Infant Circumcision

This is the hardest thing for me to write.  I struggle to determine where to start.  This is a topic that makes many uncomfortable because it is about sexual organs.  If you think you know all you need to know about this topic, think again.  I've been studying the topic since before my first boy was born (over 12 years) and I'm still finding things I wish I would have known even before I had kids.  Also, there is probably going to be TMI, but I desire for people to understand why I'm so passionate about this topic.  My conscience simply will not allow me to be silent about this topic any longer.

I hope this post helps bring together a wealth of information into one place that I can refer people to.  Some things I'm going to leave to the reader to research on their own.

First TMI:  I was circumcised as an infant.

My parents simply chose to do what was done historically in their family and what seemed to be the norm at the time.  I do not hold any grudges about it.

Second TMI:  I chose to leave my boys intact.

Why didn't I want them to look like me?  Honestly, it didn't even occur to me.  I was willing to go with whatever my wife thought was best.  I guess I'm simply not so vain.  And, if they were to ever ask why we look different, I would simply explain.

Am I not worried about their prospects with finding a significant other?  No, absolutely not.  The majority of the developed world does not practice infant circumcision.  I've read stories of women that prefer intact over circumcised.  The stories I've seen of the other is only of women that are simply afraid of it because they've only known circumcised men.

Am I not concerned about diseases or infections?  No.  The more I've looked at the statistics, the more I realized that boys with intact penises have less of a chance of a disease or infection than a woman has of getting breast cancer, but I wouldn't cut out breast buds of baby girls.  "No part of the body comes with a lifetime guarantee against disease.  Breasts become cancerous, fingers become arthritic, earlobes develop malignant melanomas.  If disease prevention is insufficient justification for amputating fingers, breasts or earlobes, then it is insufficient justification for amputating foreskins."  Dr. Arif Bhimji.  In fact, during the healing time after the surgery, the risk of infection is very high.  Think about it:  they can't put a band-aid over it; they just put the diaper on where excrement goes!

Aren't circumcised boys easier to clean?  No.  They are still easier than girls (and, yes, I've changed girl diapers).  In fact, the foreskin performs a function that helps keep the penis clean.

Doesn't it say in the Bible to circumcise?  In the Old Testament, yes; however, the New Testament has several places where that rule is cancelled due to Christ's sacrifice (see references below).  If you're Muslim, check out this:  http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html.  If you're Jewish, check out the documentary put together by a Jewish man called "Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision (2007)"

Am I not concerned that he'll be laughed at?  In the USA, the rate of circumcision has dropped significantly.  The chances of being laughed at for being intact are most likely less than being laughed at for being circumcised.  Besides, remember the days when geeks and nerds were laughed at only to become the wealthy and successful adults due to their knowledge?

Third TMI:
I have/had 3 side-effects due to being circumcised:

• Meatal stenosis - had this somewhere between 8 and 11 years old.
• Amputated skin means the skin from the scrotum has to make up for it.  This means that the hairy part from the scrotum slides further up the shaft.
• Amputated skin means the skin from the scrotum becomes tighter.  This means that the scrotum squashes the testes into the body.  This can make sex very uncomfortable.

Besides the downsides of circumcision, there are many benefits to foreskin:  http://www.circumstitions.com/Functions.html

What about what the doctors say?  The AMA does not find any medical reason for circumcision.  Here's a good link too:  https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

I haven't heard many stories of men that chose to get their foreskins removed after puberty, but here's one good one:
https://www.yourwholebaby.org/without-his-foreskin

Also, in the American Circumcision documentary, there is a young man that was interviewed who allegedly ended up committing suicide.  In the documentary he was extremely unhappy with the decision.

There's a link between erectile dysfunction and circumcision (probably why the USA is the biggest consumer of Viagra):  http://www.thewholenetwork.org/twn-news/does-circumcision-cause-erectile-dysfunction

If you're still convinced that a boy should have his foreskin amputated as an infant, please look at one more thing:  http://www.savingsons.org/2014/10/i-researched-circumcision-did-you-really.html

Technically, I believe it is actually illegal, but it hasn't been explicitly and clearly been given the green light to enforce.  Here is a very thorough write up on the legality of the practice:  https://scholarship.richmond.edu/jolpi/vol16/iss3/3/

I could go on.  There's a ton more.  But, honestly, if all this does not convince you, I doubt that anything will.  Just keep in mind that someday your child will be grown and may very well ask you why and you may want to be prepared with a very good answer.  I'm not sure that my parents answer will fly with anyone when the parent lived in the days of the information superhighway.

