Taxes

There are a lot of NJ blogs that have been talking about taxes and how much of our income goes towards paying them. I understand that. I also understand that, when I was growing up, my dad (who was, admittedly, in the upper tax brackets of his day) paid closer to 60% of his income out in taxes. I think if you go back to the fifties and early sixties, the top marginal tax rate for Federal taxes was something like 70%. The top rate today is, what, 33%? and the state hits us up for, what, another 4-6%? So, my old man paid out more of his income for taxes at all levels than I do, so why should I complain? So, next let's ask what all these taxes at the state and local levels are paying for ('cause I'm not about to get into how our current president is truly harming this country by his fiscal [what he taxes and what he spends] policies in this post...I'll leave that one for another time.)

Hmmm...when I look at local budgets, the thing I notice is that education is just about the biggest line item on them. Education is also a very big line item on the state budget. Now, all my kids are long grown up and gone, (OK, my granddaughter is now in preschool, but she will not be a potential public school consumer until after the sixth grade: she gets to go to the Montessori school where my wife teaches for cheap until then) so I don't have any immediate personal benefit from supporting public school expenditures...except for the fact that the kids going to school now are the people who are going to be caring for me in my dotage. I don't know about the rest of you, but I want those people to know what the fuck they are doing when they have my fate in their hands. And it is even more than that selfish reason; I think that the world is a better place when people are truly educated. By truly educated, I mean a classical education in the arts and sciences. The better educated the general citizenry is, the better off we all are.

So, when somebody bitches and moans about paying taxes, one of the first things I want to know is where they stand on public education. (BTW, public education is probably the major cause for America's rise from a rural agrarian society to one of the great economic powers of all history.) Then I want them to tell me how we're going to provide a quality education (or at least the chance to obtain a quality education) to all our citizen children (child citizens?) while they cut spending on the schools.

As an aside, I personally think that Teaching (with a deliberate capital "T") should be a high status occupation and that Teachers should be both highly honored and very well compensated. Unfortunately, teaching (small "t") is not a high status occupation, so we get too many "teachers" who probably should be flipping burgers at Mickey D's rather than babysitting our kids. You want quality education, pay teachers what we pay journeyman pro athletes, and accord them about the same level of status. Then we'd get a lot more good teachers (and probably fewer attorneys) entering the field. 'Nuff said.

And it is not only the schools we need to think about. Especially at the state and local level, public spending is (or should be) pretty much all about maintaining/enhancing the general quality of our lives. We're talking about things like maintaining the roads, parks and libraries. We are talking about providing core services to the poor, the elderly, kids and those generally unable to fend for themselves. Now, you want to cut spending? Cut the size of the bureaucracy overseeing the actual service providers. Of course, that means there will be more opportunity for fraud both by recipients of government services and by those same service providers, but...well, if there are other choices consistent with maintaining certain basic levels of health and safety for all our citizens, please...tell me.

WTF part 2

I was looking for a picture of the Hummer to post as an icon for my following rant about how people who buy Hummers are selfish, egocentric, resource hog assholes. However, my google search on the key word "hummer" brought this site up as the third entry after the official Hummer site and what looks like a paid sponsored entry. FUH2.com says everything I felt and more, in a much more enjoyable format. Take it for a test spin, I'm sure you'll enjoy the ride!

On a slightly more serious note, I see that purchasers of Hummers actually can get tax breaks if they can figure a way to make it a business purchase. Well, I would like to see a bill introduced in Trenton specifically targeting vehicles like the Hummer for vehicle registration surcharges for: excessive resource use, excess wear on roads and increased need for EMTs at accident scenes (for the people in the other vehicles). Now that I was going to suggest two grand per year as the surcharge, but, upon reflection, I think that figure is actually too little to require Hummer owners to pay for the privilege of driving one of those beasts on an annual basis. Given 15,000 miles/year as a reasonable usage, at 10mpg that means a Hummer would use 1500 gallons of gasoline/year. A reasonable car should average, say 25mpg, which would put its annual gas usage at about 600 gallons. So, charge the Hummer owners a surcharge of $2.50/gallon for the difference and you get $2250/year for excessive gasoline consumption. Then add an insurance surcharge of...I don't know...at least another couple grand for the excessive damage done to other vehicles and their occupants in collisions, and, finally, another thousand or so for excessive wear and tear upon roads. That would bring the annual cost of ownership up to...painful. Yep, that works.

Note: If you can document that you really need the Hummer for legitimate heavy duty off road work, then you could get a certificate of exemption from the surcharges. Personally, if you live on the East Coast, unless you live in someplace like northern Maine, I don't see too many of those exemptions being forthcoming.

