Posts
So I have been looking for a good laptop, and have had many suggestions.
So far, I think I am most sold on the Sager NP9880...
Here is why...
I have here a comparrison between a DELL (TOTL) in A-Y and the Sager in 1-25.
1. Display: 17 inch WUXGA (1920 x 1200) with Super Glossy Surface Display
A. 17 inch UltraSharp™ Wide Screen UXGA Display with TrueLife™
2. Processor: 3.8GHz (670) - 64bit P4 LGA755 w/2.0MB L2 Cache & HT
B. Intel® Pentium® M Processor 770 (2.13 GHz/2MB Cache/533MHz FSB)
3. Graphics & Video: 256MB GDDR3 nVIDIA GeFORCE GO 6800 Ultra
C. 256MB NVIDA® GeForce™ Go 6800
4. Memory: 2.0GB (2 SODIMMs) DDR2-533 Memory
D. 2GB Dual Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 533MHz 2 Dimm
5. Primary Hard Drive: 60GB 7,200RPM Ultra DMA Hard Drive
E. 100GB 7200rpm Hard Drive
6. Secondary Hard Drive: 60GB 7,200RPM Ultra DMA Hard Drive
F. NONE AVAILABLE
7. Primary Optical Drive: 8X DVD+/-R/RW/+ Dual Layer/ CD-RW w/ Light Scribe Enable
G. 8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability
8. Secondary Optical Drive: None.
H. NONE AVAILABLE
9. Floppy Drive: External USB 3.5 inch 1.44MB Floppy Drive
I. NONE AVAILABLE
10. RAID Setting: None.
J. NONE AVAILABLE
11. TV Tuner: TV Tuner (NTSC or Multi Pal) with Remote Control
K. NONE AVAILABLE
12. Modem: Built-in 56k V.90/V.92 Fax Modem
L. ???
13. Network: Built-in 10/100/1000BaseT Ethernet LAN
M. ???
14. Wireless LAN Card: Internal 54Mbps Wireless 802.11g with Bluetooth Combo Module Card.
N. Intel® PRO 2915 and Dell 350 Bluetooth Internal Wireless Cards
15. Battery: Spare 12 Cell Smart Li-ion Battery
O. 9-cell Lithium Ion Primary Battery (80 WHr)
16. AC Adapter: Spare AC Adapter with Power Cord.
P. ???
17. Port Replicator: USB Universal Port Replicator (No CRT Port)
Q. Notebook Expansion Dock
18. 7-in-1 Memory Card Reader: Built-in 7-in-1 Memory Card Reader
R. NONE AVAILABLE
19. Digital Video Camera: Integrated Digital Video Camera.
S. NONE AVAILABLE
20. MS Windows OS: No MS Windows Operating System
T. Windows XP Pro (not wanted but cannot remove)
21. MS Office XP Software: None.
U. NONE
22. Carrying Case: Free Black business Carrying Case
V. Dell Nylon Deluxe Carrying Case or Large Backpack Carrying Case for $59 or $39 respectively
23. Dead Pixel Policy: Zero Dead Pixel Guarantee Policy
W. NONE AVAILABLE
24. Warranty: 2 Additional Years Extended Warranty (Between $2,001 and $3,000)
X. 3yr Plus Solution Package
25. Total Cost: $4000
Y. $3800
For $200 I get an upgradeable PCIe Video Card, 5.1 Sourround Sound Speaker System (built in), OnBoard Video Cam, Additional Hard Drive, Raid, Additional DVD (or other accessory), No OS, Memory Card Reader, Extra Power Supply, Higher Resolution Monitor, Faster (upgradeable) Processor, Floppy, and NTSC TV Tuner.
Not to mention, Sager is "industrial grade", in other words, their monitor and other parts are to greater tolerances and better quality than the "consumer grade" of Dell...
Thursday, September 29, 2005
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
Linux vs. Windows - Security Issues
Many times we see articles from Linux or Windows camps debating the total cost of ownership (TCO) of one system or the other...
I won't go into that debate, because I know there are many sides to that problem...
What I do want to say is this, when it comes to security and keeping you safe from the "bad guys" of the internet, Linux has Windows beat, hands down.
One of my favorite sites is "Secunia". They monitor problems in several thousand products...they are non-biased, and report the facts. This is fine with me, as I don't want someone's paid-for opinion, I want the truth...
http://www.secunia.com/
If you look at Fedora Core (4) Linux (a product of Red Hat), you will see the following information...
42 Secunia Advisories
0 unpached vulnerabilities
Of the 42, 0% were "Extreme", 31% "High", 29% "Moderate", 33% "Low", and 7% "n/a"...
In contrast, if we look at Microsoft Windows XP Professional, you will see the following...
110 Secunia Advisories
23% of them UNPATCHED
1% partial fix
the rest are fixed.
Of the 110, 1% were "Extreme", 32% "High", 31% "Moderate", 26% "Low", and 10% "n/a"...
Based on this information alone, it is easy to see why Linux is the choice for security.
And to throw in at least one jab...
I wonder if it costs less to maintain a secure environment or an unsecure one?
--E
I won't go into that debate, because I know there are many sides to that problem...
What I do want to say is this, when it comes to security and keeping you safe from the "bad guys" of the internet, Linux has Windows beat, hands down.
One of my favorite sites is "Secunia". They monitor problems in several thousand products...they are non-biased, and report the facts. This is fine with me, as I don't want someone's paid-for opinion, I want the truth...
http://www.secunia.com/
If you look at Fedora Core (4) Linux (a product of Red Hat), you will see the following information...
42 Secunia Advisories
0 unpached vulnerabilities
Of the 42, 0% were "Extreme", 31% "High", 29% "Moderate", 33% "Low", and 7% "n/a"...
In contrast, if we look at Microsoft Windows XP Professional, you will see the following...
110 Secunia Advisories
23% of them UNPATCHED
1% partial fix
the rest are fixed.
Of the 110, 1% were "Extreme", 32% "High", 31% "Moderate", 26% "Low", and 10% "n/a"...
Based on this information alone, it is easy to see why Linux is the choice for security.
And to throw in at least one jab...
I wonder if it costs less to maintain a secure environment or an unsecure one?
--E
Friday, August 19, 2005
Life Imitating Art, or the Other Way 'Round?
Not sure how many have the Dilbert daily calendar thing, but for the past several weeks, there has been something in it that has me wondering "who stacked the deck"?
Several weeks ago, one of our team had a baby. After 3 days off and a full weekend, he showed up on Monday, late, and looking like he had been hit by a stampeding herd of elephants.
The cartoon from Monday, August 1st was more than accurate and very appropriate.
We were testing some fun little bits in the software code, and we were having troubles with just about everything. That day the cartoon was themed correctly, as the developers (Dogbert's Tech Support) said, "It works fine on my machine."
One of our number was promoted to Team Lead, and made an FTE. That day the Dilbert cartoon went on about how the Promotion was really for the best, even if the pay was the same while the workload increased.
We have had several of our number leave because of iminent changes to our structure as things move to Illinois. The Cartoon for the previous Sunday was about Catbert removing all job specific knowledge from an employee leaving the company.
We recently got a new DBA, and "breaking him in" has been a real chore. Sometimes we feel like the cartoon from Thursday, the 28th of July.
We put together an elaborate plan to get the correct data into our systems for testing. We set up everything and even did an impact study. We recommended it be done one way, and why it was so efficient, and good...
The next thing we know, from upper management, comes another plan. One that will not work, costs more money, and makes our life a living hell for a week.
Guess which one got chosen. See Sunday the 7th of August's cartoon...
(If I can get my scanner going, I will post these cartoons for your viewing pleasure)
So all this made me wonder, is Dilbert causing life to be this strange, or is my life just that strange and Dilbert is my Prophet?
Several weeks ago, one of our team had a baby. After 3 days off and a full weekend, he showed up on Monday, late, and looking like he had been hit by a stampeding herd of elephants.
The cartoon from Monday, August 1st was more than accurate and very appropriate.
We were testing some fun little bits in the software code, and we were having troubles with just about everything. That day the cartoon was themed correctly, as the developers (Dogbert's Tech Support) said, "It works fine on my machine."
