Governments and Taxation - Stimulus Checks

This will be a short post. And a very recent surprise post, since last time I wrote anything was in 2011. I just awoke from a coma nightmare and imagine my surprise when I saw the sorry state of affairs we're in now. This stimulus check we're receiving, why? $1,200 each, $3,000 for families? I mean, sure I'll take it. But, come on. It's a band aid on a severed artery.

No, the real key is taxes. We need to be taxed less. The amount of money the government wastes on the most ridiculous things is appalling. And it's OUR money, ladies and gents. We vote these people in, based on these promises they never fulfill, and then they just do whatever the hell they want (and whomever the hell they want if they're Bill Clinton). These politicians are basically running around unchecked; they're given carte blanche. And the only people who really check these people are, you guessed it, other politicians who want the opposite of them. So, really, what do we have? Two opposing sides who want very different things playing a game of tug-o-war with OUR money. All so they can make their constituents happy, get re-elected, make an obscene salary for public service, and do it all over again. These Senators and Congressmen/Congresswomen are paid $174,000 per annum. Their pension is about 80% of that pay. So they're making roughly $140,000k a year for life after five years of service. Three guesses as to who is paying for that. There's 535 members of congress too, including the Senate. That's CURRENT members, so that's not even factoring in the one's we're paying for who have done the Tokyo Sayonara.

Let's put it this way. The colonies of America decided that being taxed at 20% was too much. So that factored into their revolutionary ways. And it could be argued, as per the comments I've written above, that our representation is pretty much just a facade for these politicians to do whatever the hell they want under the guise of doing it for the American people. Now I'm not saying we should revolt. There's a lot of great things about our country and I do love it so. No need to throw the baby out with the bath water. But, there's a lot that needs to be fixed too. A lot. It's times like these that we need to focus on what's wrong so we can make it better for the next black swan event. Too much overhead. The government is not a for-profit business, and they should not be making money off us. And yet, all too often it does seem that's the way it is. This needs to change. Giving us our own money back in the form of "stimulus" checks is a joke and a political maneuver on a chess board.

Sincerely,
The Guy Blogging

Politics: Climate Change/Global Warming

The warming of the Earth is increasing at an astounding rate. Global warming is one of the largest environmental concerns at the moment and for good reason. Every year the earth is getting warmer and warmer and this is causing a chain-reaction of negative effects. Global warming occurs when heat is trapped by gases in the atmosphere. Instead of being released into space, the heat stays in the Earth’s atmosphere. The main gases that are trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere are carbon dioxide, methane, sulfate aerosol, and HFC-23. Methane is 25x more effective at trapping heat than carbon dioxide, HFC-23 is 12,000x more effective than carbon dioxide at trapping heat, and sulfate aerosol is 24,000x more effect than carbon dioxide at trapping heat.

Carbon dioxide and methane are natural gases that occur in nature. The problem is that we’re creating an excess of them. Cattle farms are creating much more methane than what would naturally be produced because we are producing too many cattle for consumption. Carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere because we’re burning and cutting down forests larger than the size of New York State every year. The carbon dioxide is then released into the atmosphere. Warmer oceans will absorb less carbon dioxide, warmer soils will release more carbon dioxide, and melting ice caps will reflect less of the sun’s heat. When ultra violet radiation hits a surface like snow or ice, it still has a short wavelength and can escape through the gases into space. When it hits dirt, concrete, and anything else that isn’t reflective like snow it’s wavelength becomes longer and cannot escape through the atmosphere.

The solution to the above problems is a complicated one. It seems that it would be simple i.e. eliminate all of these emissions, but it’s far more complex than that. Unless every American is willing to become a vegetarian those cattle farms aren’t going anywhere and neither is the methane they produce. How could we stop cutting down forests for timber? What are you going to write on? What is going to support the walls of your home? Carbon dioxide and methane alone would most likely still progress global warming which would cause the above to occur to. However, it is possible to stop global warming. I’ve been a vegetarian since I was five years old and I don’t feel like I’m missing anything at all. In fact, I personally find eating meat disgusting. There are many benefits vegetarians enjoy that could convert meat eaters. The price of meat could be increased so that instead of eating meat every day of the week, families only had it once or twice a week. This would equal less cattle and more crops, effectively reducing the methane in the atmosphere and creating a carbon sink. Why not create a material to place in asphalt, paint, and shingles that would reflect the ultraviolet light at the same wavelength that it entered the atmosphere and making it mandatory to include it in all roofing and asphalt materials? Unfortunately there are no quick fixes for global warming and every country has to contribute. There is no one policy that can be changed because there are too many other variables contributing to global warming, but the every nation working together in unison would be able to overcome it – it’s just a matter of doing it.