Documentaries:
Cut: Slicing Through the Myths of Circumcision (2007)
Elephant in the Hospital
American Circumcision

Informational websites:
https://www.yourwholebaby.org


Biblical references:
"For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful, I know this full well." -Psalm 139:13-14

"But in fact, God has arranged the parts of the body, every one of them, just as he wants them to be." -1 Cor 12:18

"Behold, I, Paul, tell you that if you be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you." -Gal 5:2

"And I testify again to every male who receives circumcision, that hue is in debt to keep the whole Law. You who do so have been severed from Christ...you have fallen from grace." -Gal 5:3

"For when we place our faith in Christ Jesus, it makes no difference to God whether we are circumcised or not circumcised. What is important is faith expressing itself in love." -Gal 5:6

"But if I still proclaim circumcision...then the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished." -Gal 5:11

"I wish that those who are pushing you to do so would mutilate themselves!" -Gal 5:12

"And even those who advocate circumcision don’t really keep the whole law. They only want you to be circumcised so they can brag about it and claim you as their disciples." -Gal 6:13

"For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision matters. Rather, what matters is being a new creation." -Gal 6:15

"For there are many who rebel against right teaching; they engage in useless talk and deceive people. This is especially true of those who insist on circumcision for salvation. They must be silenced. By their wrong teaching, they have already turned whole families away from the truth. Such teachers only want your money" – Titus 1:10-11

"Watch out for those wicked men – dangerous dogs, I call them – who say you must be circumcised. Beware of the evil doers. Beware of the mutilation. For it isn’t the cutting of our bodies that makes us children of God; it is worshiping him with our spirits." – Phil 3:2-3

"But each of you should remain in the place in life that the Lord has given you. Stay as you were when God chose you. Was a man already circumcised [Old Covenant] when God chose him? Then he should not become uncircumcised. Was he uncircumcised [New Covenant] when God chose him? Then he should not be circumcised. Being circumcised means nothing. Being uncircumcised means nothing. Doing what God commands is what counts." -1 Cor. 7:17-19

"Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching, saying, 'Moses commanded you to be circumcised. If you aren't, you can't be saved.' But Paul and Barnabas didn't agree with this, argued strongly with them, and were appointed to go up to Jerusalem with other believers chosen to go with them. The apostles and elders met together to consider this question. [...] Peter got up and spoke to them, 'Brothers, you know that some time ago God chose me to take the good news to unbelievers. He wanted them to hear the good news and believe. God knows the human heart. [...] Now then, why are you trying to test God? You test him when you put a heavy load on the believers' shoulders [regarding circumcision]. Our people of long ago couldn't carry that load. We can't either." -Acts 15:1-2, 6-10

"Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly." -1 Tim 4:7

 "Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I AM the LORD."  -Leviticus: Ch. 19: 28

Quran:
http://www.quranicpath.com/misconceptions/circumcision.html

Jews:
https://www.cutthefilm.com/

A good blog for mother's-to-be to read before approaching the cut father:
http://brightonwoman.blogspot.com/2009/11/vulnerability-of-men.html

A good response to the parent that "wants what's best for their child:"
All parents want what they feel will be best for their child and that varies by culture, religion, ethnicity, etc which is more than okay!

I replied:

No, it's not okay.

It's not okay that I have to live the rest of my life with a permanent and unnecessary body modification that I did not ask for and do not want.

It's not okay that anyone else - parent or not - has more of a right to decide how much of my genitals I get to keep than I do.

It's not okay that I had so much skin removed from the circumcision that was performed on me without my consent that by the time I hit puberty and began "growing into" the skin I had left, there wasn't even enough skin left to accommodate the size of an erection.

It's not okay that anytime I would get an erection, it would completely max out the remaining skin (which was so tight it wouldn't even allow me to get fully erect) and caused my scrotum to be pulled halfway up the shaft of my penis.

