Minimum Wage

The government regulates the labor market by setting a minimum wage that firms must pay their workers. So is a minimum wage worth it? It has the same effect as a price floor on a product. If the equilibrium wage is higher than the minimum wage (price floor), then the minimum wage has no discernable effect on the market, since the equilibrium point will be above the minimum wage. If the equilibrium wage is below the minimum wage, however, then there will be a surplus of labor: at the artificially high minimum wage, demand for labor is lower than supply, meaning that there will be unemployment (surpluses of labor). In this situation, not every worker who is willing to work for the minimum wage will be able to find a firm who wants to hire them.

There are strong arguments for either side. On one hand, if the minimum wage were removed, there might be lower unemployment, but workers might not make enough money to support themselves and their families. On the other hand, with the minimum wage in place, the employed are able to make more money, but many more workers are forced into unemployment and forced to take welfare, while making no contribution towards national productivity.

Whom does the minimum wage hurt the most? Firms will always want skilled workers who can make large contributions to productivity. When the minimum wage is installed, however, it is the least productive workers who are cut from payrolls first. The skilled workers will keep their jobs, perhaps even with higher pay; but the unskilled workers, because their marginal revenue product is lower than the new minimum wage, will be unemployed. The irony of the situation is that most people who advocate a higher minimum wage are hoping to help out the workers at the bottom of the ladder, when in reality, a higher minimum wage could very well put those workers out of a job.

My Opinion: The government should not be telling people what they can and cannot pay an employee. Let the market forces work it out without installing artificial price floors.

Federal Pork on its way to Utah

"OREM, Utah (AP) -- A section of Alpine Loop would get a $2 million study in a federal spending bill agreed to by House and Senate negotiators on Friday.

The bill would bring $21 million in federal spending to Utah, and Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, said that $6.3 million of that is for his 3rd district, which covers parts of central and western Utah.

The House passed the measure 392-31. If approved by the Senate and signed by President Bush, it would bring:

-- $600,000 to Provo for the city's new performing arts center,

-- $500,000 to Orem to widen Geneva Road from 1600 North to University Parkway

-- $200,000 to Eagle Mountain for community development and park improvements."



Now, as much as I like freebies, this is one I'd rather not be getting (not least of all because it isn't actually a freebie). I don't like the idea of every American's tax dollars paying for a road that only we in this area use. And I really don't like the idea of every American's tax dollars paying for a performing arts center in Provo and for "community development and park improvements" in Eagle mountain.

The sad part is that this is exactly the kind of government spending that happens all over the place all the time. My tax dollars are probably paying for some performing arts center in Iowa and a bunch of parks in California. These aren't things I will ever use, so why should I pay for them? Conversely, the people of Iowa and California won't ever be using the parks in Eagle Mountain or the performing arts center in Provo, so why should they pay for them?

The underlying issue really is, why are people being forced to pay for these services at all unless they are actually using them? Should the government be allowed to essentially steal money from people to pay for these things? Why can't these things be paid for directly by those who use them? Why does the government have to decide which services we the people "need" and should all be forced to pay for?

Sadly, the answers to those questions are probably too simple, which is why the government and the people of this country can't figure them out.

Socialist Mayor Rocky Anderson Proposing Letting Fuel Efficient Cars Park for Free

"[Salt Lake City] Mayor Rocky Anderson is pushing an ordinance to allow drivers of alternative-fuel, fuel-efficient and low-polluting vehicles to park free at all city metered parking."

This is insane. Here we go again trying to use the government to legislate morality. Hmmmm... I think pollution is bad and so I think I am going to try to force people to pollute less by making them pay more for parking if they don't. Never mind that the next guy has to pay for that spot and he pays just the same in taxes every year as the guy who runs that hybrid.

This is essentially a fine for people who don't buy a certain type of legal vehicle. This is also another scoot closer to socialism. The goverment needs to control less, not more. Let the people keep their freedoms, don't take them away under the banner of "saving the world" from itself.