Emperor George Strikes Again

Note: this is the second attempt at this post. I did a "blog this" post earlier which I thought had been posted, but, when I went back to look at the site, it wasn't there anymore. Nor was it saved as a draft. Sometimes dealing with cyberspace makes one reach for the nearest bottle with alcoholic content residing within. That being said, here is my recreation, to the best of my ability, of that first effort>

To the best of my recollection, the purpose of NATO is to keep the western democracies of Europe safe from invasion by the godless, soulless communists comming from the steppes of Mother Russia. Or something like that. However, since the fall of communist Soviet state, there has been a drastically diminishing chance of that invasion happening. So, NATO has been transformed into a peace keeping organization geared to keeping the Balkan wars at least localized. Other than that, NATO has little to do these days.

That being said, one still must admit that, as a military force, NATO is a pretty attractive weapon if you are an aspiring Emperor. Which is why, I guess, that George finds it hard to keep his hands off the trigger. His latest great idea is to use NATO forces as peacekeepers in the Sudan (Bush Sees Need to Expand Role of NATO in Sudan - New York Times free registration required--I think).

I have a couple of problems with this. The most obvious problem is that I don't think the Sudan poses much of an invasion risk to Europe, so I'm not quite sure why NATO troops are necessary. Of course, at one level George is basically using OPT (Other People's Troops) to further his own agenda. You see, the Sudan is a breeding ground for Islamic terrorists who could, someday, threaten the U.S. At least that is how I think his reasoning goes. I know for sure that any basic humanitarian reasons he might put forward are only there for window dressing.

I do not know how this proposal is faring in Europe. I do know that if I were a citizen of a European NATO country, I would not be all that pleased with this proposal. For one thing, white European troops on the ground in an African Muslim nation is, inherently, a bad idea. Another good reason to keep NATO out of Africa is that there is another institution which can and should shoulder the responsibility for peace keeping in countries like the Sudan: the U.N.. The U.N. is not an American puppet, which is good in that part of the world, and it enjoys more inherent support than would NATO. In other words, rather than put NATO troops in harms way, put the whole thing in the hands of the U.N. and be done with it. If the U.N. wants to use troops from countries that also belong to NATO, sobeit. However, that is the U.N.'s call and not that of Emperor Bush.

All in all, this is a bad idea that deserves to be relegated to the trash heap.

WTF were they thinking???

I'm sorry, if the fucking Palastinians are so goddamn stupid as to think that the way to nationhood is through Hamas, then they are probably too fucking stupid to be trusted using modern appliances--much less governing themselves. People who feel so strongly that they are right that they have to mask themselves when they commit their particular atrocities in support of their "noble" cause are, in my opinion, nothing more than worthless scum who deserve to be squashed whenever and wherever found. And if a people are so goddamn dense as to think these vermin are the hope and salvation of their futures, then they deserve whatever nastiness comes their way.

I do feel for the Palastinians. I think that these poor people have been manipulated for the past eighty plus years, and that, in 1949, their leaders did screw them badly. However, the time has come for them to understand that they are not going to get the lands they voluntarily abandoned (it wasn't the Jews who forced them out of their homes--it was their fellow religionists who thought they could use this simple people as their foils) back. The time has come for them to understand that Israel is here to stay, and they need to learn to live with that fact. The problem, of course, is that neither Lebanon nor Jordan is about to give up sovereignty over their territory in favor of the Palastinians any more than Israel is. So, they either live with the land they now have or they work out a deal with Egypt for a bigger piece of the Sinai peninsula. (Note: although most of Sinai is, today a stinking desert, with modern solar desalinization technology, there could be more than adequate water to make the desert bloom.)

So, as long as Hamas is waving their guns and talking like street punks, I have no more sympathy for the Palastinians. And, by-the-way, they should note that the fact that Iran has THE BOMB does them no good at all. If some Muslim fanatic does use one on Israel, the Palastinians go as well. No, what I foresee is some very bad times for Palastinians until the next set of elections. At which time one hopes that the citizenry will have come to their senses and will put rational people back into office. Note that by "rational" I do not necessarily mean Nevil Chamberlin types. One can be highly partisan and work tirelessly for the best interests of one's people and still be open to negotiation and compromise. What the Palastinians need to remember is that a good compromise is one where nobody is happier than anybody else...

OK, this is interesting stuff...

Rather than dealing with the crap our current administration keeps pushing in our faces, this (SPACE.com -- NASA Moon Plans Advance) is what we should be focusing upon. One of the things I think we really should be focusing upon is the benefits we all reap because of space travel. For example, the entire high tech industry--computers, solid-state electronics, etc., etc.--are direct outgrowths of the push to put a man on the moon and, later, the shuttle program. The misguided souls who blather that we need to spend our tax dollars on the poor here on Earth miss the point: Space exploration creates jobs and wealth which lift us all. In other words, it is not space exploration spending which should be cut, it is things like the war in Iraq which needs to be eliminated. But I digress.