It's not okay that this eventually resulted in me getting a twisted testicle - which was obviously very painful - and I had to have emergency surgery to repair it. I'm (relatively) lucky I didn't lose the testicle.

It's not okay that I've had to do years worth of stretching the remaining skin just to have enough slack skin to have comfortable erections.

It's not okay that I still have the scarring from the testicle surgery and from the circumcision itself.

It's not okay that my penis doesn't look and function like a natural, normal penis because someone else decided they wanted me to have an altered version.

It's not okay that my frenulum and ridged band are completely missing, which are supposed to be very sensitive sexually, but I'll never know because they were taken from me before I had the chance to experience them.

It's not okay that doctors continue to perform body modification surgery that is not medically indicated on patients who have not consented.

It's not okay that, in the U.S., only people of one sex are legally protected from having unnecessary genital cutting performed on them.

It's not okay that it didn't matter that my body belongs to me.

It's not okay.

Lessons learned hauling and towing

I recently helped someone procure a trailer so they could haul their car and other stuff behind their motor-home.  When it turned out to be a single-axle home-made trailer that wasn't wired-up for brakes and looked better designed for hauling things like ATVs and lawn mowers, it brought-up all my bad memories of hauling and trailering.  Thus, I decided to get those experiences down on paper for others to learn from.

Flat-tow 54 Chevy pick-up truck

When I was in my junior year of high school, my father and I put in lots of hours rebuilding an old 1954 Chevrolet pick-up truck.  We had gotten it painted just before we made a move from Washington state to Mississippi.  Because the pick-up was so low-geared, we decided to flat-tow it behind a new Dodge RAM Charger.  I think the lesson learned in this case was to have electronic brakes wired-up to the vehicle being towed.  We seemed OK until a front tire blew on the Chevy.  These two vehicles were very similar in weight, so the Dodge didn't have the ability to stop quickly.  Since the tire was on the front of the Chevy, the steering automatically turned on it, pushing the back of the Dodge and forcing us into the median of the freeway.  My father was able to keep the two vehicles aligned until we reached the top of the median where the Dodge lost traction and we ended up jack-knifed.  Both vehicles were damaged.  That was a very hard pill to swallow after putting in all that work on that pick-up.

Boat trailer with extra load in the boat

When we moved back to Washington from Mississippi, we had a boat to tow behind the rental truck.  We added some weight by putting some things in the boat.  Seems that the trailer was not designed for more weight than the boat alone because one of the two welded parts completely broke.  Luckily, I was driving behind with a car and was able to get my father to pull over before the other side broke too.

Tall vending machines in back of a small pickup

I had this little yellow Isuzu P'up.  There were these vending machines that needed to be hauled from Vancouver, WA to Seattle.  I didn't think it would be a problem at all.  Vending machines aren't very heavy.   What I failed to consider is that the vending machines were very tall and stood well above the cab of the pickup.  When I reached 60mph, I felt the steering wheel go loose.   I believe the air resistance caused the front of the pickup to lift off the ground.  I simply had to keep the speed lower and made it to the destination safely.  Sure happy I didn't have to deal with any wind!

Single axle car trailer with heavy nosed vehicle

I purchased a 1985 Toyota 4x4 pickup that had a V-8 and automatic transmission.  It's a fairly short vehicle, so I thought a single-axle was plenty large to haul it home with behind my F-150 (a half-ton pickup).  It was large enough to place the Toyota on the trailer, but, after I hit 45 mph, the trailer started wagging.  What I didn't consider was the nose weight caused by the Toyota being a 4x4 with a heavy engine and transmission.  This caused the F-150's front end to be too light.  I did not understand that you're supposed to keep the tongue weight of a bumper-pull trailer below 1500 lbs.  I made it to my destination safely, just very slowly.

Tow Dolly with pin for allowing turns

I was hauling an Acura behind a large motor-home with a tow dolly.  This was one of the kinds that have a pin that keeps the part the car sits on from rotating when there is not a car.  I forgot to remove the pin from the dolly, didn't leave the key in the car turned so the steering could move freely on the car, didn't leave the front-wheel drive car in gear so it wouldn't freely roll off the dolly and didn't have a strap attached to a hook on the car.  I started up a slight incline in a park and suddenly felt this sudden jerk.  The wheels had worked their way out from under the tire straps and rolled backward into a tree.