55-Year Prison Sentence For Dope Dealing

Due to the mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines, Weldon Angelos (a 25 year-old father of 2), has been sentenced to 55 years in prison for selling drugs while in posession of a gun. Many call the sentence extremely harsh, and even the judge who had to hand down this sentence said that it was, "cruel, unjust, and even irrational."

I have always advocated stiff penalties for crime. Yet, even I agree that in this case a 55 year prison term for this offense (in which the gun was not even used, but was present) is probably much too harsh.

We have a problem in this country. Or sentencing guidelines are too complicated, and in some cases flawed. What's worse, people who get sentenced to a long prison term often get out much earlier due to things such as overcrowding. We need to come up with simple, fair, and enforceable prison sentencing guidelines. Someone should be sentenced to an exact amount of time, and good behavior should be able to get them out a little earlier, but not a lot.

When you go to the grocery store, do you see a price tag that says "$5.99 - $15.99" on anything? Of course not! And do you also think that you'll be able to take it to the checkout stand and have a good chance of only paying $2.99 for it? Not a chance. Each crime statute should have a specific sentence. Mathematical modifiers should be tacked on for repeated offenses. Good behavior should only be able to get you out of 10% of your sentence, at the most. For a 5 year-term that is a whole 6 months. If you're convicted to 5 years in prison, you should spend 5 years in prison (minus up to 10% for good behavior), not 2 years, not 5 to 15 years. What kind of message are we sending? And what kind of an unfair system are we sponsoring here that can reward people because too many others have committed crimes and so there isn't enough room in the jail for them?

Medicine for "Addicted" Gamblers?

There are aparently many people who claim that their gambling habit is so bad that they can't possibly stop on their own. And even worse, they claim it is not their fault, that they are somehow chemically difficient in a way that keeps them addicted. Now, while I believe that certain people are more predisposed to some types of behavior than others, I don't believe that anyone has truly lost their freedom to choose whether or not they gamble.

Let's say for a moment that someone was chemically difficient, to the point where they truly cannot stop themselves from gambling. Why go to work? Isn't it easier to commit crimes to get more money faster and for free rather than going to work? Why don't they just mug the first guy they see? If you look at a person who actually is chemically altered to where they can't control themselves anymore, such as a person who is very high on certain illegal narcotics, they truly act like maniacs. Many police officers around the country can attest to that. They made the active choice to take the drugs in the first place, which then took away their freedom to make choices while they were high. And while they are high they don't care about anything else, which then makes them very dangerous as they tend to hurt anyone around them to get more drugs. This is why they are arrested in such a state and why narcotics are illegal.

So if some people can truly be chemically altered by gambling, then shouldn't it be illegal too? And shouldn't these people be locked up long enough to go through the gambling withdrawal symptoms, just like a druggie? I mean, really, if they're really chemically altered then they could just mug someone or kill someone so they could have more money to gamble. But, we don't do that, which I am glad for. The reason? These people aren't really chemically altered so they can't stop gambling. It is simply a lack of personal control. They do not have the personal fortitude to decide to stop. They get a rush from it just like a junkie does from drugs, or a runner gets from adrenaline, or some other regular person gets from eating a certain food.

Let's not take every instance of people who don't want to change their lives bad enough to do so, and turn it into a clinically diagnosed disease and then try to come up with a medicine to fix it. Let's encourage personal responsability to both the gamblers, the casinos, and the institution that lends money to gamblers. Let's not just throw taxpayers' money at research and an attempt for a "cure" when really all we're doing is making Joe Taxpayer pay for people's gambling habits. This is a land of freedoms, and personal choices, and (less and less) personal responsability. Let's take some and quit passing the buck.

Highway Problem & Solution

Almost 2 months ago I wrote about all the pork in huge highway spending bill. Today I want to continue the discussion on that topic and explore a great solution made possible by technology.

Why is congestion so bad on today's freeways? That seems like a no brainer, right? Too many cars and not enough road. So defining the problem seems relatively simple. But, I assure you that it is not that easy. The deper questions of "Why are there so many cars on the road at a given time?" and "Why haven't the recent higher gas prices done anything to curb that?" are still out there to be answered.