One of our number was promoted to Team Lead, and made an FTE. That day the Dilbert cartoon went on about how the Promotion was really for the best, even if the pay was the same while the workload increased.
We have had several of our number leave because of iminent changes to our structure as things move to Illinois. The Cartoon for the previous Sunday was about Catbert removing all job specific knowledge from an employee leaving the company.
We recently got a new DBA, and "breaking him in" has been a real chore. Sometimes we feel like the cartoon from Thursday, the 28th of July.
We put together an elaborate plan to get the correct data into our systems for testing. We set up everything and even did an impact study. We recommended it be done one way, and why it was so efficient, and good...
The next thing we know, from upper management, comes another plan. One that will not work, costs more money, and makes our life a living hell for a week.
Guess which one got chosen. See Sunday the 7th of August's cartoon...
(If I can get my scanner going, I will post these cartoons for your viewing pleasure)
So all this made me wonder, is Dilbert causing life to be this strange, or is my life just that strange and Dilbert is my Prophet?
Quiz: Is Your Boss a Psychopath?
So, like any day, I am reading along in Slashdot, and I come across this article:
"Is Your Boss a Psychopath?"
This was very interesting to me, as I happen to like my boss. SO I read on, and realized, this isn't so much talking about my boss, but about the new head of our department.
Dude is a real nutball.
1) We are located in Utah, the main company is located in Illinois, and he believes there is nothing we (in Utah) can do that those in Illinois cannot do better
2) He always has that stupidly smug look on his face, always smiling, but it is all show
3) Makes everyone uncomfortable
4) Lies through his teeth about company direction and future of our little group
5) Doesn't care about anyone but himself
6) etc.
So, check out the link, and see if your boss is a Psychopath...
"Is Your Boss a Psychopath?"
This was very interesting to me, as I happen to like my boss. SO I read on, and realized, this isn't so much talking about my boss, but about the new head of our department.
Dude is a real nutball.
1) We are located in Utah, the main company is located in Illinois, and he believes there is nothing we (in Utah) can do that those in Illinois cannot do better
2) He always has that stupidly smug look on his face, always smiling, but it is all show
3) Makes everyone uncomfortable
4) Lies through his teeth about company direction and future of our little group
5) Doesn't care about anyone but himself
6) etc.
So, check out the link, and see if your boss is a Psychopath...
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Proof of one thing
Most of us will be familiar with Heisenberg's Principal of Uncertainty, and maybe how it applies to our simple lives every day.
I came up with a postulation on this Principal that I think explains the universe better than that now famous number, 42.
The only thing that is certain in life is uncertainty.
And all that it implies (don't think about it too hard, it will make your head hurt.)
I came up with a postulation on this Principal that I think explains the universe better than that now famous number, 42.
The only thing that is certain in life is uncertainty.
And all that it implies (don't think about it too hard, it will make your head hurt.)
Friday, May 13, 2005
Class Assignment Gone Right
Recently I was tasked by my Learning Team at school to re-write the Bill of Rights. At first I didn't quite know what I would do with it, as that is some undertaking, but after soliciting a little help, I finally found the right combination to pull it off, so here it is:
Amendment 1 – The Power of the People
Amendment Ia
The people are Sovereign. They are State Citizens and members of the Union Of States as defined. No law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, shall change the Sovereign status of State Citizens, or the Free status of any State. The Federal Union of States is for the sole benefit of the States and Citizens.
Amendment Ib
Any and All powers defined or not defined within the Constitution or its Amendments reside within the People.
Amendment Ic
Delegations of powers to the Federal Government or any branch thereof, or the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof, by the Constitution or any of its Amendments are not to be construed to remove those powers from the people, but only a delegated authority to act for the people, at the people’s discretion.
Amendment Id
Any powers not delegated to the Federal Government or any branch thereof, or the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof, nor prohibited to them remain with the people and are not to be abused by the Federal Government or any branch thereof, or the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof.
Amendment Ie
All people are free. All people have and can enjoy human rights, both those defined herein, and those not defined within the Constitution or its Amendments.
Amendment If
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, to abridge, restrict, or harm this right or any of its provisions.
Amendment Ig
In no certain terms or conditions can this Right or any Right, enumerated herein or not, be subject to any fines, fees, penalties, licensing, registration, or any other scheme designed to limit, remove, prohibit, regulate, hinder, hamper, or restrict any one or any combination of these God given, pre-existing, natural Rights of any man or woman of the age of Majority
Amendment Ih
The responsibility and duty associated with these and all Rights lies exclusively within the individual. It is the responsibility and the duty of the individual to elect a Government that represents the needs, wants and desires of the communal and state societies.
Amendment 2 – Freedom of Religion
Amendment IIa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code respecting an establishment of a national, state, or preferred religion.
Amendment IIb
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Amendment IIc
No law or code can be orchestrated to define any part of religion, or hold religion culpable for the exercise of its beliefs.
Amendment 3 – Freedom of Expression
Amendment III
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code abridging or restricting the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of artistic, political, religious, or other forms of Expression, or of opinion.
Amendment 4 – Freedom to Peaceably Assemble
Amendment IV
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code restricting the right of the people to peaceably assemble.
Amendment 5 – Right to Redress of Grievances
Amendment Va
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code restricting the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment Vb
The Government, its entities, actors, representatives, leaders, employees, or other individuals acting in any capacity as "government" cannot be held immune for any crime for any reason. Crimes are defined by the people through the legislative process and are applied to all equally. No concessions can be made in regards to income, race, gender, social status, or any other defining factor.
Amendment 6 – Right to Self-Protection
Amendment VIa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code against the establishment of a well regulated Militia within any State or Locality as such Militia is necessary for the security and sanctity of a
Amendment VIb
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code to abridge, restrict, or harm the right of the people to keep and bear Arms; Arms being defined as any weapon or device or component of Arm, Weapon, or Device that can, has, will be, or could be used as a weapon capable of providing protection of self, family, home, society, locality, state, citizenry, and or the United States in part or in whole.
Amendment VIc
Militias may be called up by the State Government in time of need, but this does not preclude the ability of the Militia to be pre-existing to that time of need. Any Militia my exist at any time and may only be controlled by the Government in time of war or grave conflict. Otherwise, a Militia is held to the same rights, responsibilities, duties, laws and regulations that are placed upon any individual, citizen, group, or company, as defined in law.
Amendment 7 – Restriction on Military
Amendment VII
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall require by law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code the boarding or quartering of any Soldier under their command within the houses or properties of private citizens, without express consent of the owners. This will hold true for times of peace and for times of war.
Amendment 8 – Restriction on Search and Seizure
Amendment VIIIa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code against the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, possessions, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Amendment VIIIb
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to issue any Warrants, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath, Affirmation, or Evidence; and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Amendment VIIIc
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Amendment VIIId
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to take private property for public use, without just and fair compensation. Such compensation shall not be determined by the Federal Government or any branch thereof, or the State Government or any branch or locality thereof, but must be determined by current market value as determined in the private sector.
Amendment VIIIe
No person may violate the terms of this amendment.
Amendment VIIIf
"Unreasonable" may be defined by Congress and apply to the Federal Government and each Government of the States of the
"Probable Cause" may be defined by Congress and apply to the Federal Government and each Government of the States of the
Clarification of these terms may be sought through the Judicial System as necessary.
No definition of these terms may be interpreted to violate the individual rights of the people.
Amendment 9 – Rights During War
Amendment IXa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to hold any person to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; and then, this right may only be suspended until such time that it can reasonably be attended to.
Amendment 10 – Right to Due Process
Amendment Xa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to impede the right of the people, in all criminal prosecutions, to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.
Amendment Xb
In all cases where any person has been brought to answer for criminal charges, the information regarding the charges, circumstances, witnesses, and allegations shall be made public if at a minimum to the parties involved; and respect of the safety of witnesses must be taken, and shall not hinder the publicity of the facts of the criminal charges.
Amendment Xc
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, hindering the accused from obtaining, in a timely manner, the information of the nature and cause of the accusation.
Amendment Vd
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, hindering the accused from confronting any witnesses against them.
Amendment Xe
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, hindering the accused from having a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in their favor.
Amendment Xf
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, hindering the accused from having the Assistance of fully-qualified and competent Counsel for their defense.