Tow Dolly with vehicle towed backwards when steering wheel does not lock

You would think by now that I would have learned all the lessons of towing and hauling, but I still had one to learn.  Remember that 1985 Toyota 4x4?  I decided to tow it backward on a tow dolly.  Probably would have been fine, but the steering wheel on that Toyota would not lock (even without the keys in the ignition).  I was all good going up the mountain, but when I started going down a fairly steep hill and let off the gas, that Toyota took that tow dolly and pushed it all the way around to the side of my F-150 so the Toyota's bumper could kiss the side of the F-150!  It wasn't enough to cause an accident as the F-150 kept it's place on the road, but I certainly stopped hauling that Toyota pickup that way!

Large RV making a sharp turn

This time I knew the right thing to do, but the driver wasn't listening when I warned him!  I was in this large motor-home when the driver decided he need to turn around.  He backed up the motor-home next to an off-road vehicle with very large tires.  I could see in his rear-view mirror that the back bumper was only a few inches away from one of those tires and I knew he was going to make a very sharp turn.  I yelled "watch your rear swing!"  Ya, he didn't know what I was talking about and there went the rear bumper!  Luckily, we had a bunch of body shop guys included in our party and they got that bumper back on in better shape than it was prior to the incident.  You see, many don't realize that the longer the length of the vehicle behind the rear wheel, the more you have "wag."  This means you don't want to get very close to anything; particularly when you're going to make a sharp turn.  If you are going to do so, you may want to move very slowly and look in your rear-view mirror as you're doing so.  You may notice the back of the vehicle get closer to what you were sitting next to than the front was.

Thus, lessons learned:

1. Best to use a tandem-axle trailer with brakes when hauling vehicles.
2. If the nose of the trailer is going to be heavy, use a torsion bar setup that distributes the weight evenly across the tow vehicle.
3. Redundancy!  Have a backup plan in case one strap or chain fails.
4. Consider aerodynamics.
5. Be aware of the movement of the entire vehicle, not just the front.

I/we got very lucky as no one ever got hurt; but it could have been disastrous!  So, please learn from my lessons and be safe!

Living in an RV vs an apartment or house

I have gone through 4 RVs personally and went cross country with my parents as a teenager in another RV.  I have also worked an RV campground for over 1.5 years now where the majority of the 58 spaces are used by people that live in them.  I have come to find that while the rent of an RV space makes RV living look more affordable, after accounting for all the costs of RV living, it typically is not more affordable.  In fact, you can easily spend much more.

When you have to replace a toilet for $700 instead of the $88-300 of one for a house, or $2000 for a small refrigerator vs. $300-1000 for many large ones for a house, you may start seeing my point.

With a house, you are likely to perform roof maintenance once every 15-20 years, maybe longer depending on the roof.  Most RVs these days have rubber roofs that expand and contract with temperature changes and movement down the road.  This means you have to get up there and re-seal the joints at least once a year.  I've seen too many people not take care of their roof, end up with a leak and end up with a ruined RV that they can't get any money back out of.  What most fail to consider is that it's too late to fix a leak once it happens.  Once the water gets in the roof and walls, it's trapped and will continue to eat away at the wood framing and wood paneling.  Mold will grow and make you sick.  Once all that happens, you may as well throw the whole thing away.

RVs also have batteries and power converters.  These batteries need to be replaced at least once every 5 years.  They're usually lead-acid automotive batteries that don't do well with being drained completely - their life gets much shorter every time you allow this to happen.  Those batteries can easily cost $200-400.  I've seen plenty of power converters die too and they can cost $300.

The walls and insulation in these things are typically much less than a house.  Thus, the cost to keep it heated in the winter is likely more.  I've seen people go through 14 gallons of propane a week.  At the current price, that's $36/week.  The windows are only single-pane and collect tons of moisture, unless you don't breathe.  That moisture becomes a problem if you don't keep after it.

