.

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

One World Government

 

The countries of Earth are finally ready to form a single government entity. Kind of. And by countries, we mean individuals and those organizations they form. Can we really agree on the rules? Perhaps the 'enlightened ones' have already decided.

Are the countries of Earth finally ready to form a single-government entity? How about the people themselves? It's safe to say there is some 'disagrement' on this point. There are already groups that want to form a 'one-world government. What's that? Yyou didn't know about that?  Than you probably didn't know that American sovereignty is about to be 'given' to the United Nations. Research the Council On Foreign Relations. Other groups that want to merge Canada, the US and Mexico into one country using a common currency. President Bush has already signed an agreement to this effect. Could this be why the US dollar is losing its appeal as a standard bearer? The European Union recently consilidated twenty-seven European countries into one. Participating countries gave up their sovereignty to assimilate into one larger country with a single currency. All previous currencies are gone! Will North America need to do the same 'to compete?' Or 'for the children'?

Does that explain the American politicians surge to eliminate gun ownership? What has really prompted the current belief that guns are so terrible, they should be outlawed? Was gun crime so rampant in our previous history, or is it simply more prevalant now as a direct result of restrictive laws? Considering that anywhere individual gun ownership is restricted, more crime is found. Sometimes in epedemic proportions. The exact opposite is also true: where gun ownership is MANDATED, crime rates drop precipitously and remain low. It's not rocket science. Where people are allowed to safely carry guns, crime rates have dropped. How can that possibly be? I think you can guess. People don't even actually have to carry guns, they merely need to be allowed to have them. The mere thought of armed citizens deters criminals.   Ever wonder what the crime rate is in the vicinity of gun shows? Did you ever notice that major headline grabbing stories about mass shootings are primarily in gun-free zones. Places like schools, private or government property. Perhaps the gun ownership issue should never have been taken up by the states. It's making lawbreakers out of good citizens. Maybe there should be one federal carry permit that covers all of the US. Then all the state laws regarding gun ownership can be eliminated. Australia and England recently banned the private ownership of all guns by their citizens. It would be interesting to see how that's working out for them. Initial research shows average citizens are not faring too well.

The role of each country on the world stage should be agreed upon. America has typically been the cop (where possible). Recently Americans are traveling around the globe to foreign countries to save on medical procedures. That goes against the belief that America is the greatest country on the planet. So America is the greatest, until it comes time to pay for surgery - then everyone's willing to get a passport, hop a plane, and save big money where the cost is less. What happened to buying American? It goes out the window, when it gets too expensive. Patriotism extends only as far as the price.

Is average American wage decline the result of policy change or is it an expected result of global competition? It trade walls are removed you wouldn't expect lower wages to come up to higher wage levels, you would naturally expect higher wage levels to drop. Especially if the higher wage levels were being propped up artificially all along.

The end of American Freedom? Are you ready? Get your customized 'One World' kit here! Includes passport, some currency from every country, a mandatory visit to other countries of the Earth, and a giant foam hand.

Don't curse and criticize that foreign tech support person. Embrace him and give him positive feedback. The only difference between him and you is that he is part of a growing economy and yours is in decline. US Citizens must stop criticizing the offshore movement of labor and figure out how to compete with them.

North American Union Links - You know, it almost seems like this would be one of the last pieces of a very large, well planned, puzzle, based on these links:

North American Union to Replace the USA? - HUMAN EVENTS President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada.

North American Union Already Starting to Replace USA - HUMAN EVENTS The U.S. Department of Commerce merely created a new division under the same title to implement working groups to advance a North American Union.

North American Union Information - TOPIC: North American Union Selected items concerning the North American Union.

North American Union - SourceWatch - The "plan to create" a North American Union in 2010 as a regional government—comprising a collective government for the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

YouTube - NORTH AMERICAN UNION President George Bush has already sold our country to big business...slavery begins shortly.

Stop the North American Union - Knowledge is POWER. This Website is dedicated to educating 'We the People' about the treasonous attempts to end the expressed freedoms of our Constitution.

Are all the countries of the world engaged in economic and social war with the US? Maybe they are and alQueda are only the ones with the courage to even attempt a physical attack, while all the others are striving for the same goal, but taking a different approach.