Money, Politics, and Happiness

A major problem with America is how we measure our total net worth. The gross national product system, or G.N.P for short, is used because it signifies the amount of money made by American companies overall, not just within national boundaries. This way an American company that outsources in Bangladesh can have their profits totaled up with the rest of America’s profits. It is used because it makes it look like America earns more than it actually does. After all, only the high level executives are the American’s earning money. However, this may not be the case. The American company does not have to be owned by an American. An American company owned by a Japanese company that outsources its work to Indonesia would still have its profits added to America’s G.N.P.

Another drawback of G.N.P. is that it measures everything as a positive. Let’s say that there was an oil spill and it took roughly $20 million to clean up. That money would be added to the G.N.P. – raising it by $20 million. To me, that goes beyond the realm of being counterintuitive and into the realm of absurdity. The government is spending money, yet it records it as a profit.

As I stated in an entry before this one, Americans have to relinquish their obsession for money and start doing things that make sense. Why would anyone actively try to prevent environmental disasters if the money spent fixing the damage is just going to make it look like America made more money than it did? It is a fact that the happiness of Americans peaked in the 1950’s. That’s at a point in time when American’s had far less material objects than they do now, yet they were happier. The average American today believes that money will bring happiness. This is an illusion – we only want what we cannot have. Once we have something, we toss it into the corner and think about the other things we don’t yet have. So wouldn’t it be more desirous for Americans to want something that is hard to achieve such as love, happiness, and reversing the negative affects we’ve caused to the environment? It would take a lot longer to achieve than standing in line and paying a few hundred dollars for a new gadget and the benefits would last a lifetime.

The solution is to start using a method to measure our national profit that uses both positives AND negatives. That way we have a true sense of how much we’re making. After all, all we’re doing is lying to ourselves when we present that number as a profit. Adding negatives into the mix lowers our numbers, but gives America more motivation to make more money and reduce the negatives i.e. things that affect the environment negatively. This alone may be the push America needs to start combating global warming, the use of dangerous chemicals, and the use of nonrenewable resources. If more money won’t motivate our money-obsessed country, then I don’t know what will.

Literature: Recommended Reading

This will be a shorter post as the point of the post is to just introduce two of my favorite literary series to anyone who follows/reads my blog.

The first one is called the Camulod Chronicles by Jack Whyte and it is about the fall of the Roman Empire in Britannia and the creation of Camelot and myth and legend of King Arthur. It is beautifully written and every time I finished a book in the series I was disappointed as I grew to love the characters and the series of events they went through. The series has violence, drama, very vivid and sometimes surprising sex scenes, and amazing detail - it is truly an amazing series and I am shocked more people don't talk about it. I've read through it twice and want to go through it a third this summer.

The second is the John Rain series by Barry Eisler. This is about a Japanese/American assassin named John Rain who partakes in different missions over each book in the series. Barry Eisler wrote these books after visiting each location in the book, so everything is exactly as he writes it, at least it was when he wrote it; some things may have changed by now. The series has violence, action, and steamy sex; what more could you want? I've already read through the entire series two or three times and I'm working my way through it again.

Both series are incredibly written and you won't put the books down until you have finished them. I honestly cannot put into words how fantastic these two series of books are and I suggest that if you enjoy reading at all, you go purchase the first books in both series and give them a read; you'll want to get the rest of the books, trust me. If you feel as if I liked a particular series more, you shouldn't because I could not choose a favorite between the two; I love them equally, like just any good parent loves their children equally, even though we all know that's bull shit - I mean what if you have sextuplets or something, are the kids supposed to believe there's really a six way tie? Anyways, here are the links:

John Rain Series by Barry Eisler

Camulod Chronicles Series by Jack Whyte


Note: I do not and will not ever receive money for endorsing a product and I am only doing so based upon the quality of the product and because they do not seem to be well-known. I would never, for example, endorse Harry Potter novels because everyone knows Harry Potter, even if I was offered money.