I like this blog about the subject:  http://lifereengineeredblog.com/2013/my-month-living-in-an-rv-a-shockingly-spendy-lifestyle-alternative/

Here's a paragraph from rvnetwork.com that I think sums it up pretty well:

In 1998 we bought a gos powered motorhome that had an MSRP of $81,000 and we actually paid $66K for it. We took delivery in May of 1998 and moved into it fulltime in April of 2000 and we lived in it all of the time until Jan. of 2011. when we shifted to part time, but then took one more trip of 5 months with the same motorhome. In early 2012 we sold that motorhome and the NADA listing for average retail was $13,780 but the marked tor a privately sold coach of 14 years age is not that great and we actually received $10K in return. That means that we basically paid $4K/year for the RV, plus all of our maintenance and other expenses. In looking at our actual expenses we probably paid out very close to $5.5K or just a little bit more per year, including things such as replacement of our couch & refrigerator, upholstery for the chairs, and what chassis repairs that we had. Of course, that was with our RV on the road for about 5K to 7K miles per year on the average.

The only problem with this paragraph is that it is not considering the costs of the RV parks.

Here's some financial analysis of my own:
Cost of a spot at an RV park:     $475
Cost of an RV:  $300   whether you buy a new one or an old one that needs more maintenance, this is likely low.  I've purchased one brand new RV and 3 used ones, and in every case I ended up spending more than this per month.
This is $775/mo. and hasn't considered the extra heating costs, extra costs for commuting due to being further out of town, etc.  Unless you have a desire and the finances to travel the country with an RV like an RV was designed for, an apartment, condo or house may be the way to go.

I've seen too many people come into the RV park and seen them struggle to pay for the costs of their RV when something went bad in it.  I write this hoping to save others the same pain.

Where's the Microsoft I loved in the 80s and 90s?

Went to the Microsoft Store yesterday and I'm nearly in tears.  I was really hoping to find a Microsoft product I could really love again.  I was excited about the Surface Pro 3.  I was excited about the size as the older Surface wasn't as big as I wanted.  But, it still fails in a couple areas:  speech recognition and apps.  Sure, it's nice that you can use a stylus pen and it has the nifty keyboard; but, those aren't as important.


Here I am, father of two, 3-decade veteran of the personal computer era; and, my family has Android phones, a couple iPads and a couple Windows PCs!  Not to mention the Windows laptop I use for work.


Why?  Well, it mostly comes down to the apps.  Timing is part of it too.


I chose the Android phones because I like the larger size of the devices (i.e. Samsung S4) over the iPhone, and Microsoft was late in the game with something that was competitive.  Sad, really, as Microsoft was certainly not late with it's initial foray into the phone market.  I don't know what went wrong there.


I chose the iPads because of the availability of good educational games for my two young sons.  I was honestly surprised by the lack of them for the Androids as almost anything you could get on the Apple devices you could get on Android.


I have been struggling with tendonitis in my mouse-using wrist.  I move the mouse around all day at work.  Thus, I was really hoping to put speech recognition and touch-screens to work.  At the store, using Windows 8, I tried the speech recognition.  It looks like it's the same as what is in Windows 7.  I couldn't even get it to hear me.  The microphone was clearly hearing something, but it was not able to discern me (the person holding the Surface Pro 3) from all the background noise, or I was just using it wrong. I have tried it on Windows 7, but it is not nearly as accurate as the iPad or Android.


I do have some hope for touch screens, though.  They had some large HP screens there.  I'll need to make things larger on the screen so I can have some accuracy when using my finger, but, it'll suffice.


I probably would have typed this out on the iPad or my phone using speech recognition, but I don't have a full-size keyboard for either of those (yet) to make corrections if needed.


I loved Microsoft for taking the great ideas in technology and integrating them into easier-to-use packages (i.e. Microsoft Office).  Not sure I approve of the way they went about it (they probably should've bought or licensed the Netscape browser), but it certainly made things better for the end-user.  I like the idea of having a single operating system across all devices.  I like the idea of the live tiles.  However, until the apps and speech recognition come along, I will continue to expand the use of my Apple and Google devices.  Bluetooth keyboard:  you're my next purchase.

Politicians, the Elite and Social Engineers, Part 4

Another morning that I wake early in the morning because I have political thoughts on my mind.  I liked the time in my life when I would wake early because I had great ideas to apply at work much better!