 

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

Kill Your TV

 

Television is the primary export of hell and it's time for a heavy tariff. Now more than ever, understand what television is doing to you and your family and pull the plug before it's too late.

Is television one of hell's exports?  Is it possible that pictures were never meant to be?  Perhaps movies, television and all other forms of recorded reality are unnatural. They have had a tremendous, irreversible impact on our past, current and future society. It's hard to think of a quicker and more effective method of corrupting children (or influencing a population) than with a steady diet of blood, death, terror, bias and unrealistic fears piped directly into the brain starting at the youngest of ages. It circumvents the spoken word from human to human, disrupting and corrupting society. For some, it acts as a virtual reality by allowing an individual to be part of an event or social group where the individual was not even present. It distorts reality. Completely and carefully constructed to appear real using all methods of unnatural methods, requiring a great deal of effort, to appear completely natural and realistic. Never before has an entire global population been driven by false promises, non-realistic crap and sexual intimations faster than TV has managed to. TV has got to go. Think about the influence it has had on your family: If there were no distractions available to you, how long could you sit still? Now that TV is going fully digital in February 2009, this may be the perfect time to give it the ol' heave-ho. It may be our last chance.

Studies have proven tv rots the brain faster than sweets rot the teeth.

Everything exists in the mind. If tv is considered 'Less-than-Lethal Weaponry' we should be very concerned with the potentil effectiveness.

Has been used to hasten our run from God with maximum speed starting with that famous pelvic swivel, and barely looking back as it goes. It has emphasized the abnormal as the new norm. It likely has directly or indirectly lowered the age for sex, created envy, lowered the marriage rate, doubled out-of-wedlock birth rates, destroyed convential and long-established institution of marriage, increased the common use of vulgar language, increased violence, mis-portrayed the facts, encouraged unnatural consumer consumption (and corruption?) and now .

Kill Your Internet Yet? redirect of 'not found' sites to temporary commercial sites; surreptious collection on non-identifiable traffic data for someone else's commercial benefit; using personal identifiable data to target marketing efforts; increasing the chances of fraud?

Try as it might (and it recently has) to replace the family, television can't relay stories the same way, or hold a child's hand, or teach, as a parent/family can in reality.

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

Fractal Theory

 

Does fractal theory hold the solution to the problems of mankind? Possibly. You might not make a living at it, but they are interesting to look at.

Since all systems are comprised of smaller, similar systems, and this concept can be applied to modern systems/problems, it follows logically that the solutions for modern problems can be found in a similar way that you would solve the problem in the smaller system.

Example 1: An unruly child. This problem must be solved by an influential adult during a specific window of formative time in that child's life. It requires a small amount of consistent threats and discipline during that formative time. It may be impossible to correct it later.

Example 2: Terrorism. Is it up to all non-volent Muslims to pressure and stop the violent Muslims (suicide bombers) from killing innocent persons. Group A can only influence Group B through threats of intimidation, or through non-violent coersive means. Kind of like Example 1.

Example 3: Gun Control. A bad person has a gun and is not obeying any laws regarding it's safe usage. It does not logically follow that all safe, reliable gun owners should have additional laws passed which directly infringe on their rights, to try and influence the bad persons. Deal with the person who is repeatedly breaking the laws. Maybe you could actually leave them in jail for the full punishment for breking existing laws. Passing more laws that make responsible citizens lawbreakers, seems downright obscene. If you don't like guns, don't get one. If you don't like criminals having guns, punish them. Why does the thought of punishing law abiders, even enter the equation? There's no need for government to go after any responsible citizen.

Example 4: Health Care. In the family unit decisions are usually made by adult(s) for the general benefit of the family unit. This model does not translate into government (trying to look out for the needs of it's citizens or its 'family') it does not follow logically that the government can do anything that simulates the family environment. Further, it makes no sense that government should be trying, since what works at the family/neighborhood level is likely not effective when implemented at the national/social level.