The deep down reason that there are still so many cars on the road is that driving is too cheap, especially at certain times. Don't believe me? Let's look at just one instance of how this works in our lives. Why is a matinee movie cheaper than an evening? Because there is a much higher demand in the evening, so theaters can charge more. Some people who are cost conscious will go to the matinee, which wouldn't have done so before, smoothing out some of the congestion. If matinees were even cheaper, or evening shows more expensive, there would be an even bigger move of people to matinee movies.

One economist gave this example: "Try this thought exercise: Imagine that we operated our public golf courses like we operate our public roads. We would charge all taxpayers to help build and operate the course, regardless of how often they play golf -- or even if they don't play at all. Then we would charge very little to play and, most important, all golfers could tee off whenever they showed up. Would it be a little too crowded at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday when 127 golfers tried to tee up their drivers? You bet. We'd soon be reading about "golf rage," which would be particularly dangerous given all the swinging clubs."

The way we allow government to run the roads is very similar. It always costs the same, no matter when you drive, and it is relatively cheap. Many will groan when they hear that driving is cheap as they are spending $3 per gallon on gas. Look at Europe and you'll see they spend at least twice as much on gas. Why? Mostly because of taxes which build the infrastructure. We pay about 25% of the price of gas in taxes while they pay 75% in taxes. And yet, our taxes and user fees (auto registration, fees, and taxes) don't even cover the full cost of road construction and maintenence.

Thanks to technology, we can now increase and decrease the price of a highway as the traffic on that highway increases and decreases. I envision a system with some aspects of the I-15 FastTrak in San Diego. To ride on the freeways a person must buy or rent a small, device mounted on the dash of their car. Upon entering the freeway system, the device signals to a scanner that you are entering, and the system picks up your point of entry. Upon leaving the freeway it does the same thing, but marks it as your point of exit. Sounds like a regular old toll-road, doesn't it?

Well, here's where it gets different. The price you will pay to be on the freeway is dependent on the amout of traffic on that part of the freeway. So, a person may pay as low as 1 cent per mile if the traffic is very light. But they may also pay as much as 10 cents a mile if their section of freeway is packed with traffic. There would be sensors to determine traffic density, and electronic signs on all entrances and all along the freeway to tell you what the current rate in that area is. In addition, your vehicle could be weighed while getting on the system and be given a weight modifier. An average car would have a modifier of 1, which is normal. A heavy car or large car might have a modifier of 1.15, reflecting its increased wear and tear on a road, and a small car might have a modifier of .85, reflecting its less-than-average wear and tear on a road surface.

Paying higher prices to drive when it is congested will encourage people to drive at different times, take alternate routes, consolidate trips, carpool, take mass transit, and live in places where they have to drive less. It is much better than our current system of paying for everyone to cause congestion.

Ariana Christine

Our daughter turns 8 weeks old today. With all the negative things I see around the world today, it is a wonderful feeling to be able to look at her and think about all the good things in life. I am probably biased, but I think she's a pretty cute baby.

She likes to look at the ceiling fans. She likes to look at the wooden slats on our headboard. She sometimes sticks her tounge out a little when she's concentrating (just like her Dad). She laughs in her sleep, and sometimes wakes herself up doing so.

Family is the most amazing, uplifting, and supportive thing in the world if we allow it to be. Families are like small, independent support systems. They are the building block of a good society when they are whole and functional. Prophets and Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ have stated unequivocally that, “The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.”

Backpack harnesses pedestrian power

(CNN) -- Mobile phone users or iPod addicts could soon be spared the hassle of having to recharge batteries by a backpack that converts energy from walking into electricity.

By harnessing the backpack's up-and-down motion, researchers say the device is capable of generating more than seven watts -- more than enough energy to power several portable devices at once.

Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania devised the technology after being asked by the U.S. military to come up with a light rechargeable battery that could be used by troops one the battlefield.