Politics: Environment and Alternative Energy

The United States is trailing behind Western Europe in alternative energy and environmental issues. When polled, 78% of Americans were for a better, more sustainable environment. When it was time to elect the president, only 1% cast their vote based upon environmental issues. Most Americans lack respect for the environment, and it’s not due to ignorance. Everyone knows littering is bad for the environment, yet people litter all of the time. It’s not that they don’t know better; they just don’t care enough, hence only 1% casting their vote based on environmental issues. People can be forgiven for things they aren’t aware of, but most of the things that are done only require common sense to realize it’s harmful. Littering, letting oil run down the storm drain, and leaving an unused light on all day are common ones that can easily be averted by the average American.

The thing I don’t understand, and this really puzzles me, is that Americans continue to degrade their environment at an alarming rate even though they have to live with it. The head of a company who causes air pollution doesn’t live in a bubble, so how in his right mind can he choose to allow mercury into the air knowing he may breathe some of it in, or even worse, his child? I understand that cleaner production is a dramatic shift financially from what industry is used to, but we have knowledge now that was unavailable to us previously. Industry would rather pollute than pay more money to have something taken care of in an environmentally sound way, but when they make that choice they’re not just affecting their finances positively; they’re affecting the entire population, whether it is regional or universal, negatively.

America has the financial means to become a leading advocate in alternative energy and environmental issues, so why don’t they? America has to stop acting like a procrastinating college kid that does their work at 2 A.M. the day it’s due. As powerful as America is, it can’t decide how nature operates. Nature is following a path, and America has to stop deviating from that path or things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

In the end, we have to protect the environment. There’s no other option when it comes down to it. We cannot live in a world where mercury is inhaled into our body in every breath we take. We cannot live in a world where harmful chemicals are in every sip of water we take. We cannot live in a world where the environment is treated as a waste site. This is our country, our piece of land on this life-sustaining planet; so how about we start treating it like we care about the quality of our health?

Published in the Examiner!

I now write for the Examiner.com website as a cross-trainer consultant. Feel free to check it out and let me know what you think, and as always, if you ever want to ask me anything, criticize me, compliment me, or tell me to go to hell, feel free in the comment section and I'll get back to you that day. Anyways, for the Examiner.com column, I plan to put fitness videos up weekly (almost every day) along with written articles, so be sure to check it out daily to look for new content. I may also make a fitness blog to go along with it and my health and nutrition blog http://theessentialguidetohealthyfood.blogspot.com/

Here is the examiner link (I only have one article right now) - http://www.examiner.com/cross-training-2-in-newark/ben-feldschneider

P.S. - I know that is a god awful picture - it's not small enough; I'm looking into fixing it (there's no simple picture edit option I can find).

Environmental Dilemma

The world’s resources are not only being harvested unsustainably, they’re also being distributed unsustainably. How can we expect to live sustainably if 20% of the world’s population is consuming 83% of the world’s resources? We need to dramatically reduce our consumption to become sustainable. Not only that, but we also need to distribute the resources more evenly. The poorest 60% of the world are only consuming 5% of the world’s resources. If the poorest and richest nations together consumed 80% of the world’s resources, 40% each, then we would be far better off both in sustainability and human suffering.

There is a great debate between environmentalists. What is the problem, distribution or population? Malthus believed population was the problem – he believed that at some point population would grow faster than food production. That did indeed happen, but now we produce enough food to make the entire global population as fat as an average American. How can the problem be population if there is enough to go around and then some? Would we be better off with less people? Yes, but it depends. If we had less Africans, then it wouldn’t matter because they consume a lot less than an American or Western European. Would we be better off with less Americans and Western Europeans? Yes, considerably so. Of course, this isn’t a solution as no one is going to line up in front of a guillotine to contribute to the environment. So the solution lies in distribution alone. It is something that Americans and Western Europeans may not like, but it’s much more appealing than dying and the fact is that we must become more sustainable and teach poorer countries to be more sustainable as they grow.

Despite America’s international standing, we are still the shepherd. Most countries follow us, especially the impoverished ones. Once we start setting good examples, others will follow. American policy makers may ask that if impoverished countries and developing countries aren’t doing it, then why should we? Well the answer is that being a role model and being, arguably, the most powerful nation in the world comes with a fair amount of responsibility. Countries may only be interested in their own national interests, but every country must pull its own weight to create a more sustainable world. If it’s only one country, it’s like trying to win game of tug of war by yourself against an entire team – you’ll be pulled face first into the mud.

The solution is simple: distribute resources more evenly and stop harvesting resources as quickly. Of course this is easier said than done. As long as there is a market for something, it will be harvested to make money off of it. We should try to create markets for things that are renewable or find alternative ways to harvest things. Instead of mining for coal, use wind turbines to produce electricity. Instead of harvesting diamonds, use lab-created ones. They’re exactly the same – they have the same physical, optical, and chemical properties. This way you have a conflict-free diamond; a flawless product; and a much cheaper, more sustainable product.