I'm thinking what got me started is a story of Seattle police officer wives complaining of the Occupy protesters and protecting an officer that shot a homeless man, that was carving with his small (3 inch) knife, in his back.  I'm sorry, but this disturbs me horribly.  Not only was this man shot once, he was shot 3 times!  AND, not only was he shot in the side and back!  I understand supporting fellow officers, but to have the gall to say "you weren't there, and the press doesn't tell the truth" is not acceptable.  The evidence speaks for itself.  Officers are not supposed to shoot people in the back unless they are an immediate and direct threat to someone.  OK, so the guy was walking away and dis-obeying the officer - so get backup and continue to track the guy until backup arrives!  Anyhow, it was determined that the inexperienced officer was nervous and made rookie mistakes; thus, it was determined that he was not fit to be an officer.  I can accept that decision.  I just can NOT accept people thinking that it was acceptable behavior of an officer!

This story I believe is what led me to think of this question for the citizens of the U.S.A.:  Do we want a country where people starve, freeze or die from curable diseases while there is sufficient airable land for feeding everyone, sufficient housing for everyone and sufficient medical resources for everyone simply because we can not agree on how to properly distribute the wealth of the country?  If you are OK with this, then I feel terribly sad for you and wonder what in your life or what information could have led you to that position and I would LOVE to hear about it.  If not, PLEASE vote.  And, I'm not just talking about voting with your ballot.  Vote with your pocket-book and your voice!

I wouldn't have a problem with the 1% ultra-wealthy, if they were giving 100% of their profits and gains during the recession to charities that support foster children, the disabled and anything that supports honorable jobs; rather than continue to gain massive wealth while so many get poorer and poorer.  I am not part of the 1%, but I give 100% of my spare time to supporting two single parents with young children.  These parents both work and lean on the government very little or none at all!  I'll be happy to explain more to anyone interested.

Please do not hear that I support free-loaders!  I've heard plenty from those what are part of the 99% that have paying jobs, but what I've heard was people that haven't had to search for a job or attempt to build a business lately.  I know people that are plenty willing to work and have actually attempted building businesses, that simply faced impossible odds and ended up losing their homes.  I have a job, albeit, a temporary one.  And, I've been unemployed since the beginning of this most recent downturn and the job boards were simply anemic.  And, when so many are struggling to pay for the absolutely necessary, it's difficult to start a business unless you want to face stiff (nearly impossible IMHO) competition from the corporations providing us with the absolute necessities (food, clothing, housing).

I believe the people of the Occupy movement are attempting to voice this, but many seem to be hearing one-sided views.  I hope anyone that reads this sees that there is far more than one-side!!!

What is frustrating me the most about the Occupy movement is that our local governments are doing their best to silence these people while not appearing to be taking away their rights.  I'm thinking that it is time for another amendment to our constitution.  That amendment would require local governments to maintain public spaces that are visible and audible to the general public (where people go to shop and do business).  For example, Seattle would be happy to keep the movement secluded to the park next to the courthouse where primarily other poor people will see them rather than the general public.  I am not saying this wouldn't be a difficult piece of legislation to write and gain support for, just that it is needed.  Otherwise, it will be the wealthy who own the land that will control everything because they can claim trespassing, etc.

I just do not understand how someone could think that it is unfair to tax people gaining money from investments at the same rate as those who gain money from their time.  Please, someone explain this to me.

Politicians, the Elite and Social Engineers, Part 3

Capitalism - I love it, and I hate it.  I love it because it creates competition to assure that people continue to provide the best possible products and services at the best possible price.  I hate it because, unregulated, it leads to monopolies and 1 in 6 people living in poverty.  Socialism is supposedly the opposite of capitalism, but countries that are strictly socialistic are often frought with greedy/selfish politicians.  So, how do we get the best of both worlds?  I like to call it regulated capitalism.

Here in the U.S. we've been doing quite well with capitalism combined with Social Security and welfare.  That is, as long as there has been plenty of tax revenue provided by a good economy.