Amendment Xg
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, to have any fact previously tried by a jury, to be re-examined in any Court, State or Federal, within the
Amendment Xh
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, abridging the right of trial by jury, even in Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed the equivalent of 1776 "twenty dollars".
Amendment 11 – Freedom from Jeopardy in Law
Amendment XIa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to hold any person to be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or liberty.
Amendment XIb
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code or take any action to compel any person in any criminal case to be a witness against their own self.
Amendment XIc
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, to require excessive bail, or excessive fines imposed, or cruel and/or unusual punishments inflicted.
Amendment XId
"Excessive" shall be determined as necessary according to the criminal charges, circumstances, and defendant's situation.
"Cruel and Unusual" shall also be defined and determined by Congress and apply to the Federal Government and each Government of the States of the
Clarification of these terms may be sought through the Judicial System as necessary.
No definition of these terms may be interpreted to violate the rights of the people.
Amendment 12 – Restoration of Rights
Amendment XIIa
People shall retain all rights, privileges, and powers at all times, unless convicted of certain, heinous crimes; and then only as long as the Locality, State, or Federal powers have hold on or jurisdiction over the convicted. After such time, the person shall regain, and retain all rights, privileges, and powers as previously enjoyed.
Amendment XIIb
The crimes that allow the temporary removal of certain rights, privileges, and powers, and the timeframe the rights may be withheld, must be defined by the legislative powers and put to a vote of the people. These laws will apply equally to the Federal, State, and Local Governments.
Amendment XIIc
The punishment or time to be held for those crimes when convicted are not to be excessive, but as defined by law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, and can include life in prison, and or capitol punishment.
Amendment XIId
"Excessive" shall also be defined and determined by Congress and apply to the Federal Government and each Government of the States of the
"Heinous Crimes" shall also be defined and determined by Congress and apply to the Federal Government and each Government of the States of the
The number of and specifics of the rights to be lost will be defined by Congress and apply to the Federal Government and each Government of the State of the
Clarification of these terms may be sought through the Judicial System as necessary.
No definition of these terms may be interpreted to violate the rights of the people.
Amendment 13 – Restriction of Taxes
Amendment XIIIa
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, levying any tax upon the people without a vote of the people upon each tax to be levied, and the amount, and any further increases to that tax or any other alterations resulting in an increase or alteration of purpose of that tax.
Amendment XIIIb
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, allowing any branch of any government to increase or raise their salaries without an express vote of the people. And this amount shall not exceed a number 10% greater than:
- for Federal Offices – the average of the earnings of the
- for State and Local Offices – the average of the earnings of the State citizenry.
- for any other Public Office and for Civil Service – the average earnings of the citizenry of the locality of service.
- and shall be awarded only for their time in service to the people, which must be proven by an accurate and certified accounting.
Amendment XIIIc
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof may make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, to create, any social service. This is in protection of the alteration of the Republic form of Government. All laws, rules, regulations, ordinances, or codes, to create, alter, modify, change, or remove any provision of any social program must occur at the State or Local level of Government. These programs are to be created only at the behest of the People via a full vote, and are to be available to the people equally. Government entity, actor, employee, public servant, or other person acting as "government" may have access to any other program or programs that are not also available to the general public. Of this there is no exception.
Amendment XIIId
All State Citizens and any business will pay whatever tax is voted into law at a flat rate regardless of income, location, or status. This for the support of the State and Federal Governments, any Social Programs, and any other Operations as enacted into law or created by the voice of the people for the benefit of the people. The tax may never be greater than the vote-regulated amount, and any excess must be saved, with interest, for the future. This tax can be a standard flat rate tax levied on all income, or may be a flat rate sales tax levied on all goods and services purchased, including any bartering, or fair trade in kind.
Amendment XIIIe
The budget of all levels of Government must be approved by a vote of the people. Exact expenses must be tallied with detailed explanations of how and why monies were spent in any form other than that provided by the budget. Any expense greater than a 10% margin of the approved budget must be approved by the people by popular vote.
Amendment XIIIf
Taxes collected should not exceed the necessary expenses of Government, any Social Programs, and Public Services at all levels. If the tax revenue is greater or less than the sum necessary for the operation of Government, it shall be adjusted annually, with any excess being applied to any deficit within the budget. Part of the budget should include a windfall for any unexpected deficite.
Amendment XIIIg
The Governments of the
Amendment 14 – Restriction on Public Service
Amendment XIVa
All positions in Government will have limits on the number of terms that any one person may serve in that capacity. This limitation will be decided and voted upon by the people for each of the levels of Government as defined:
Any Treasurer position, any Governor, any Representative, any Senator, and any Judge; whether appointed or elected.
Any head of any department, any bureau, any agency, any department, and any service; whether appointed or elected.
Amendment XIVb
All positions in government are to be controlled and regulated by law. There will be no exceptions for anyone serving in any form in the government, civil service, military, or other government or government sponsored position to the laws that govern the land.
Amendment XIVc
Any changes to the structure or organization, power or authority, need or necessity, and/or scope or purpose, of any office, entity, actor, or other position considered to be a Government job, must be brought to a vote of the people.
Amendment 15 – Enumeration of Rights
Amendment XVa
There shall be no understanding that the Constitution, any Amendment of the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights, contains a complete and final enumeration of all rights. Rights are pre-existing to the indivdual. This document and all governing documents are only a primary effort to protect any and all rights of the sovereign citizen.
Amendment XVb
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof shall make any law, rule, regulation, ordinance, or code, or construction to deny or disparage any other rights retained by the People.
Amendment XVc
Neither the Federal Government or any branch thereof, nor the State Governments or any branch or locality thereof has anything considered to be a Right. The Federal Government and any branch thereof, the State Governments and any branch and locality thereof are only actors on behalf of the People. These Government entities have powers and authorities derived from the People and act only so long as the People wish. Any changes to the form, type, structure, organization, or purpose of the Governments employed by the people must be put to a vote of the people.
Amendment XVd
If at any time the Government ceases to be a tool or actor of the People, the People have a right and duty to restructure and or replace the Government in part or in whole. Absolutely nothing may alter, change, remove, disparage, restrict, this statement. It is an absolute, imutable, unchangable, permanent Right retained by each individual, society, and State.
Monday, February 28, 2005
Great Sorrow and Loss
"Chief" George Mamanakis, USN, Ret.
My Grandfather.
Navy Seabee, Recruiter, and "go getter"...
Decorated War Hero from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
He passed away among family mambers Saturday the 26th of February, 2005.
He was 89, had been married 63 years, 5 children, 20 grand-children, and 6 great-grand-children.
He will be missed and remembered by many.
My Grandfather.
Navy Seabee, Recruiter, and "go getter"...
Decorated War Hero from WWII, Korea, and Viet Nam.
He passed away among family mambers Saturday the 26th of February, 2005.
He was 89, had been married 63 years, 5 children, 20 grand-children, and 6 great-grand-children.
He will be missed and remembered by many.
Friday, February 25, 2005
The fun of Sci-Fi/Fantasy
There are many stories that deserve mention. They deserve mention because of their qualities to inspire us. Inspire us to greatness, inspire us to dream.
Many of these stories are real, most of them are imagined. Even an imaginary story can have qualities of reality in its characters and scenarios.
Just imagine what you would do in their place.
These stories are unique, they are interesting because their story is not a xerox of many other stories that have come before. Unique stories, unique characters, and unique views of life.
These stories fall into this category:
Farscape
Harry Potter
Alien
Nightmare on Elm Street
Babylon 5
Predator
Ender's Game
Thieves' World
Hobbit & LotR
Firefly/Serenity
Transformers
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Dark City
5th Element
Galaxy Quest
The Island
ID4
Last Starfighter
Men in Black
Minority Report
Matrix
Stargate
Starman
Terminator
Star Wars
Star Trek
2001
War of the Worlds
There are many other movies that are great to see, and while I don't agree with everything on the following list, it has many of the great ones...
http://www.homevideos.com/
It would be nice if Hollywood would produce movies that meet these criteria and standards, but as it is, they produce so many movies that are duplicates of each other.
The names change, the way the scenario plays out is different, but the story is usually the same...how many times can you watch a psychopath kill everyone but the "hero" and come back time after time...