The goal to establish an "Antarctic-like lunar outpost" is a necessary first step. However, if, as some have speculated, there is water ice buried in the moon, then the primary resource for a self-sustaining colony exists. Add the ability to toss 150 tons of "stuff" into low earth orbit (like, say, the material needed to build a real Stanley Kubrick's 2001 style space station) and we have the beginnings of a real self supporting economy. The government is the proper vehicle for developing the infrastructure (rocket technology and initial habitats) to get us out there. Once those are established, I think the continued expansion into space will happen fueled by private industry. The only caveat is, as mentioned earlier, that there has to be water out there. If we have water, we can build our own self-sustaining environments without the need to haul food, water and air up the gravity well from earth. An extra-terrestrial water source gives us both the water we need to sustain life (and grow hydroponic crops for food) and oxygen, to breath, and hydrogen, our raw fuel.

Of course, sooner or later we will have to figure out how to get off this planet, and to come back again, in 100% reusable vehicles. We cannot continue to throw away a significant chunk of what we use to boost off the surface of our planet. That sort of research is going to be both long and expensive, and it will be without immediate payback. In fact, a lot of what we do in space over the next 20-30 years will probably not have a great deal of direct payback to those of us not directly involved with the program. Sure, there will be some technology fall out that will benefit all of us. And the support industry jobs created will employ a bunch of us, but we will not see a great economic return directly from space for that time.

The thing is that this is the right thing to do. We need to keep expanding our presence. If we do not keep moving outwards, we will stagnate and then we will, like a yeast culture in a Petri dish, die. I truly believe this. The only thing that will eventually save mankind is to get the hell off this planet and expand our horizons a little. And, when I say get off this planet, I don't mean a couple guys here and there. I mean a significant number of us taking up permanent residence "out there." I mean creating a viable society off the mother planet. The possibilities are so exciting; from colonizing other planets, moons and, who knows, even asteroids to sending self sustaining biospheres out to other stars, it is both exciting and it gets humanity out of the "one basket" syndrome we are currently in. Then, if something really horrible happens here, at least the species will continue elsewhere.

Aside: There! That was much more fun that Bush-bashing for a change. Not that Bush (et al) don't need constant bashing, mind you, but it is nice to raise one's sights once in a while...

Have you seen Time's current issue?

This is actually disturbing. The article questions whether, "TIME.com: Are We Losing Our Edge?", but the real problems are deeper than just having fewer students opting for careers in science. The overarching problem is one of values. Forty to fifty years ago, both private industry and the government saw science as something worthy of investment, and so they both poured lots of money into research which often was of no immediate economic value. That seems to have stopped. The great private corporate labs are almost extinct. and in the public sector fundamental research is also being squeezed. Not only is scientific research being squeezed by reduced funding, but it is being influenced by political and religious ideology/dogma. This is not good.

However, this is not the central problem. Rather, it is a symptom of a deeper malaise afflicting our society. We have, it seems, entered a new Age of the Robber Baron. Corporations have become reluctant to spend money on anything. They want as much of their revenue as possible to flow through to the bottom line. They are demanding more and more from their employees while, at the same time, trying to limit wages and benefits as much as possible. Corporations want to transfer as many costs as possible to the public sector in the form of waste disposal and management. (This means polluting with impunity.) This same mindset fuels the conservative drive to pare government spending to defense and welfare for rich individuals and corporations at the expense of, among other budget items, scientific research.

The decline of science in the United States is, then, just another example of how our standard of living is being eroded by the conservative agenda. That this is an extremely short-sighted mindset which needs changing would seem to be self-evident--except that the people who most benefit are those who are most insulated from its adverse effects. In other words, as the quality of life decays for 80-90% of the population, those at the upper levels of wealth can afford to buy their comfort--at least for now and for an ever increasing cost. It is time we, as a nation, started thinking about what is really important in this very transitory life, and making some fundamental adjustments. If nothing else, the debate/dialogue needs to begin in earnest now.

Cigarettes...

I was driving home from work the other day when I noticed this individual sitting up on the grassy slope next to Friday's. The gentleman (I'll give him the benefit of the doubt) was holding a sign that had "Wish List" written at the top. Listed below were the things this person felt he needed. I didn't have time to really read the list because the light changed and my group of cars started moving, but what I did come away with was the impression that the man was down on his "luck" and was looking for some help. Now, and here's the crux of all this, while looking for help (mostly financial in some manner) this guy is smoking a cigarette. Here in New Jersey, a pack of cigs costs at least $2.00/pack.