Example 5: The Dwight D. Eisenhower United States Interstate Highway System.  In conception, it works perfectly: the government builds and maintains something for the benefit of its citizens and visitors (that have cars) All that remained was to design it, and build it and then maintain it. It should have worked perfectly. Instead, over time, the federal government allowed state government to put up tolls, then eventually to maintain their own parts of the system (but reserved the right to approve of any repairs), then failed to provide the necessary funding for maintenance. A simple, perfectly logical system that should have worked flawlwssly. Couldn't the federal government simply have had it's own maintenance crew made up of local citizens from each state. The problem arises by 'improving' upon it, thereby complicating it. When maintenance of the system is passed to the local/state level (where thay choose how to maintain 'their' section, or install tolls along their section). Additional interference over the years has exacerbated the current problems. How is it that bridge collapses due to poor design and maintenance were a rare event in days past? We certainly had lots of bridges. How is the system improved by the federal government giving highway funding to the state government and then wanting a say in the policy of that state regarding its highways or anything else? Is it related to poor oversight, poor maintenance, poor recordkeeping, poor design? Good gravy, what CAN the government do well?

Imagine if a law was passed that required everyone to return to their birthpace and stay there (we'll assume that employment is not necessary for the moment). Families may be broken up... Is it modern society and technology that is causing the deterioration.

Since fractal patters are created on a large scale by repeated smaller scale patterns, the patterns must, naturally, reveal the individual motive, intent and results on an individual basis.

Sprott Information with examples of computer-generated fractals. Vlick fir PDG.

Fractals are holographic repititions using scale.

 

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

Atomically Speaking

 

Since all things on Earth are made up of the same building blocks, at the atomic, molecular and physical levels, doesn't it logically follow that everything is related?

Are there similar answers at every level of science; from the galaxies to the sub-atomic particles? Since all things on Earth are made up of the same building blocks, doesn't it logically follows that all things are related? Of course everything is related.  Mathematically, politically, socially - It's all based on natural systems which have been here far longer than man. Man only came along after the fct, educated itself, and developed measurement systems which are inherently inaccurate since they attempt to measure a natural system. Clue: It's not nature that's out of whack.

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

The Constitution of the United States

 

Is the US Constitution old fashioned? Is it time to be politically correct, environmently friendly or globally responsible and recycle it?

Is it old-fashioned and due for the recycle bin? The Founding Fathers original intent was to provide a framework for a system of government (a republic) that was carefully and painstakingly crafted to expressly limit the federal government to doing only what was explicitly authorized for. It's only over time that politicians have changed it into what you see today - a small, powerful group able to take our country to war and probably profit financially from it. All forms of business greasing the political wheels for their own direct benefit. Look how far we've travelled away from those original concepts. From speed limits, to national databases, to seat belt and helmet laws, to injecting itself into the business world for the purpose of social change. Maybe the federal government should go back to what it does best: very little.

One of the basic beliefs of the founding fathers was that the people be unfettered and free to engage in whatever they wanted. Problems were worked out at the individual level through common courtesy. How much can you help an individual who doesn't want or need help? Does anyone accept only what's offered? Have things deteriorated to the point where it's now useless to try and maintain the current system or can it be tuned for the current social environment? Perhaps we should take the best parts of all the laws of the world's countries laws and incorporate them all into the One World Law Book. Boy, that would be a long negotiation,

Is this a last gasp of a government to control the population by attempting to control behavior by passing ridiculous, stringent laws? Really: No Mustard on Sunday? How are laws like that helping Americans.

There are some things you can't legislate. You can't legislate equality. It's taught to each individual generation during the maturation process. Government can only state that something 'IS' and then monitor it and punish offenders. People are best pressured only by other people. Usually elder family members to enforce those views. Start by limiting the government to only those things it can successfully do. Everything else is up to the people individually.

Have individuals dropped the ball; are we being too greedy and doing what we want more than doing what society needs? Interesting book about the 'mandatory citizen responsibility to defend one's self. Imagine that: a book to tell us that we have a social responsibility to protect ourselves.

Someone knowledgable, powerful, and important at the time, said: "The business of America is business." And maybe that's the whole point. Without businesses, there is no America. The food that feeds business is profitablility. It appears that's the next thing that's going to be legislated into oblivion by those helpful government types.

Just who do American politicians represent? pparently they are elected by the people, but it appears that that's our only contribution. If insurance companies can contribute to politicians and get financial consideration (many times over) with new laws, why can't the people themselves? And would it be ethical for people to contribute to politicians to make sure they they are taken care of over insurance companies? Isn't giving money for future potential benefit bribery?