The original of each of these movies is the Unique one, while the others, if not careful, are the repeat...
Some of the different ones are
Aliens
I think horror movies are most at fault for xeroxing stories, but others follow the same trend...
Friday the 13th, Jaws, Jepers Creepers, The Ring, I know what you did, Saw, (etc)...
Just tell me, what is the real difference between all these movies...???
We should mention this to Hollywood, and often..."we want ORIGINAL Movies, with UNIQUE Stories...We want Inspiration!"
Something that isn't so far out there that we cannot believe it, but still enough of a stretch to excite the imagination!
Many of these stories are real, most of them are imagined. Even an imaginary story can have qualities of reality in its characters and scenarios.
Just imagine what you would do in their place.
These stories are unique, they are interesting because their story is not a xerox of many other stories that have come before. Unique stories, unique characters, and unique views of life.
These stories fall into this category:
Farscape
Harry Potter
Alien
Nightmare on Elm Street
Babylon 5
Predator
Ender's Game
Thieves' World
Hobbit & LotR
Firefly/Serenity
Transformers
Back to the Future
Blade Runner
Dark City
5th Element
Galaxy Quest
The Island
ID4
Last Starfighter
Men in Black
Minority Report
Matrix
Stargate
Starman
Terminator
Star Wars
Star Trek
2001
War of the Worlds
There are many other movies that are great to see, and while I don't agree with everything on the following list, it has many of the great ones...
http://www.homevideos.com/
It would be nice if Hollywood would produce movies that meet these criteria and standards, but as it is, they produce so many movies that are duplicates of each other.
The names change, the way the scenario plays out is different, but the story is usually the same...how many times can you watch a psychopath kill everyone but the "hero" and come back time after time...
The original of each of these movies is the Unique one, while the others, if not careful, are the repeat...
Some of the different ones are
Aliens
I think horror movies are most at fault for xeroxing stories, but others follow the same trend...
Friday the 13th, Jaws, Jepers Creepers, The Ring, I know what you did, Saw, (etc)...
Just tell me, what is the real difference between all these movies...???
We should mention this to Hollywood, and often..."we want ORIGINAL Movies, with UNIQUE Stories...We want Inspiration!"
Something that isn't so far out there that we cannot believe it, but still enough of a stretch to excite the imagination!
Friday, February 18, 2005
Thursday, February 10, 2005
Social Services
Social Services...
Has anyone ever wondered why Social Services are called Social Services, and how the name sounds amazingly like "socialist"...???
Well wonder no more. A socialist economy or a socialist country is based on the idea that those that earn share with those that do not earn money.
Sounds fair, right?
In just about every country that has implemented a socialist system it works for a little while, then it fails. People find out that they don't have to do anything and they can still benefit from it. Those that do all the work get tired of supporting everyone else and they find ways to reduce their burden. Services skyrocket (everything from purchasing goods to getting a plumber...). The Rick leave or find ways to avert the system, the politicians get fat on the benefits.
Yet, here we are, in the USA, implementing social services at a greater rate than ever before. Trying to find ways to help those "in need."
Social Security, Public Schools, Medicare, Mandatory Minimum Insurance, etc. And the politicians are always looking for more, like socialist health care...
Socialist programs are supposed to "spread the burden"...so, why not help "spread the burden" and create programs where people can choose their methods to "do their part"...? Put the responsibility back on the People, not on the Government. Move away from Socialism and toward Freedom.
First off, you wouldn't need social security. You simply require that people have a retirement plan. If they do not elect to have a 401K or IRA or other "retirement savings", THEN the Government can provide a "social security" program that people can put money. However, be aware, traditionally the Social Security program does very poorly in return where a 401K or IRA get much better returns. Tis means that it is basically a waste of money to invest in a Social Security program, when other programs are so much better.
Now, Retirement is taken care of.
Education used to be a privilege. People who went to school did so by the work of their parents. Their parents sacrificed so their children could get an education. This means that education meant something. Now that there are laws forcing education, and the burden of education is shared by the whole of society, not just those that are using the service, it has become meaningless. The illiteracy rate is climbing, fewer people are entering college, the drop-out rate is higher now. We won't have too many more years before people being elected into office are bone stupid (oh, wait...too late). If we are going to require education for minor children, then it should be the people with children in the system that are burdened. However, I believe it would still be better to make parents pay for their children's education fully. This way, they will have incentive to make sure that their child does well. It will be an investment.
Minimum Mandatory Insurance...this is insurance which is very cheap, covers only the minimum and basics, and you can not be denied. The only problem is, it has to be funded with public funds because it operates at a loss.
While this sounds great, the problem isn't the cost of insurance, the problem is the cost of health care. My wife takes pills for her problems. These pills cost $300 for a 30 day supply. Does it really cost that much to cover the cost? Or are they making money on the misfortune of people (if you have to have the medication to live, they can charge whatever they want and you will pay it or die).
It also doesn't need to be so expensive for necessary care at a hospital. A one week stay can cost $24000... I can stay at a nice hotel for $150 a night ($1050 a week), and hire a nurse at $15 an hour ($360 a day, $2520 a week), and if I pay a doctor $100 an hour for 8 hours of work and 8 hours of follow-up in that week, that is $1600. And with medications, food, and the renting of medical equipment...maybe another $2 or $3 thousand? The grand total? Maybe $8170; and a savings of $15830.
I could eat better, get specialized attention, live better, etc, doing things my way than at a hospital...for a lot less money.
Part of the problem is, hospitals also run a small socialist economy within their own walls...they provide for illegal immigrants at no cost, so they have to recover the costs from those that can pay. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They system does not work...
And if a pharmaceutical company would charge a more equalized rate for medications, they could still make money...aspirin costs about $0.02 each; raise the cost to $0.05, and do the same for every "common and highly used medication" and lower the cost for the "specialized and life saving" medications. I know it doesn't cost as much as they would like you to believe when you can go to Canada (with similar FDA requirements as we have) and get your medications at about 1/3rd the cost of those in the US. Our local Hospital buys its medications from Canada. Yes, you read that right.
Bad business practices and socialism has caused the troubles in the Medical Industry in the United States.
The only thing to worry about are those that fail to live up to their end of the bargain, or cannot live up to their end of the bargain...(doing their part, taking their responsibility)...
The inability to work, unemployment, sickness, etc, etc.
This is not a tough scenario to fix...
However, this isn't a federal level problem.
Just because I disagree with certain programs at the Federal Level does not mean that I disagree with them at the State Level. However, this is a bit more tricky, because you don't want to go to a socialist program, even at the State Level, but other programs could be provided for PRIVATELY and I believe that to be the answer. Keep the Government's involvement in out lives to a minimum.
Employers and employees could agree upon an Unemployment Insurance program that people could pay into to survive a layoff or furlough. Only those that pay in (like any insurance program) would be able to draw out, and you would have to "pick your plan" like a 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 month plan, and your premiums would reflect your choice. Your employer could elect to defray some of the cost as part of the benefits package.
Other issues, I believe, should be handled by "social service" providers. It used to be that Churches and Humanitarian Service providers were the ones that provided for people in need. A good example is the Relief Society of the LDS Church. Another good example from the LDS Church is the Welfare program (no "free lunch" there). People in society could elect to donate whatever they want to these programs and churches, and these organizations could solicit funds from the public to keep operating. The programs work. Look at many of the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks.
The other part of this is "responsibility". The LDS Church tells us the responsibility for our care first falls on ourselves. Then to our families/friends, then to our Church, and lastly, to the Government. So when Grandma gets old, and cannot pay for things, and has used up all her savings, retirement, etc. Then it falls to her family to provide care, in either $$ or in physical care. If she had 2 children, they could pay 50/50. If these children had 2 children each, and they are of age to work and bare some burden, then you have 1/6th the burden going to each individual (and so on, you get the idea).
There are also problems that outline the issues here, like how the free market system isn't free...
What I mean is, if there is no competition, there is no savings. There must be a way to encourage and maintain competition in all markets. People will not stand for sub-standard service, and will find a provider that gives the service they want/need at a price they can agree with. Government regulation and deregulation causes problems in this system. They should be concerned about monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and not what business operates in what area with what share of the market.
Then to put the icing on top of this cake...