OK, I'm a reformed smoker. Twenty-five years ago, I was smoking two packs a day: on one of the first Great American Smoke-outs my wife and I quit cold turkey. Almost killed each other a number of times the first three weeks, but we got through it and haven't touched a cigarette since. But that is not what this is about. If the man in question wants to rot his lungs, as far as I'm concerned it is his choice. So, this is not a moral issue here, it is an economic one. If this guy is destitute and homeless to the point where he needs a blanket to protect him from the cold, then he should take that money he is literally burning up down to the local Salvation Army, and buy a blanket from them. Once he takes that first step, I'd be much more inclined to help him with the second and third and further steps.

It is going to have to be private citizens like you and me providing the aid for people like this guy, though, 'cause the government under Bush sure as hell isn't going to help him. The government is still too busy providing aid and assistance to those poor multimillionaires who have to pay all those ghastly taxes. They need that extra money to do...something, I don't know...but they do need that extra cash. Note: I didn't see any chauffeured Rolls Royces stopping to give this guy a sawbuck or two. I don't think the Bush welfare for the rich has trickled down to this guy yet...

They're rioting in Africa, there's strife in Iran... (name that tune)

So, here's the deal. By acting like a bunch of ignorant, ill educated, intolerant peasants, the Muslim community, by its actions (vis-a-vis Asian Muslims Hold Biggest Rallies Yet - EarthLink - International News) is only proving to the rest of the world that it is dangerous and should be, at best, isolated. Of course, Islam has always had the problem of being militant in its evangelism (ie. convert or die: they have never been all that tolerant of any other religion.) Even though the prophet paid lip service to the two other religions of "the book" (Judaism and Christianity), in practice the sword has always been at the forefront of Islamic relations with the rest of the world.

It is sad that Islam has sunk to these levels. As the Roman Empire finished its disintegration and Europe sank into its Dark Ages, Islam was the repository of knowledge and scientific advancement. In those days, the leaders of Islam welcomed both Jews and Christians as co-religionists. It was not until the ignorant, ill educated Christian princes unleashed the Crusades against Islam that these negative feelings towards the west were born. I am not proud of the way Europeans waged war in the name of God against a people who basically worshipped the same God. However, that was then and this is now. The sins of the past do not make the sins of the present any less odious or wrong.

I don't want to give the impression that I give my fundamentalist co-religionists a pass on their similar sins, it's just that the Muslims have grabbed the spotlight for the moment. However, bigotry, intolerance and hate are not a Muslim monopoly. All one has to do is look at the KKK or White Ayran Nation to realize that the Islamic world is actually not much different than ours. The same problems exist in each for men and women of good will to grapple with. (Although it would be nice for Islam to shed the cultural relegation of women to second class citizens. It is the other aspect of Islam truly disturbs me. But, that is another rant...)

We HAVE to get shed of this man...

Bleah! The Bush administration has done it again. It seems that according to this New York Times article (free registration required) Bush appointees have been messing with the science coming out of NASA. As a sop to the conservative Christian right-wing fundamentalists who provide sooo much of his support, one Bush appointee had the word “Theory” inserted after every mention of the Big Bang. Then there is the insistence that virtually all research findings coming out of NASA must be pertinent to the new Bush “vision” of returning to the moon and then moving on to Mars. (Now, don’t get me wrong…I fully support going back to the moon and then moving on to Mars. However, making this the sole rationale for the existence of NASA is just plain dumb.)

And, speaking of the President, it has taken from Tuesday until now for my blood pressure to return to its normal, slightly elevated, state after trying to watch the State of the Union address. I have to confess that, against my desire to bring some civility and rationality to the political stage, I find it impossible to listen to that man. The sound of his voice is enough to affect me like fingernail scraping down a blackboard. Perhaps it is because I know that most of what comes out of his mouth are either lies, platitudes or empty promises that amount to the same thing as lies. I am willing to bet, and bet heavy, that most of the things mentioned in his speech that I think are steps in the right direction will never come to pass. They are empty words whose major purpose is to disarm, at least temporarily, the increasing array of critics.

Of course, the Democrats have pretty much conceded the political stage to Bush and his handlers. Governor Tim Kaine of Virginia did a pretty good job answering Bush; I pretty much agreed with everything he said, but nothing he said really moved me at a gut level. There were no “Ask not…” lines in his reply. And that is what the Democrats and this nation needs: somebody who can deliver a vision of this country, both now and in the future, that gets us up off our fat butts cheering, and then gets us moving out the door to actually contribute to the vision. For Bush to get me off my butt (other than to throw things at the tube), he will have to stop giving away all the “goodies” to his cronies and their already rich buddies. We need to level the playing field again rather than tilt it further and further in favor of the rich.