Economy - let's consider that concept.  A good friend of mine once went to a seminar.  In this seminar, the leader had the people form a circle.  He gave one person in the circle a dollar and had that person give the person next to them that dollar in exchange for a shoulder-rub.  Then, the person giving the shoulder rub would repeat the pattern with the next person in the circle.  Well, of course, the dollar was supposed to get all the way around the circle.  It's a nice idea.  Everyone gets back what they put into the system, right?  However, in capitalism, one of those people would be smart enough to haggle and get that back rub for half-price and invest the savings in something that gets them more money down the road.  And this is where the imbalances in society begin.  Let me be clear, I'm not suggesting that the haggler is an evil-wrongdoer.  I have a retirement fund and I do what I can to save money.  This is simply the world we've been born into.

So, how do we keep a balance without going completely socialistic?  I know some will disagree, but I believe it means "soaking the rich" and "death" taxes.  If the wealthy were keeping more people gainfully employed, maybe this wouldn't be necessary.  Even some of the wealthiest people support this idea:  Warren Buffet and the Gates family.

Some are afraid of taxing the rich because they may leave the country or stop 'investing.'  If I were making $200K a year, and paid half that to taxes, I would still have at least $20K to expand my portfolio!  If I didn't want the government to get so much of my money, I simply donate some of it to non-profit organizations I believe in.

I don't understand the resistance to Estate taxes.  People think they somehow deserve an eliteist life just because they were born into an elite family?  Aren't those who have worked all their adult lives more deserving of their Social Security benefits?  Aren't children living in poverty, who have done nothing to deserve poverty, deserve a good meal provided by food stamps?  I say we increase taxes on the wealthy before we cut these programs!

I'm not saying that the poor don't deserve some of the blame for the problem in the U.S. (I say "in the U.S." because I know the recession is global).  If anything, the recession is forcing the U.S. labor workers to be willing to work for a more competitive wage.  I mean, why do you think companies have gone off-shore so much?

And, at the same time, I know people in our government agencies deserve some of the responsibility too.  They seem to operate like many Americans operate with their credit cards and mortgages!  But how do we keep these people accountable?  Maybe that'll be another post...

Politicians, the Elite and Social Engineers, Part 2

After reading Part 1, I imagine many of you were thinking "Sounds great John, but find a way to pay for it all."  It's a question that's been thrown at Obama during his entire campaign and he never had a satisfactory answer, in my opinion.

I like the saying "how can we afford it?  How can we afford to *not* do it?"  In the U.S. we don't seem to have a shortage of human resources, just misdirected.  By misdirected, I mean that people are practically being rewarded by being on unemployment, welfare and in prison.  I realize that many of you think I'm crazy by saying prison, but I've heard plenty of stories of people doing things to get themselves back into prison because it is easier than being outside.  At least there, they get fed, clothed and sheltered.  I mean, have you seen how many homeless are sleeping in illegal places in Seattle?  Heck, if they get arrested, the worst that will happen to them is that they get fed, clothed and sheltered for a night or two for trespassing.

So, how do we remedy this?  Convince our legislature to re-direct unemployment, welfare and prison funds to creating jobs.  This can be done in many ways.  One can be by opening government jobs.  One can be by offering more contracts for contractors.  One can be by providing more small-business loans.  These jobs, however, would have to provide better take-home pay then unemployment or welfare.  Some jobs would be created just in the process of administering the programs.

I realize this sounds like bigger government, but it's really just redirection of funds and energy.  Heck, reducing unemployment, welfare and prisons would mean that people would have to be laid-off from the jobs that support those programs!  Or, the prison guards could be redirected as police and supervisors of those that get the jobs that the would-be prisoners would get; for instance.

On a similar subject, I feel the need to support our bus systems.  Here in Washington State, the buses are losing funding due to the drop in local purchasing (sales tax revenues).  There was a proposal to create an income tax, but that was killed.  King County instituted a $20 car-tab hike to make up the difference, but Snohomish County couldn't make the same happen.  I think people fail to recognize the value of buses, even if they do not ride them.  If there are fewer buses, there will be:
- more illegal and underage drivers on the road,
- more road and gas-station congestion,
- more bicyclists,
- more smog,
- higher gas prices due to higher demand.
Even if I weren't a regular rider, I would definitely pay the $20.  I would pay more for the bus, but higher bus rates may deter riders as well.  If it's cheaper to ride the bus, more people will ride them.