We need to look at the Politicians themselves. They come up with all the social services, but NONE OF THEM USE THESE SERVICES. This does not mean that they are rich (most are) and don't need them (most won't) but that they are "special" in some way as to deserve services to a greater degree than the average citizen they serve.
Take away their salary. Give them a stipend for the time they actually spend working, and require them to prove it (like any other employee on the planet). Rent them a place in DC or in the State capitals where they work for the time they are working, and pay their government related expenses. For elections and campaigning funds, they are on their own. They can fund raise but not receive any "public funds" and anything raised for campaigning is not "theirs" but it belongs to "the people" and any money left over should be used in the General Fund (or some other, more appropriate way).
They should have the same requirements and programs to deal with as the average citizen. No special insurance or retirement programs, unless those programs are also available to the general public (this is one issue with socialism, the "royalty" (our politicians) end up with "more than their fare share"...)
Any increase in their stipend (salary) while serving the people should be brought to the vote of the people they serve.
There should be term limits on ALL government offices.
Any and all legislation should be brought to the attention of the people, and they should have a "comment period" for the legislation to help let their voices be heard.
Petitions, ballot measures, and other items should also follow this pattern, and once delivered to the politicians, should be given consideration, following this pattern.
This all puts the responsibility for everything directly back on the shoulders of the People, not the Government.
This also heps the politicians make damn sure they really want to pass a law, because that law will affect them equally as it affects us.
From Social Programs to Public Responsibility and from Speed Regulation to Health care, politicians would be equal to any average citizen.
Has anyone ever wondered why Social Services are called Social Services, and how the name sounds amazingly like "socialist"...???
Well wonder no more. A socialist economy or a socialist country is based on the idea that those that earn share with those that do not earn money.
Sounds fair, right?
In just about every country that has implemented a socialist system it works for a little while, then it fails. People find out that they don't have to do anything and they can still benefit from it. Those that do all the work get tired of supporting everyone else and they find ways to reduce their burden. Services skyrocket (everything from purchasing goods to getting a plumber...). The Rick leave or find ways to avert the system, the politicians get fat on the benefits.
Yet, here we are, in the USA, implementing social services at a greater rate than ever before. Trying to find ways to help those "in need."
Social Security, Public Schools, Medicare, Mandatory Minimum Insurance, etc. And the politicians are always looking for more, like socialist health care...
Socialist programs are supposed to "spread the burden"...so, why not help "spread the burden" and create programs where people can choose their methods to "do their part"...? Put the responsibility back on the People, not on the Government. Move away from Socialism and toward Freedom.
First off, you wouldn't need social security. You simply require that people have a retirement plan. If they do not elect to have a 401K or IRA or other "retirement savings", THEN the Government can provide a "social security" program that people can put money. However, be aware, traditionally the Social Security program does very poorly in return where a 401K or IRA get much better returns. Tis means that it is basically a waste of money to invest in a Social Security program, when other programs are so much better.
Now, Retirement is taken care of.
Education used to be a privilege. People who went to school did so by the work of their parents. Their parents sacrificed so their children could get an education. This means that education meant something. Now that there are laws forcing education, and the burden of education is shared by the whole of society, not just those that are using the service, it has become meaningless. The illiteracy rate is climbing, fewer people are entering college, the drop-out rate is higher now. We won't have too many more years before people being elected into office are bone stupid (oh, wait...too late). If we are going to require education for minor children, then it should be the people with children in the system that are burdened. However, I believe it would still be better to make parents pay for their children's education fully. This way, they will have incentive to make sure that their child does well. It will be an investment.
Minimum Mandatory Insurance...this is insurance which is very cheap, covers only the minimum and basics, and you can not be denied. The only problem is, it has to be funded with public funds because it operates at a loss.
While this sounds great, the problem isn't the cost of insurance, the problem is the cost of health care. My wife takes pills for her problems. These pills cost $300 for a 30 day supply. Does it really cost that much to cover the cost? Or are they making money on the misfortune of people (if you have to have the medication to live, they can charge whatever they want and you will pay it or die).
It also doesn't need to be so expensive for necessary care at a hospital. A one week stay can cost $24000... I can stay at a nice hotel for $150 a night ($1050 a week), and hire a nurse at $15 an hour ($360 a day, $2520 a week), and if I pay a doctor $100 an hour for 8 hours of work and 8 hours of follow-up in that week, that is $1600. And with medications, food, and the renting of medical equipment...maybe another $2 or $3 thousand? The grand total? Maybe $8170; and a savings of $15830.
I could eat better, get specialized attention, live better, etc, doing things my way than at a hospital...for a lot less money.
Part of the problem is, hospitals also run a small socialist economy within their own walls...they provide for illegal immigrants at no cost, so they have to recover the costs from those that can pay. Sounds like a problem, doesn't it? They system does not work...
And if a pharmaceutical company would charge a more equalized rate for medications, they could still make money...aspirin costs about $0.02 each; raise the cost to $0.05, and do the same for every "common and highly used medication" and lower the cost for the "specialized and life saving" medications. I know it doesn't cost as much as they would like you to believe when you can go to Canada (with similar FDA requirements as we have) and get your medications at about 1/3rd the cost of those in the US. Our local Hospital buys its medications from Canada. Yes, you read that right.
Bad business practices and socialism has caused the troubles in the Medical Industry in the United States.
The only thing to worry about are those that fail to live up to their end of the bargain, or cannot live up to their end of the bargain...(doing their part, taking their responsibility)...
The inability to work, unemployment, sickness, etc, etc.
This is not a tough scenario to fix...
However, this isn't a federal level problem.
Just because I disagree with certain programs at the Federal Level does not mean that I disagree with them at the State Level. However, this is a bit more tricky, because you don't want to go to a socialist program, even at the State Level, but other programs could be provided for PRIVATELY and I believe that to be the answer. Keep the Government's involvement in out lives to a minimum.
Employers and employees could agree upon an Unemployment Insurance program that people could pay into to survive a layoff or furlough. Only those that pay in (like any insurance program) would be able to draw out, and you would have to "pick your plan" like a 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, or 12 month plan, and your premiums would reflect your choice. Your employer could elect to defray some of the cost as part of the benefits package.
Other issues, I believe, should be handled by "social service" providers. It used to be that Churches and Humanitarian Service providers were the ones that provided for people in need. A good example is the Relief Society of the LDS Church. Another good example from the LDS Church is the Welfare program (no "free lunch" there). People in society could elect to donate whatever they want to these programs and churches, and these organizations could solicit funds from the public to keep operating. The programs work. Look at many of the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, and food banks.
The other part of this is "responsibility". The LDS Church tells us the responsibility for our care first falls on ourselves. Then to our families/friends, then to our Church, and lastly, to the Government. So when Grandma gets old, and cannot pay for things, and has used up all her savings, retirement, etc. Then it falls to her family to provide care, in either $$ or in physical care. If she had 2 children, they could pay 50/50. If these children had 2 children each, and they are of age to work and bare some burden, then you have 1/6th the burden going to each individual (and so on, you get the idea).
There are also problems that outline the issues here, like how the free market system isn't free...
What I mean is, if there is no competition, there is no savings. There must be a way to encourage and maintain competition in all markets. People will not stand for sub-standard service, and will find a provider that gives the service they want/need at a price they can agree with. Government regulation and deregulation causes problems in this system. They should be concerned about monopoly and anti-competitive practices, and not what business operates in what area with what share of the market.
Then to put the icing on top of this cake...
We need to look at the Politicians themselves. They come up with all the social services, but NONE OF THEM USE THESE SERVICES. This does not mean that they are rich (most are) and don't need them (most won't) but that they are "special" in some way as to deserve services to a greater degree than the average citizen they serve.
Take away their salary. Give them a stipend for the time they actually spend working, and require them to prove it (like any other employee on the planet). Rent them a place in DC or in the State capitals where they work for the time they are working, and pay their government related expenses. For elections and campaigning funds, they are on their own. They can fund raise but not receive any "public funds" and anything raised for campaigning is not "theirs" but it belongs to "the people" and any money left over should be used in the General Fund (or some other, more appropriate way).
They should have the same requirements and programs to deal with as the average citizen. No special insurance or retirement programs, unless those programs are also available to the general public (this is one issue with socialism, the "royalty" (our politicians) end up with "more than their fare share"...)