Soldiers currently carry up to 20 lbs in spare batteries to power high-tech equipment such as global positioning systems and night vision goggles.

But Professor Larry Rome, who led the research, said the technology could benefit anyone who needed "power on the go."
Details of the "Suspended-load Backpack" are revealed in the latest edition of the journal Science.

"As efficient as batteries have gotten, they still tend to be heavy. Field researchers, for example, have to carry many replacement batteries to power their equipment, which take up a lot of weight and space in the pack," said Rome.

"The Suspended-load Backpack could help anyone with a need for power on the go, including researchers, soldiers, disaster relief-workers or someone just looking to keep a mobile phone charged during a long trek."

The backpack consists of bag suspended from a fixed frame by vertical springs. As the bag is moved up and down by the wearer's walking motion it creates enough mechanical energy to drive a generator mounted on the frame.

Portable devices such as mobile phones typically require less than one watt, but by carrying loads of 40-80 lbs, the research team were able to generate more than seven times as much power.

Instead of carrying extra batteries, Rome said wearers could compensate for carrying a heavier load by packing high-energy snacks.

"Metabolically speaking, we've found this to be much cheaper than we anticipated. The energy you exert could be offset by carrying an extra snack, which is nothing compared to weight of extra batteries," said Rome said.

"Pound for pound, food contains about 100-fold more energy than batteries."

Education Part 1: The "Traditional" School Year

This is the first in a series of several written opinions addressing the subject of education in America.

While I am a HUGE believer in a private system of education as opposed to a socialized (public) system, I also realize that there is too much ignorance and greed in America for such a system to ever be put into place. Most people are unaware that one of the main tenets of the communist system was to have a public school system. As such, the government can to some degree have control over what is being taught and what the children are being brainwashed into. But today I don't want to talk about why a private system would be better. I want to talk about practical solutions that could be applied to improve today's socialized American school system.

One of the main obstacles to learning is the "traditional" school year that gives kids and teachers a 3-month summer holiday. Children in most industrialized countries go to school more days per year and more hours per day than those in America. Most American children are required to go to school 180 days a year, and spend about 5 hours a day in an actual classroom. And we wonder why the rest of the world is catching or passing us in education.

First, the problems with this system. Out of about 250 business days per year, only 180 at most are days that kids are in school. That's about 72% of possible business days. What a waste of taxpayer money to let school buildings go to waste for more than a quarter of the year. But more importantly, what a waste of time for kids. We've all seen how happy kids are to get out for summer break. But within a few weeks, most are fairly bored most of the time, and are inventing ways to spend their time, which sometimes gets them into trouble. Then, come fall, teachers spend weeks reminding the kids of the information they forgot over the summer. It takes the average child until the age of 18 to learn very little, where it could all be taught to the child by age 16 if so much time were not wasted.

Some easy solutions come to mind. Unfortunately, most of these would be outright rejected by teachers and their unions, because it takes away their precious summer break and makes them work more. Don't get me wrong. I feel that teachers are woefully underpaid to do an immensely important job (teaching the adults and leaders of tomorrow). So I sympathize with them. But in my plan (which will be discussed at a later time), teachers get paid a lot more than they do now.

My solution is to have children attend school for 210 days a year (as opposed to 180), and for 6.5 to 7 hours of classroom time per day (say 8 to 3:30 with a lunch and 5 minute breaks between classes). This would give a child an extra 465 to 570 hours in the classroom each year. Currently there are 900 hours a year of classroom time, and this plan would increase that dramatically by more than 50% to about 1400 hours a year. Imagine what a child could learn with almost 50% more hours in a good classroom environment. To graduate from HS (grades 1-12) it currently takes 10,800 hours in a classroom. If we divide that by 1400 hours a year instead of 900 hours a year we get 7.7 years. So by the end of the 8th grade a child could have just as many hours under this system as a HS graduate does now.