Gun Control: How is it that for all the gun control laws passed that place ornerous restrictions on law-abiding citizens, businesses are allowed to have guns without question? Without so much as a permit.  Ironic that the store staff can have a gun to protect their gum, but they would be restricted from carrying that same gun home if they didn't have a concealed carry permit. I guess that business is afforded the right to have their own protection, but private citizens aren't.  I wonder if banks have guns in them? The reson can't be solely that they are statistically more exposed to the threat of violence. How do you weigh that against the provate citizen who is already restricted to using deadly force only when their life is threatened.

Just who do the politicians represent? If insurance companies can contribute to politicians and get financial consideration (many times over) with new laws, why can't the people themselves? And would it be ethical for people to contribute to politicians to make sure they they are taken care of over insurance companies?

And now, proving a point that good things can be found on a blog, we present this comment found in response to previous comment, left on a blog of the Boson Globe newspaper. Hey, that's how blogs work. It is regarding a news story in which a store owner shoots dead, a masked, armed robber who was pointing a gun at him and his co-worker:

Zstar, you got it completely wrong. Like so many who simply don't understand the concept of self-defense, you assume you understand the intent of the criminal and assume that everyone else should, like you, assume that his intent was as benevolent as possible. Yes, this was an armed robbery. But it was also assault with a deadly weapon (he pointed a gun at the clerk). He didn't just demand money, he threatened the clerk's life. The fact that he was using that threat to extort money does not mitigate the threat itself as a separate criminal act justifying lethal force as a defensive action. The clerk wasn't stopping a robbery, he was defending his life. The law very specifically does see it this way, because only an idiot assumes the best under these circumstances. Department of Justice statistics bear this out. People who resist robberies with a weapon are less likely to be injured than those who cooperate, or even worse, try to negotiate. Your twisted logic seems to imply that the clerk would only be justified in defending himself after the robber had already shot him, since you see this as "just" an armed robbery, with property being the only thing defended. You don't understand all the legal and practical implications of that crime. This is obviously a subject about which you aren't very well educated. Despite the media and political rhetoric, your best chance to survive a criminal act is to resist with force, and preferably with a weapon. The most sickening people are those who would deprive everyone else of the right to do so, simply because they've taken great pains to avoid any responsibility for their own lives by farming out anything they themselves find at all unpleasant (like self defense) to someone else. Robbers already often do just shoot everyone, even when everyone cooperates, so this incident, and others like it, isn't likely to increase the violence of robberies as much as they are likely to deter them. Yes, it's tragic that someone died, but thankfully it was the person who chose to use violence to victimize others, and not or more of his innocent victims. The clerk did right; he will almost certainly face no criminal charges, and shouldn't. If more people were as willing to take responsibility for their own lives, instead of expecting someone else (like the government) to do it for them, we'd have a lot less crime to begin with. It's a lack of personal responsibility, on the part of both criminals and their enabling cooperative victims, that causes crime. Si vis pacem, para bellum - if you want peace, prepare for war. As Bruce Lee used to say, you learn to fight so that you don't have to. This is true at all levels of society, including the individual. Those who refuse to do this, and instead expect others to carry that burden for them, encourage crime and criminals. They're parasites on the society which they expect to keep them safe. Posted by Rob December 11, 08 03:31 PM

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

Modern Individualism

 

Business and capitalism traits have traveled to the individual level.  Consumers are more becoming deal-makers and shoppers less individuals are paying retail. Has everyone simply become a business person, collecting taxes for multiple levels of government? Under the threat of imprisionment.

Has business and capitalism traveled all the way to the individual level?  Has everyone become businessmen? Why are individuals concerned what a company makes?  So Mobil made 40 billion dollars. It's a big company. What if they also paid 20 billion in taxes? Companies are supposed to make money. It enables future existence Because you might feel taken advantage of (since you couldn't possibly do anything else to 'reduce your expenses' it's their fault.  Would you be just as angry if a 'good' company made that much money? Would you be as angry at a company that did even "worse" but was never brought to light by the 'ever useful' media. This didn't use to be illegal, you know. And don't forget: profits are revenues minus expenses.  How much money should you, as a stockholder, be allowed to make? Perhaps there's a windfall profits tax looming for your investment income. If the government thinks there's no limit on how it redistributes business profits, they've got no clue. Perhaps it's not sufficient for government to redistribute collected business taxes; now they want to redistribute business profits.  Is there no end to government desires? If individuals can't 'fight back' unless their organized, businesses can fight back by moving assets and not showing a profit. Or, are we going to legislate business profits?

