Tag: Solutions

Closing Thought–14Nov19

We all have read or heard about the mass shooting this year (348 so far) and the pundits and so-called experts have had a wealth of ideas to stop or at least slow down the rate of death.

One such ‘solution’ is to encourage the male fighting spirit…..

Horrific mass shootings routinely bring out strong and passionate views from all sides of the political spectrum. Is the breakdown in family to blame? Or is it not enough background checks and lax firearm regulations, violent video games, mental illness, a cultural fixation on aggression as a solution to problems? The pundits and politicians have all the answers—yet somehow the mass shootings don’t stop.

Behind this debate over violence, however, lies a counterintuitive truth about conflict.

In a certain way, mass shootings—most often perpetrated by males—are a sign that we need more fighting. They are a reclassification of violence from direct to indirect, a shift from confrontation to elimination. Let me specify what I mean here. Gun violence provides a false avenue for loners and sometimes mentally ill young men to store up resentment and then unleash it all at once in overwhelming, lethal force. Rather than direct conflict against bullies or a bitterly resented group as a whole, it provides a false alternative, a fake ace up the sleeve. Rather than confronting those who torture our psyches, weaponized violence gives the illusion that we can just eliminate such people and situations altogether.

In Defense of Male Fighting

Sounds nutty right?

Is this a “Fight Club”?

Well if it ends the mass shootings then I say let the suckers fight…..a couple of missing teeth is far superior than dying, right?

Just a thought!

I Read, I Wrote, You Know

“Lego Ergo Scribo”

Is This The Best Example For Health Care?

First a note to my readers:  I realize that I am spending a lot of time and space to the health care debate–I do so because I feel that it is a huge problem that needs a solution.  If my readers are bored with the debate I apologize but I cannot in good faith turn my back on the subject when there is so much lying and misinformation out there.  Thanx for reading and please bear with me…….

As I have said…there is a wealth of plans and ideas for the problem of adequate health care….I have written about the GOP plan, the Dem plan. a corporate plan and on and on.  I have heard of yet another plan that is being mentioned by some in the media and that is the Massachusetts plan.  If you have heard of it…cool…but if not then you have no idea what it is all about.  Well, let me help.

According to wiki:

The Massachusetts health care reform law was enacted in 2006. It requires nearly every resident of Massachusetts to obtain health insurance coverage. Through the law, Massachusetts provides subsidized health care for residents earning up to 100% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), and partially subsidized health care for those earning up to 300% of the FPL, depending on an income-based sliding scale. The law is credited with covering an additional 439,000 Massachusetts residents as of April 1, 2008.[1] The law established an independent public authority, the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority, also known as the Health Connector, which offers the subsidized coverage and facilitates the selection and purchase of private insurance plans by individuals and small businesses.[2][3] Incentives for residents to obtain health insurance coverage include tax penalties for failing to obtain an insurance plan. In 2007, Massachusetts tax filers who failed to enroll in a health insurance plan that was deemed affordable for them lost the $219 personal exemption on their income tax. In 2008, penalties increase by monthly increments, and are based on half of the cost of a health insurance plan.

That sports fans is the plan that is being looked at as one of the possibilities.  I know…someone would like to know how it has worked out since 2006….right?

Employers with 11 employees or more are also required to provide their workers with insurance or pay a nominal fee. Those individuals or families whose income falls below a certain level are eligible for a state-run program that is underwritten in full or partially subsidized by the state.

In the three years since its adoption, the number of uninsured in Massachusetts has dropped to 2.6 percent from a previous high of about 10 percent, far below the 15 percent national average. This low figure, however, does not provide an accurate picture of the real state of health care in the Bay State.

As with Obama’s vision of health care restructuring, the authors of Massachusetts’ health care program placed protection of the profits of the giant health insurers and providers at the center of their legislation. The result is a system where the vast majority of state residents still pay thousands of dollars in premiums for private plans, which they are required by law to purchase, and where the more affordable plans offer inferior care with sizeable deductibles and out-of-pocket fees.

To above was taken from an article written by Kate Randall for wsws.org.

Is this the best example?  You decide….would it cover many uninsured?  Does not sound like to me.  IMO, this plan is like other plans…it protects the insurance companies at the expense of those insured.  Beyond that if it would lower the price of insurance then I guess it would be a plan that will be seriously considered.

We will see when the vagabonds return in September.

Our Economy Is Still Strong!

I want wehatever it is that McCain is smoking.  Apparently it distorts reality to the point of euphoria.
Today, Sep. 15, in Jacksonville, Florida, before a smaller than expected crowd, John McCain repeated his economic slogan. “Our economy, I think, still the fundamentals of our economy are strong,” he said.

In the face of a five-year high in unemployment, six straight years of growing poverty, record numbers of home foreclosures, falling home values, 47 million Americans without health insurance, and a crumbling infrastructure, John McCain still thinks everything is OK. And today, two of the largest banks in the country collapsed: a warning siren by any standard of an unsound economy.
John McCain’s apparent confusion about the soundness of the economy and even the message of his own campaign may stem from his admission in early 2008 that he doesn’t understand economics very well.