Of course, everyone needs a break from time to time. This 210 day system would consist of 4 11-week terms and would include a full 3 weeks off around Christmastime (the last 2 weeks of December and the first week of January), 3 weeks off around the 4th of July (last 2 weeks in June and first full week in July), and 1 week off between the first two terms and the last two terms (roughly last week of March and last week of September, respectively). The school year would start in January, and end in December.

This would still give families plenty of time for a long summer vacation (as long as most parents' work schedules will provide), but also give families more time off around the end of the year and a week for mini vacations each spring and fall. But it saves parents from having to find day care for their kids all summer long. Too many parents can't even afford that, and end up leaving kids at home alone, or with just an older sibling all day. Rather than learning from Mr. Smith or Mrs. Jones in school, as they could be, the kids are learning from Mr. TV and Mrs. X-box at home.

So rather than letting our kids waste too much of their childhood, or worse, let's increase learning and extend the school year to something more intelligent than the 100+ year-old "traditional" system.

Huge highway bill full of pork

President Bush today signed a $286.4 billion transportation bill into law. Incidentally, that comes out to about $1000 for every man, woman, and child in the US today. That seems a bit stiff to me. Of all that money, about $24 billion (which is about $81 for every man, woman and child in this country) went to the 6,371 "special projects" that legislators got for their states.

Now, I have a family of 3, and I don't know about you, but don't really like the idea of paying $3000 in taxes for road work when the bill is so long (1,000 pages) that I will never read it or know anything that is contained in it. And I like the idea of paying $243 for some legislators' pet projects even less.

One of the reasons this particular issue irks me so much is that I use roads very little. I telecommute, and my wife is at home with our baby, which means that our road use is pretty light. On the other hand, someone who drives on the roads for hours a day still has the same amount of taxes going towards the roads that I do. And what about all those trucks? They take up lots of room on the roads, cause more pollution, and cause much greater wear and tear on the roads than a passenger car or even an SUV. Most of the time, a road or freeway must be built much tougher because of the weight of trucks.

I have a solution. Not everybody will like this solution, but that will be mostly the people who currently use the road system on the backs of others who pay for it. The solution consists of two parts: The use of toll roads, and the use of a vehicle's weight in determining its rate of payment. It makes sense to me that a person who uses a road more than another should pay more. And it makes sense to me that someone who drives a heavier vehicle (or a semi) should have to pay more than someone who drives on that road with a geo metro (because heavier vehicles force the roads to be constructed thicker, which costs more, and causes the roads to deteriorate faster, costing more in rebuilding and maintenence).

The practical application is that freeways and other long roads are paid for by tolls, and shorter and local roads are paid for by registration fees and gas taxes. Tolls for freeways are more than viable, and with today's technology they can be cheaper to run than ever before. A car could register to pay automatically and would then be tracked electronically as it entered and exited the toll area to determine the price, which is either billed to the owner, or payed for in advance. Registration fees can be adjusted based on a vehicle's weight to account for the damage of heavier vehicles, and gas taxes typically already tax heavier vehicles more than light vehicles.

We need to move more to a society where you pay for what you use, rather than one where everyone pays for everything (otherwise known as socialism), and this would just be one small step in that direction.

Study: Uninsured cost insured $900 more

Its about time that someone actually wrote the facts on this matter. To put it simply, "Socialism doesn't work, it just creates a vicious cycle during which members of society are trained to become lazy, stupid, and worthless."

Every time someone who is uninsured gets medical care they can't pay for a third gets picked up by the government (ie, you and me, in the form of taxes), and the rest by insurance companies (ie, you and me, in the form of higher insurance premiums). The end result: People who don't want to get insurance or don't work hard enough to get it basically get a free pass and force you and me to pay for all their medical care.

Now, until my recent graduation I was working 40-50 hours a week, carrying a very heavy full-time senior classload, performing 5 to 8 hours of service for my church each week, filling a volunteer position in my HOA, and spending some time with my pregnant wife, who was also working 40 hours a week, taking some classes, and giving 5 to 8 hours of church service a week. But because we both worked our tails off and didn't go waste all our money or spend it on things we didn't absolutely need, we didn't qualify for any socialist programs that so many others our age benefit from.