Any increase in their stipend (salary) while serving the people should be brought to the vote of the people they serve.
There should be term limits on ALL government offices.
Any and all legislation should be brought to the attention of the people, and they should have a "comment period" for the legislation to help let their voices be heard.
Petitions, ballot measures, and other items should also follow this pattern, and once delivered to the politicians, should be given consideration, following this pattern.
This all puts the responsibility for everything directly back on the shoulders of the People, not the Government.
This also heps the politicians make damn sure they really want to pass a law, because that law will affect them equally as it affects us.
From Social Programs to Public Responsibility and from Speed Regulation to Health care, politicians would be equal to any average citizen.
Taxes and the IRS
We all know about the IRS. Those dirty buggers that take 28% or more from our paycheck.
We also know that the IRS doesn't follow its own laws. The withholding process is "for our convenience" and paying or participating in the income tax is voluntary.
How, then, are we compelled to pay tax?
Well, the IRS is not abiding by the laws as set forth in their own code (IRSC), and we have allowed ourselves to be tricked. We simply believe everything we have been told by the government, which is foolish, and we never bother to check out things for ourselves (mostly because the laws are too complex for the average person to understand)
"...when human laws contradict or discountenance the means which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper ends of all laws, and so become null and void." Alexander Hamilton, "A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress", Dec. 15, 1774.
I used to have a quote, from one of the Founding Fathers (I believe) that basically stated that if the law becomes too complicated or complex that the common many cannot understand it, then it becomes null and void. (if anyone knows this quote, please send me it).
We could go along the lines of Mr. Shiff, although, it does not seem like that has worked out so well for him...
http://www.paynoincometax.com/
or we could learn a little something about the law:
26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
There are many other interesting places to learn about this law, but you have to wonder, wouldn't it just be easier to change the tax law to something more understandable and fair?
Sure, people will claim that the rich pay most of the taxes...but fair means that we "pay our fare share"...so if I am being taxed at 30%, and I am middle income, then the rich and poor should also be taxed at 30%. But as y'all may or may not know, people like Bill Gates pay like 4%, and the poor pay nothing.
So, what are we to do?
Well, we could levy a flat tax. This is where everyone pays 8% (or whatever, I like the numbers here)...
This is how it would break down...
Currently, I pay 30% in tax (it is actually something like 28% to 34%...so I will call it 30%)...
$75,000 = $22,500 in tax
Bill Gates, well, lets say he makes 1,000,000 a year(salary) (not unheard of, since he has a net worth of about 63 BILLION) and in investments earns $125 million. (latest figures I could find). And he pays about 4% in tax...
$126,000,000 = $5,040,000 in tax
The government now has $5,062,500 in tax revenue.
Now if we move to the 8% tax flat rate, here are what the numbers look like...
$75,000 = $6,000 ($16,500 in savings)
$126,000,000 = $10,080,000 ( $5,040,000 in expenses)
and the government has $10,086,000 or an increase of $5,022,500...
What this means is, the government needs about $5 million to operate, and now has a surplus.
The tax burden could be reduced from 8% to something more along 5%. Billy wouldn't notice, yet I would get an extra $18,750 in my pocket, or the price of a new car (which I could badly use)...
However, there are many problems with a flat tax...I have had several people explain the problems to me, I just cannot remember them right now...
But the argument always comes down to "the rich won't pay the extra..." and "the government/irs won't be willing to do away with status/jobs, etc..."
So, How about a sales tax?
This way, every individual and corporation pays a fair tax. This would also impact fewer people as those with money purchase more (pay more tax) and those without money purchase less (pay less tax).
I also believe the only way to fix the broken government system is to do a complete overhaul...figure out what offices really need to exist to run the country, staff those offices with the minimum number of necessary bodies, provide for the government employees and people's representatives in the same way that people (us regular people) are provided for (no special programs)...
Restructure the salaries for "public servants" at the state level to represent the average salary of that state, and at the federal level to represent the average salary of the US Citizen - for that time they are working. Force a vote of the people to raise those salaries and to create new positions in government. This would force the government to be honest about the programs, their need and their impact. This is called Open and Honest Government (so it won't happen, but it would be nice).
Reduce or eliminate federal social services...have the states take up that burden.
There are more ideas, but they are, as of now, not fully congealed in my mind...
Oh, and you would also have to really institute fair trade, and slap import tarrifs on EVERY product (foreign or "domestic" that is imported into this country - just like the Constitution says)...
We also know that the IRS doesn't follow its own laws. The withholding process is "for our convenience" and paying or participating in the income tax is voluntary.
How, then, are we compelled to pay tax?
Well, the IRS is not abiding by the laws as set forth in their own code (IRSC), and we have allowed ourselves to be tricked. We simply believe everything we have been told by the government, which is foolish, and we never bother to check out things for ourselves (mostly because the laws are too complex for the average person to understand)
"...when human laws contradict or discountenance the means which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper ends of all laws, and so become null and void." Alexander Hamilton, "A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress", Dec. 15, 1774.
I used to have a quote, from one of the Founding Fathers (I believe) that basically stated that if the law becomes too complicated or complex that the common many cannot understand it, then it becomes null and void. (if anyone knows this quote, please send me it).
We could go along the lines of Mr. Shiff, although, it does not seem like that has worked out so well for him...
http://www.paynoincometax.com/
or we could learn a little something about the law:
26 CFR Sec. 31.3402(p) Voluntary withholding agreements
There are many other interesting places to learn about this law, but you have to wonder, wouldn't it just be easier to change the tax law to something more understandable and fair?
Sure, people will claim that the rich pay most of the taxes...but fair means that we "pay our fare share"...so if I am being taxed at 30%, and I am middle income, then the rich and poor should also be taxed at 30%. But as y'all may or may not know, people like Bill Gates pay like 4%, and the poor pay nothing.
So, what are we to do?
Well, we could levy a flat tax. This is where everyone pays 8% (or whatever, I like the numbers here)...
This is how it would break down...
Currently, I pay 30% in tax (it is actually something like 28% to 34%...so I will call it 30%)...
$75,000 = $22,500 in tax
Bill Gates, well, lets say he makes 1,000,000 a year(salary) (not unheard of, since he has a net worth of about 63 BILLION) and in investments earns $125 million. (latest figures I could find). And he pays about 4% in tax...
$126,000,000 = $5,040,000 in tax
The government now has $5,062,500 in tax revenue.
Now if we move to the 8% tax flat rate, here are what the numbers look like...
$75,000 = $6,000 ($16,500 in savings)
$126,000,000 = $10,080,000 ( $5,040,000 in expenses)
and the government has $10,086,000 or an increase of $5,022,500...
What this means is, the government needs about $5 million to operate, and now has a surplus.
The tax burden could be reduced from 8% to something more along 5%. Billy wouldn't notice, yet I would get an extra $18,750 in my pocket, or the price of a new car (which I could badly use)...
However, there are many problems with a flat tax...I have had several people explain the problems to me, I just cannot remember them right now...
But the argument always comes down to "the rich won't pay the extra..." and "the government/irs won't be willing to do away with status/jobs, etc..."
So, How about a sales tax?
This way, every individual and corporation pays a fair tax. This would also impact fewer people as those with money purchase more (pay more tax) and those without money purchase less (pay less tax).
I also believe the only way to fix the broken government system is to do a complete overhaul...figure out what offices really need to exist to run the country, staff those offices with the minimum number of necessary bodies, provide for the government employees and people's representatives in the same way that people (us regular people) are provided for (no special programs)...
Restructure the salaries for "public servants" at the state level to represent the average salary of that state, and at the federal level to represent the average salary of the US Citizen - for that time they are working. Force a vote of the people to raise those salaries and to create new positions in government. This would force the government to be honest about the programs, their need and their impact. This is called Open and Honest Government (so it won't happen, but it would be nice).
Reduce or eliminate federal social services...have the states take up that burden.
There are more ideas, but they are, as of now, not fully congealed in my mind...
Oh, and you would also have to really institute fair trade, and slap import tarrifs on EVERY product (foreign or "domestic" that is imported into this country - just like the Constitution says)...