His campaign also suffered a major setback in July when McCain’s top economic advisor and close friend Phil Gramm described Americans who fear economic recession as being in a “mental recession” and the country as being “nation of whiners.” Though Gramm was fired, his idea that everything is fine seems to have stuck.

McCain’s new top economic advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin outlined McCain’s tax policy recently, which both reflects George W. Bush’s tax policy and McCain’s inside the box thinking about the soundness of the economy. According to Holtz-Eakin himself, the McCain tax policy will hit working families hardest with some tax increases when McCain’s proposed health care tax is included.

Damn!  McCain sounds a lot like Hoover before the “big crash”.  He will fix the economy by drill off the US coastline, he will fix it by doing the same tradgic things that Bush and the Boyz have been doing.  If that idiotic grasp does not scare you, then we will get the f*cking of a lifetime in November.

Want To Save The US Economy?

If you want to do your part to save a sagging American economy, then go on a DIET!  I cannot make this crap up!  There is really a push for this.

David Pimentel of Cornell University and colleagues have drawn on an extensive body of existing studies to highlight the wastage in the US food production chain. To bring their point home, they have estimated how much energy could be saved by making a few relatively simple changes to the way corn is produced.

Their conclusion is that energy demands could easily be halved. That could stave off the prospect of further rises in the costs of fuel, they say.

To do that, however, would require a considerable change in the average US diet. The average American consumes about 3747 kcal per day compared to the 2000 to 2500 kcal per day recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Using data from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, Pimentel estimates that half of the energy used to make food in the US is spent making animal products – meat, dairy and eggs. Farmers must produce crops to feed the animals that eventually provide humans with animal protein.

In 2004, Pimentel estimated 6 kilograms of plant protein are needed to produce 1 kg of high quality animal protein. He calculates that if Americans maintained their 3747 kcals per day, but switched to a vegetarian diet, the fossil fuel energy required to generate that diet would be cut by one third.

Reducing their meat intake is not the only way Americans can cut the nation’s energy bill. And Pimentel’s other suggested change to US eating habits would have the added benefit of cutting the national health bill as well.

Other suggested changes to the food production process range from replacing incandescent bulbs with energy-saving fluorescent ones, to using fewer machines, pesticides and fertilisers, and more human power on farms.

Reducing the distance that food is transported could also cut energy costs: food travels 2400 km on average to its consumer in the US. This requires 1.4 times the energy actually contained in the food. Producing food locally would cut the energy expended transporting it by half.

Pimentel estimates that the amount of energy that goes into packaging foods could be halved as well, as could the amount of energy used by agricultural machines.

If his dietary and production measures were implemented, he says, the US food industry would consume half the energy it does.

Ok, you have read it….now comment…..a crock of crap or good idea? Personally, I do not see how my house note is connected to whether I am a vegan or not.

What Is Cap And Trade?

This election cycle we are hearing a lot about the environment and global warming. There are a wealth of issues and a plethora of solutions. The one that is getting the most play in this cycle is cap and trade, but what is it?

A common feature among these climate strategies is a “cap-and-trade” system for reducing emissions.

These systems draw on the power of the marketplace to reduce emissions in a cost-effective and flexible manner. In practice, cap-and-trade systems create a financial incentive for emission reductions by assigning a cost to polluting. First, an environmental regulator establishes a “cap” that limits emissions from a designated group of polluters, such as power plants, to a level lower than their current emissions. The emissions allowed under the new cap are then divided up into individual permits—usually equal to one ton of pollution—that represent the right to emit that amount.

Because the emissions cap restricts the amount of pollution allowed, permits that give a company the right to pollute take on financial value. Companies are free to buy and sell permits in order to continue operating in the most profitable manner available to them. So, those that are able to reduce emissions at a low cost can sell their extra permits to companies facing high costs (which will generally prefer to buy permits rather than make costly reductions themselves).

A key advantage of a cap-and-trade system compared with other emission reduction strategies is that it gives companies flexibility in the manner in which they may achieve their emission targets. Another advantage is that it sets a clear limit on emissions. Traditional approaches often focus on emission rates or require the best available technology, but do not always require that specific environmental goals be met. For example, an emissions tax penalizes polluters but does not guarantee the degree to which the environment will benefit, because some companies might find it easier to pay the tax instead of reducing emissions.

Does this help understand the system called “cap and trade”?  Please let me know.

We Are Whiners!

I was really pissed after Phil Gramm made his now infamous statement about the American people. But after thinking it over completely I must agree with Gramm. Oh hell, not for the same reason he said but on others. America is truly a nation of whiners.

Why do I say this? Glad you asked.

WE whine about the price of gas while we pump it into a large SUV that gets 4 gallons to the mile. WE whine about the price of food yet we throw away enough food to feed a small third world country. We whine about the leadership of the country but we continue the same types to Washington.

It is the age old problem, everyone sees the problem but it is up toi someone to solve it…we cannot be bothered with that part of the problem.

So I say to my fellow Americans….Whine on and do nothing…that is always a good solution to the problem.