One of the things each of us needs to do is to stop trying to 'assess' something that shouldn't concern you. Like the murder rate. It varies according to population density and actual murders. Or a murder that occurs far away. Why is that random act of horror even being shown on tv? What is to be gained. For example: How much should a company make in today's economy? Should Google be allowed to give away something of value, and make income in other ways? How much of a profit is too much?  And if you think you can answer that correctly, you've already given in.

Is it possible that everyone is right? Abortionist? Anti-abortionist? Could each person live in their own 'reality?' So much so, that each person is actually correct.  Is there anything that all humans stil believe in from the old days?  Not just agree on, or have the same opinion about. What's the difference?

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

Save the Planet

 

It's apparent the only way to save earth is individually. Each individual must take the necessary steps and insure they are doing their part. Some can make sure others do their part, but it ultimately falls on every individual. Read about your part here.

Earth will not be saved by legislation or politicians. The only way is by individuals who repeatedly make contributions to save the planet every day. As individuals. Teaching others under their influence to practice the same planet-saving habits. Individuals policing other individuals. Each one of us must show more kindness, generosity and caring, no matter their history, current circumstances or bias.  Find a way. This includes everyone: presidents, prime ministers, premiers, princes, plumbers and punks. Start small - Reduce your own individual use of energy. You need to say a kind word to someone.

Can we agree the basic problems of the world are: Refuse, Population, Food, Poverty, Power? Then can we categorize those as individual, inter-country.

As everyone moves toward socialism, perhaps the USA should strive to perfect itself to be used as a model for the rest of the countries? Maybe we were already there and just suffered from the virus of the worldwide media and it's power brokers?

What if a small, self-sufficient power generation system was invented that could power your home? And what if it was the size of a toaster, emitted no pollution, and was available at any store. Imagine how that device would revolutionize entire industries. Oil and gas and electricity would be unnecessary. Can you picture that: unnecessary!

What if the 'global warmists' are wrong?  What if all the measurements, diagrams, charts, millions of hours of studies, talking-head babble fests, and reporting all came to the wrong conclusion? Would an apology be in order? And what of their latest half baked theory that would PUT pollutants into the atmosphere in an effort to get a desired result (of warming or cooling). How pompous of man to think he can influence nature!

Maybe the world needs a 'controlled collapse' instead of a full breakdown which might result in anarchy and uncontrollable chaos. How could that be initialed (naturally?) by the people?

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

September 11, 2001

 

Either these respected professionals in their field have too much time on their hands, or something else happened on September 11, 2001.

Yet another day that will live in infamy: September 11, 2001. With all the images of that day firmly implanted into the brains of many Americans, it's difficult to image that someone other than those 19 terrorists accomplished what we saw. The people who maintain these linked pages seem to think so. And they have questions. Some questions seem pretty reasonable. There are also no such thing as UFO's (there are - but you didn't read it here). Considering the American dissatisifaction with the 'oil/war' President and his crew, (as well as previous presidents), the seriousness of this event, the long lingering impact and the opinions of earth's other citizens, and the 'impossible' becomes possible. Digest the information on these web pages, and the possible begins to look probable. The more you read, the less likely it seems that 19 foreign men (perfectly identified by the FBI just tree days after the event); and one of the pilots even being refused the rental of a single-engine plane - due to a lack of basic understanding of the controls, armed with boxcutters - caused 9-11 and all that it has spawned.

If you read only one article, start with this one by Eric Margolis: '9/11 Coverup Remains While Questions Mount.'

If you want to read more, move on to 911 Missing Links, the fully verified Timeline of 9-11, September Clues, and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

 

Others include: Emperor's Clothes | Oil Empire  | 9/11 In Plane Site | Attack On America | Reopen 9/11 | 9/11 Review | Let's Roll 9/11 | 9/11 Timeline | Who Did It? | My Country Right Or Wrong | Patriots Question 9/11 | Pilots for 9/11 Truth | Physics 9/11 | Firefighters for 9/11 Truth | Lawyers for 9/11 Truth | Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice | 9/11 Research |

 

Maybe it's natural to doubt certain things. Or accept things that can't be accepted - especially after having 'witnessed' it on television. You've probably made up your mind already. But reviewing all this information makes one think about what really is possible under the guise of unorthodox motivations by a powerful group. Combined with the spoon-fed information the media parrots, the limited drivel they are provided with. Think about this: How is it that someone one who believes in extraterrestrials, or government conspiracies, is so quickly dismissed by the 'powers that be' of the population? As if the ideas are so absurd, they shoudn't even be considered. Kind of like 2008/2009 financial bailouts inplemented by the very persons who caused the artificial problem.  Individuals have almost no historical memory. Anyone remember the savings and loan scandal of about twenty years ago? What the heck is going on here?