Government & Elections
For the longest time (200 years) we have been voting in the same way for major elections...we vote, the electors vote, and someone is elected.
4 or 5 times in our history the popular vote has not elected the president, the 2000 election wasn't the first time. However, never has this sparked such controversy as it did this time around.
The Democrats are calling for a "redo" and want us to get rid of the electors and go straight up with a vote of the people, "one person, one vote".
There is a grave problem with this kind of voting. The polulation centers of our country would elect the next president.
Why would this be a bad thing?
It would only take 9 total states to elect the next president. 9 out of 50 states. That isn't even close to a majority. Even if we compensate for "red" vs "blue" states, it would still fall on 13-14 of the 50 states to elect te next president. This means that 36 states would have no voice.
Yes, it is a government "of the people"...but the Federal Government is also to represent the interest of the States. States, not as entities in and of themselves, but States as in the grouping of people within sovereign boundaries called States.
The major population states would make all the decision in this country, which might not be the best decision for the states with lower populations. Most of these states are technology, industry, and tourist centers.
Places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Colorado would be completely ignored in the election process.
Ok, so how do we fix this?
Well, first off, we (that is, the United States) are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. The difference is, in a Democracy there is no need of "representation" via a senate, as all things are decided by the voice of the people. This works great in the States (smaller functioning communities) but not on the Federal level, because there are simply too many people in too few places.
A republic governs by taking representation of the states and using them to enact the "will of the people".
To facilitate this "representation" we must somehow garner the will of the people of the states by using what we call electors in the electoral college.
Electors are a good thing. They break down the populations into simple representations. It makes it harder for a single state to "carry the day"...HOWEVER, this can only happen if the electors are "unbound".
Currently we have 2 kinds of electors, "bound" and "unbound". Bound electors vote as a whole (the state "carrying the day") while unbound electors are free to divide their vote. Unbound electors, however, normally vote together anyway.
For instance, Washington has 11 electors. If 2/3rds of Washington's population votes democrat, then 2/3rds of the electors should vote democrat.
This way, the population is represented, which is what the electorate system was really designed to do.
This would force the politicians to go looking for votes whereever they could find them, because California would no longer be 55 votes, but some fraction of that number. Utah, Colorado, and the other "small" states would regain their voice.
This doesn't, however, fix everything...
We currently have a 2 party system, with a few other parties that represent other interests of some of the people.
Currently, our system won't support more than the two, because voting for the Libertarians takes votes away from the republicans, which ensures the Democrats will win, and the political philosophy of the Democrats is further from Libertarian than the Republican's philosophy is.
The solution to this is quite simple.
Allow people to vote for a primary candidate and a secondary candidate. This way, each person will "vote twice" but only one vote will count.
If their first vote (primary candidate) does not get enough votes, then the person's vote will move to the other (secondary) candidate.
i.e. If you vote for the Libertarian for your primary candidate, and the Republican for the secondary candidate, and the libertarian doesn't get enough votes to compete, then your vote for the republican will be counted.
In this way, your vote is protected, and you don't "help" elect someone you don't want into office by voting out of the two party system.
This would also help people be able to vote, with a free conscience. They could vote Libertarian, knowing that even if s/he fails, the Republican could still get elected. Our system would move from a 2 party system to a 5 party system (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Green).
All this is still a little moot, since, unlike in other countries like Greece, our political system doesn't change with the party elected. (when we vote a Democrat in, we don't move from a Republic to a Democracy, and when we vote a Republican in, we don't move from the Democracy to a Republic, etc).
Here is the fun part.
Using a new voting system that incorporates these two ideas, and applying that system to the 2000 election, the popular vote would still have "elected" the Democrat, but the electors, as representatives to the people, would have CLEARLY voted for the Republican, and there would have been no need for the courts to get involved.
Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy in the USA...we are a Republic...
The difference is :
Democracy - one person, one vote ON EVERY ISSUE
Republic - Representation and proxy voting by the representative
We should find the better way to operate within this structure, and I believe that this system is that better, less confusing, less ambiguous way.
4 or 5 times in our history the popular vote has not elected the president, the 2000 election wasn't the first time. However, never has this sparked such controversy as it did this time around.
The Democrats are calling for a "redo" and want us to get rid of the electors and go straight up with a vote of the people, "one person, one vote".
There is a grave problem with this kind of voting. The polulation centers of our country would elect the next president.
Why would this be a bad thing?
It would only take 9 total states to elect the next president. 9 out of 50 states. That isn't even close to a majority. Even if we compensate for "red" vs "blue" states, it would still fall on 13-14 of the 50 states to elect te next president. This means that 36 states would have no voice.
Yes, it is a government "of the people"...but the Federal Government is also to represent the interest of the States. States, not as entities in and of themselves, but States as in the grouping of people within sovereign boundaries called States.
The major population states would make all the decision in this country, which might not be the best decision for the states with lower populations. Most of these states are technology, industry, and tourist centers.
Places like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, and Colorado would be completely ignored in the election process.
Ok, so how do we fix this?
Well, first off, we (that is, the United States) are not a Democracy. We are a Republic. The difference is, in a Democracy there is no need of "representation" via a senate, as all things are decided by the voice of the people. This works great in the States (smaller functioning communities) but not on the Federal level, because there are simply too many people in too few places.
A republic governs by taking representation of the states and using them to enact the "will of the people".
To facilitate this "representation" we must somehow garner the will of the people of the states by using what we call electors in the electoral college.
Electors are a good thing. They break down the populations into simple representations. It makes it harder for a single state to "carry the day"...HOWEVER, this can only happen if the electors are "unbound".
Currently we have 2 kinds of electors, "bound" and "unbound". Bound electors vote as a whole (the state "carrying the day") while unbound electors are free to divide their vote. Unbound electors, however, normally vote together anyway.
For instance, Washington has 11 electors. If 2/3rds of Washington's population votes democrat, then 2/3rds of the electors should vote democrat.
This way, the population is represented, which is what the electorate system was really designed to do.
This would force the politicians to go looking for votes whereever they could find them, because California would no longer be 55 votes, but some fraction of that number. Utah, Colorado, and the other "small" states would regain their voice.
This doesn't, however, fix everything...
We currently have a 2 party system, with a few other parties that represent other interests of some of the people.
Currently, our system won't support more than the two, because voting for the Libertarians takes votes away from the republicans, which ensures the Democrats will win, and the political philosophy of the Democrats is further from Libertarian than the Republican's philosophy is.
The solution to this is quite simple.
Allow people to vote for a primary candidate and a secondary candidate. This way, each person will "vote twice" but only one vote will count.
If their first vote (primary candidate) does not get enough votes, then the person's vote will move to the other (secondary) candidate.
i.e. If you vote for the Libertarian for your primary candidate, and the Republican for the secondary candidate, and the libertarian doesn't get enough votes to compete, then your vote for the republican will be counted.
In this way, your vote is protected, and you don't "help" elect someone you don't want into office by voting out of the two party system.
This would also help people be able to vote, with a free conscience. They could vote Libertarian, knowing that even if s/he fails, the Republican could still get elected. Our system would move from a 2 party system to a 5 party system (Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Constitutionalist, and Green).
All this is still a little moot, since, unlike in other countries like Greece, our political system doesn't change with the party elected. (when we vote a Democrat in, we don't move from a Republic to a Democracy, and when we vote a Republican in, we don't move from the Democracy to a Republic, etc).
Here is the fun part.
Using a new voting system that incorporates these two ideas, and applying that system to the 2000 election, the popular vote would still have "elected" the Democrat, but the electors, as representatives to the people, would have CLEARLY voted for the Republican, and there would have been no need for the courts to get involved.
Keep in mind, we are not a Democracy in the USA...we are a Republic...
The difference is :
Democracy - one person, one vote ON EVERY ISSUE
Republic - Representation and proxy voting by the representative
We should find the better way to operate within this structure, and I believe that this system is that better, less confusing, less ambiguous way.
Thursday, February 03, 2005
Ideals of a Perfect (or more perfect Government)
For some time I have been thinking of what I would do, if I had all the power in the universe, and could fix what is wrong with our Government.
I think the following list tries to sum it up...