So, let's see, the government is basically trying to teach us that working hard doesn't get you anything, because you get all the same stuff if you're lazy and get the government (ie, you and me) to pay for it. This is called socialism, and communism is just a form of socialism. We, as a country, have slowly been heading towards it for the last 100 years, and if we don't realize it and do something about it soon, our country will start to crumble just as surely as the Soviet Union did.

Real Estate Speculation and Interest-Only Mortgages

I firmly believe that some people will bite the big one in some areas when home prices level off or start to decline. Most people don't realize that buying properties as investments can be much more risky than investing in the stock market.

Take for example a family that stretches their income to buy a $500,000 home today with the expectation that next year it will have appreciated to $600,000. Let's assume they got an interest-only mortgage (all the rage these days) at a variable rate of 6%, which gives them a minumum payment of $2500 a month on the house. Then by year's end the interest rate has moved up to 7%, making their payment now over $2900 a month. Let's then say that the housing market has cooled off and has started slowly declining, due to oversupply and the increase in interest rates. So now they can't sell their house for more than $475,000, a $25,000 difference from what they owe, and are saddled with $2900 monthly payments which could continue to increase. They can't sell the house because they'll still owe $25,000 on it and will just have to buy another house, but with home prices sliding who wants to buy a home that will devalue? They could end up losing the property completely and then be out a lot of money and time and have to find a new place to live.

These interest-only mortgages are big-time traps. It is no better, in my opinion, than renting. None of the money you pay each month will be yours in the form of equity. The rates are usually variable and will only go up. They are very much a true gamble, like something you'd find at Vegas. The gamble is that the price of the home will increase at a greater rate than their interest rates and all their home maintenence and insurance expenses. In essense, it is like buying all the risk without buying any of the property. If you wanted to do that in a stock, it would be like you borrowing all the money to buy a stock and then hoping it moves up so you can make some kind of profit, and if it doesn't then you could lose all the money you borrowed and walk away with nothing, as well as owing someone money. Brokers can't let you do that because it is way too risky. If you want a margin account (the ability to buy securities with borrowed money) they require certain minimum amounts of actual cash in your account so that if things go south for you and they have to sell all your stock, they still have enough to pay for everything, leaving you broke. But regardless, you walk away at worst having lost all the money you started with, compared to losing money you don't even have in the real estate scenario.

The Golden Parachute at United Air

This cartoon pretty much sums it up for the poor employees of United Airlines.

However, for the rest of us, we shouldn't think we're safe from all this. That unfunded pension money isn't just going to be forgiven, it is going to be given over to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. In the end, all taxpayers may end up paying to bail out the PBGC. A rough translation goes like this: United has dumped its obligation to pay pensions to its workers directly into the lap of all taxpayers. So next time you see a retired United Airlines worker you can take pride in knowing that you paid for their retirement and they won't be around to pay yours. So who will?

Study: Nation's traffic jams worsening

Well, people still don't get it. They got used to it, but they don't get it. How much of life is wasted in a car, specifically in a commute? Well, in 2003 the average daily commute was almost 25 minutes. Let's assume then that the average person spends 50 minutes commuting each day to work and back. There are typically about 250 business days a year, multiplied by 50 minutes equals 12500 minutes a year, or just over 208 hours a year of commute time. That's like working an extra 5.2 weeks a year for free!

In addition, there are the costs of running a vehicle. An average car costs 33 cents a mile to operate, including all costs (probably more so now with the higher gas prices). If they average 30 MPH while driving for those 50 minutes then they drive 25 miles a day to work, costing themselves about $8.25 a day. Over the course of a year that comes to $2,062! And if you make $40,000 a year then your time is worth $20 an hour, so that 50 minutes a day becomes another $16.75 or so. Add that to the $8.25 and you get $25 a day or $525 a month or $6250 a year just to commute for the average american! Is there anything we can do?