 

Related Articles:

Lew Rockwell: Ron Paul Said It

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

Answers Needed

 

A collection of interesting questions whose answers would provide much needed information to assess current events and arrive at a fair, reasonable, satisfactory solution.

 

• How come a business owner in New York State can legally keep a gun to protect themself and their property, but a New York citizen can't?
• At what age did each country renounce slavery?
• What are the abortion rates for each of the world's countryies, and what is the government's financial contribution?
• Who are the combatants in the current 'war'?
• Why were seedless grapes really invented and just who is really benefitting from the seedless grape lobbying efforts?
• Which citizens most obey the laws of their country?
• In the USA, you can be charged with murder (of a baby in the womb), if, in killing the mother the baby dies. How is it that a medical professional can you go in and 'remove' the baby, without physically harming the mother, and not be charged with murder?

 

 

Answers:

 

Solution to the Problems of Unions:

Since there is a great deal of discussion lately regarding the large impact of unionization and business ability to compete with a union, I propose the following solution: Everyone becomes unionized. Union dues can only be used for basic, minimal union business (no trips, conventions, etc) and some kind of fund to assist unemployed union members.  Don't forget EVERYONE is in the union now, and lobbying is no longer necessary. Also, not to be forgotton, the more unemployed, the greater the drain and the less the employed will get. One database should do it. Everyone immediately gets the current 'average' hourly wage for their industry (i.e., current union wage plus current non-union wage divided by two); all union members will be taking an immediate 25% pay cut - all non-union members will get an immediate 25% raise. (Gotta check those numbers). Potential union corruption is eliminated since there are no non-union shops. No lobbying necessary! All union members (everyone)get 12-15 paid holidays with a bonus for anyone working undesireable hours (night, holidays and weekends). Any employee can be fired for failing to show up repeatedly. Any employee can be fired for repeatedly failing to perform their duties. All jobs become classified by required skill levels one through 10.

 

 

Single Payer Health Insurance:

 

If I'm understanding it correctly, it basically means everyone 'pay's a single entity (or company), and that company handles all aspects of payments, services, provider compensation, etc. If that's correct, then essentially, competition is eliminated. What about other entitys that sell health insurance (all the existing companies, AARP Plans, etc.)? Would existing retirees (or future retirees) with health insurance benefits pending be moved into the single payer system (thus eliminating the benefit to the end user?) Would all state and town benefit providers be alleviated of their need to provide health benefits to retirees? Would this not put us into the same argument as local schools (accepting both funding and demands from the federal government) versus charter schools? Why do I get the feeling that in the end (after much experimenting and major expense, some PhD is going to 'discover' that local schools (without any federal or state funding) is the 'best and most cost effective' solution?

'prudent people being damaged by less prudent people' - Timothy Geithner 2009

Recent comments by Treasury Secretary Geithner about 'prudent people being damaged by less prudent people' got me to thinking: Doesn't this concept apply to almost everything the federal government is involved in? Abortion, driving, insurance, health insurance, financial decisions, and on...

 

 

 

Return to Article List

 

 

 

 

 

All About Change

 

Just to clarify: Are we talikng about changing how much money the governments of the world have to throw around (at someone else's expense)? Or are we talking about change like for the last 200 years in America, a single, blue collar income was enough to buy a home and raise a family and now that's just a  distant memory?

Change between the generations; difference between my parents society (born 1935) and today's youth society; the toys are just different' money when your young influences what appears normal to you; all citizens must change to help all other citizens regardless of if they want or need our help, or help them to live the life they want, during this global transitiion the old sexual roles are changing. The women are becoming tougher and the men are becoming softer. The older folks aren't changing quite as fast, but their replacements sure are.

 

Return to Article List