1. Public Servant's pay and benefits
One of the most egregious things we do wrong is the compensation for our public servants. Many of our Congress Critters(TM) are already very wealthy, yet the current salary for a Congress Critter(TM) is between $153k and $203k per year.
The average salary for someone living in the US is approx. $37 to $44 K.(depending on who's numbers you use)
While they pay taxes, they pay fewer taxes than average, because of the tax laws that shelter political activities, etc.
They have a great retirement, and free healthcare. Yes, they pay into and use Social Security, but they get a 401K type investment also, and it pays about 3% better than "the average joe" and is backed by the Federal Reserve so it is insured and guaranteed.
They can vote themselves a raise at any time, without public approval.
How do we fix it?
Congress Critters(TM) should be paid no more than the average salary of Average Joe Citizen.
This means, on the Federal level, it would be about $40 K per year. On the State level, it would vary from State to State, from $46K to $26K. This would only be paid to them while they are working, and they would be held accountable to show their hours worked, like any other employee.
We would provide them with living quarters, equal to their need - and only when needed. It wouldn't be the Hilton, but it would be adequate for their jobs.
We would provide them with transportation, security, medical, food, and other basic necessities, for as long at as they are in service.
They would also have access to a retirement plan, or social security (this will be discussed in another section), but nothing that isn't available to the Average Person.
When they finish their service, they could retire on their plan, or get another "civilian" job. But all extra benefits would be terminated at the end of their "employment" as a Public Servant. They are, after all, only a citizen like you or me. And that is how things work in "the real world".
We would put any pay raises up to a vote of the people. If the people are happy with their performance, they would get a small raise, otherwise, they will have to make due.
We would also put into place, term limits. There is no reason someone should serve for longer than 2 terms.
This would free up a lot of money and put the Military, Police, Fire, and EMS into this category and on equal footing with other public servants, but would receive other incentives, like hazard pay, better medical benefits, and other, better, insurance policies for their high risk jobs.
The savings, as you can see, would add up really quickly, and that from only ONE area of change.
2. Next, I would suspend all federal taxes. The Constitution is very clear as to where our money is supposed to come from. The states will have to figure their tax structures out, but as for Federal Taxes, we would have to build a list of what the Federal Government SHOULD be involved in doing, and what we should let the States deal with.
These things might include the Freeway System, and some other large projects, including the Military, but largely, the other programs (including all social programs) would be GONE from under Federal control.
Once we have the new tax structure in place, we would also disband the Federal Reserve, go back to the Gold Standard, pay the National Debt, and start our road to recovery.
There are a few reasons to do this:
First, taxing income is like taxing work. If I work 8 hours a day to grow veggies, raise meat, and build my own house, I do not earn an INCOME and there is nothing for the government to tax.
If I work for a corporation, and I make $10 an hour and I go buy my groceries, steaks, and pay my rent or house payment, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?
In fact, the IRSC (IRS Law) states that "INCOME" is defined as anything made from a FOREIGN source. "Foreign" meaning things like Investments, etc. Something that you don't WORK for but benefit from.
SO the Taxes would have to be analogous to what they are for: Gas Tax for maintaining and building roads, etc.
Second, all social services can be provided batter and more efficiently at the Community and State levels (in that order). For instance, if I could invest all that Social Security money into my 401K, I could retire at age 55 with a major bank roll. But, as it is today, I will have to work till I am 65 (or older) and I will have to have more than the SS Check each month, and then things will be TIGHT.
There is a reason to this madness, and it isn't because I hate to pay taxes...but it is because the Federal Government is the most inefficient, wasteful, and fraudulent organization when it comes to money.
(Of course, this also means that the physical size of the government would have to shrink. Many services would be relegated back to the States, and maybe even sold off to private industry. As you may know, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the country...but it wouldn't be after these changes.)
3. I would give the various countries, where our military is serving, 18 months notice to get their own programs into place. At the end of the 18 months, our troops would be coming home.
I like having a military, but in order to comply with the Constitution, we would have to shunt everything into the Navy (which already has ground troops "marines", and aviators "air force")
However, the funding to "do whatever they want" would not be there.
The preceding items are a good place to start. SO I will leave it there (for now)...
I think the following list tries to sum it up...
1. Public Servant's pay and benefits
One of the most egregious things we do wrong is the compensation for our public servants. Many of our Congress Critters(TM) are already very wealthy, yet the current salary for a Congress Critter(TM) is between $153k and $203k per year.
The average salary for someone living in the US is approx. $37 to $44 K.(depending on who's numbers you use)
While they pay taxes, they pay fewer taxes than average, because of the tax laws that shelter political activities, etc.
They have a great retirement, and free healthcare. Yes, they pay into and use Social Security, but they get a 401K type investment also, and it pays about 3% better than "the average joe" and is backed by the Federal Reserve so it is insured and guaranteed.
They can vote themselves a raise at any time, without public approval.
How do we fix it?
Congress Critters(TM) should be paid no more than the average salary of Average Joe Citizen.
This means, on the Federal level, it would be about $40 K per year. On the State level, it would vary from State to State, from $46K to $26K. This would only be paid to them while they are working, and they would be held accountable to show their hours worked, like any other employee.
We would provide them with living quarters, equal to their need - and only when needed. It wouldn't be the Hilton, but it would be adequate for their jobs.
We would provide them with transportation, security, medical, food, and other basic necessities, for as long at as they are in service.
They would also have access to a retirement plan, or social security (this will be discussed in another section), but nothing that isn't available to the Average Person.
When they finish their service, they could retire on their plan, or get another "civilian" job. But all extra benefits would be terminated at the end of their "employment" as a Public Servant. They are, after all, only a citizen like you or me. And that is how things work in "the real world".
We would put any pay raises up to a vote of the people. If the people are happy with their performance, they would get a small raise, otherwise, they will have to make due.
We would also put into place, term limits. There is no reason someone should serve for longer than 2 terms.
This would free up a lot of money and put the Military, Police, Fire, and EMS into this category and on equal footing with other public servants, but would receive other incentives, like hazard pay, better medical benefits, and other, better, insurance policies for their high risk jobs.
The savings, as you can see, would add up really quickly, and that from only ONE area of change.
2. Next, I would suspend all federal taxes. The Constitution is very clear as to where our money is supposed to come from. The states will have to figure their tax structures out, but as for Federal Taxes, we would have to build a list of what the Federal Government SHOULD be involved in doing, and what we should let the States deal with.
These things might include the Freeway System, and some other large projects, including the Military, but largely, the other programs (including all social programs) would be GONE from under Federal control.
Once we have the new tax structure in place, we would also disband the Federal Reserve, go back to the Gold Standard, pay the National Debt, and start our road to recovery.
There are a few reasons to do this:
First, taxing income is like taxing work. If I work 8 hours a day to grow veggies, raise meat, and build my own house, I do not earn an INCOME and there is nothing for the government to tax.
If I work for a corporation, and I make $10 an hour and I go buy my groceries, steaks, and pay my rent or house payment, HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT?
In fact, the IRSC (IRS Law) states that "INCOME" is defined as anything made from a FOREIGN source. "Foreign" meaning things like Investments, etc. Something that you don't WORK for but benefit from.
SO the Taxes would have to be analogous to what they are for: Gas Tax for maintaining and building roads, etc.
Second, all social services can be provided batter and more efficiently at the Community and State levels (in that order). For instance, if I could invest all that Social Security money into my 401K, I could retire at age 55 with a major bank roll. But, as it is today, I will have to work till I am 65 (or older) and I will have to have more than the SS Check each month, and then things will be TIGHT.
There is a reason to this madness, and it isn't because I hate to pay taxes...but it is because the Federal Government is the most inefficient, wasteful, and fraudulent organization when it comes to money.
(Of course, this also means that the physical size of the government would have to shrink. Many services would be relegated back to the States, and maybe even sold off to private industry. As you may know, the Federal Government is the largest employer in the country...but it wouldn't be after these changes.)
3. I would give the various countries, where our military is serving, 18 months notice to get their own programs into place. At the end of the 18 months, our troops would be coming home.
I like having a military, but in order to comply with the Constitution, we would have to shunt everything into the Navy (which already has ground troops "marines", and aviators "air force")
However, the funding to "do whatever they want" would not be there.
The preceding items are a good place to start. SO I will leave it there (for now)...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)