Change won’t come without a crisis, as I noted in my post above. After all, America puts value on what material things you own. Why would anyone want to give that up so an African kid can afford to wear a pair of shoes? Why would a woman want to be the only one in her circle of friends with a lab-created ring? Why would someone who can afford a Ferrari opt to drive a Toyota Prius instead? The answer is, most wouldn’t and that’s the problem. We put too much emphasis on things that honestly don’t mean shit. How does a natural diamond improve your life anymore than a lab-created one? They are exactly the same in every way possible. Sure a Ferrari is a great car and people may see you differently than if you were driving a Prius, but the question is, do you really need people on the road, that you don’t know, to know that you have money? Why would you even care? America as a whole has to rid themselves of the insecurity and lavishness they’re so acquainted with and start making some sacrifices for the good of the world.

Poetry: Random Ramblings of a Recently Reassembled Mind

Drill a hole into the top of your head;
Attach a light fixture so it always looks like you have a bright idea,
Look out! There’s a monster behind you,
Playing blackjack with the dinner table, dealer busts,
Open like a piñata hit with a wrecking ball.
You kicked me out of bed last night.
The trees sway in the wind to car stereo music, it looks like rock;
I think one of them has a lighter.
Bonjour mademoiselle, we are ready to seat you,
The barstool limps, from uneven legs, over to you,
Are you interested yet?
Here, I’ve brought you a gift wrapped in…
Have you heard a nursery rhyme lately?
…children’s letters to Santa.
You shove your face into the pillow like you’re at a pie eating contest;
It’s blueberry…I hate blueberry.
And all the while the cardboard donkey pours its rich in fat blood all over the grass,
While children clamor like adults at the stock exchange.
Raise one eyebrow so you look like an old man with a monocle.
Take this paper and crunch it into a ball.
Shove it in your ear so you know what a bad poem sounds like.
The lion cocks his rifle, taking aim for the antelope.
They always kick and shout like children throwing tantrums.
Set your alarm, I count seconds like it’s New Years Eve.
I trip and fall on the road like it’s paved with steel ball bearings.
Or banana peels, how comical.
I feel confined, like I’m always in a straightjacket;
Give me one second while I gulp down this dose of sanity.
The dog hides under the table like there’s a storm coming,
Stupid dog, it’s only for me.

Politics: Government Policy Entrenchment

There is a large problem within government in the form of policy entrenchment. Entrenchment is when a public policy creates a group of people who use that policy to make sure it doesn’t change. This group is often a powerful group such as the mining industry or agricultural industry. As long as these people are around, the policy is extremely unlikely to change. Most of these industries are bad for the public and the environment, but they create a lot of money so they have a lot of power.

Entrenchment often keeps a harmful policy in place that is beneficial to the industry profit-wise, but not really any use for anyone else. The 1872 Mining Act allowed any individual the right to purchase the rights to minerals under public land for a very cheap cost and the government has to give it to them if they have the intent to mine the minerals. One mining company sought after the rights of land that bordered Yellowstone National Park. The government gave them the rights to another piece of land so as to not disturb the ecosystem of Yellowstone. Fortunately, the company accepted the deal although they did not have to. If they did not, the government could not have stopped them.
The food industry is another good example. I recently saw the film Food, Inc and was not all that shocked to discover that individuals high up in government and the food industry switched between the two in a revolving door effect. Some people in the food industry became Supreme Court Justices, EPA officials, part of presidential administrations, and FDA officials. An FDA official who used to be an attorney for Monsanto oversaw the FDA’s decision to not label genetically modified organisms. The food industry taking away consumers’ rights to know what is in their food with their power.

Policy entrenchment has to stop. It benefits only the company that is using entrenchment and so they will never stop using it. Take Monsanto for instance – they own 90% of the soybeans used in the United States and the soybeans are genetically modified organisms. I do not want to eat genetically modified organisms and I certainly don’t want a government official deciding whether or not it’s safe for me to eat let alone one who used to work for Monsanto. Someone has to wedge a door stop under the revolving door or government and industry will be too closely affiliated with each other. This is when government stops working for the good of the people and works only for the good of a few wealthy industries. Maybe I’m mistaken, but last time I checked the government was set up for the people, not a few greedy individuals.