First of all, some employers can begin moving some of their operations away from central offices and into people's own homes. One example of this is JetBlue Airlines. I believe most of their reservation agents and customer service people work out of their own homes, telecommuting. This is a big long-term cost savings to the company, and actually increases their worker's productivity in many cases. I also telecommute, although I don't work for JetBlue. I work as the operations manager for a financial management firm, and everyone in my company telecommutes. It is great! It saves us all a great deal of time, keeps our stress down, and allows us to be happier while we are more productive. I have never missed a full day of work at this job due to illness, it is great! While this isn't practical for many employers, for some it would be a good option, but they need to be open-minded enough to do it.

Secondly, more efficient and intelligent roads need to be constructed. More input devices near intersections need to be developed and deployed so that one car doesn't wait for 2 minutes with no cross-traffic only to then trip the light while 30 others quickly stop and then have to accelerate again. Also, barriers between oposing freeway lanes should be much taller, so tall that the other side of the freeway can't be seen. There are WAY too many delays and additional crashes just from people rubbernecking. And how about inexpensive large tarps or other coverings that can be set up immediately on an accident scene so that passing motorists can't see anything? If people know they can't see anything, they won't try to look and traffic will flow better while reducing secondary accidents. Lastly, on major non-freeway roads we could eliminate some stoplights by raising the roadbed for one direction and lowering it in the other, in essence creating mini freeway like interchanges. By dropping one roadbed 9 feet and raising the other 9 feet and allowing for 3 feet of support for the top deck, that leaves us 15 feet of clearance, which can be handled with a 10% grade going 50 feet in each direction of the intersection. This will reduce the number of businesses which may be affected.

Lastly, we need to come up with better forms of transportation. We've been doing the car thing in one form or another since the late 1700s, and it is time for us to stop thinking about just improving what we already have and to start thinking of making something altogether new. Enter the proverbial "flying car" idea. This has of course been a dream of many for a long time. However, I believe we are at a point in time where true VTOL cars are technologically possible and feasable for everyday americans. Take Moller International, a company in California developing such a vehicle. If such a vehicle could be refined and mass produced as a luxury vehicle, many thousands would surely sell each year to those who could afford it. They could practically fly themselves and whisk people around at 200 MPH very quickly and without stopping. No more building huge roads, which wastes so much land and space. Commutes could be cut down by a factor as high as 10. One of the big auto makers is going to eventually decide to take this idea and run, and the faster the better.

If we ever hope to get out of our gridlock and stop wasting our lives behind the wheel of a car, we're going to have to start thinking outside of the box.

Mind Over Matter

This is some pretty amazing stuff. Being able to implant electrodes into the brain to allow someone to think about moving a mouse on a screen or change a TV channel and it actually happening is just an amazing possibility. Imagine the serious increase in quality of life for anyone who has lost movement.

On a side note, if this really takes off, it could be a great sector to invest in. The first company that starts making these devices commercially should deserve a real good look from any investor.

Bush presses argument for Social Security overhaul - Apr 30, 2005

All this talk of social security reform... and yet there is no real reform here, simply an attempt at slight restructuring, as I see it.

Social Security started because the government felt that people needed to be protected from their own lack of foresight in saving for the future. For some reason, since most people were too weak-willed to save and put away money for the future, the government felt the need to force everyone to save through Social Security, whether they wanted to or not.

Changing where you put the money that you are forced to give to the program isn't a reform, it is just a change. And making it so people who work harder have to put in more to the system and get out less is just wrong, and just teaches people to be lazy so they can get more "free" stuff. I have a better idea...

The name of this idea is Personal Responsability. It goes something like this: The government pays out all benefits currently required as one lump sum, getting into a large amount of debt obviously to do so. The pain of doing that is unfortunate but must happen, and will only happen once. Long before this happens, and once such a move is announced, many private firms will begin plans to offer serivces to americans to make up for it. Some of that money will undoubtedly go into people's existing retirement and personal accounts. Other people won't know what to do with the money and won't have existing accounts, which is where new and existing firms will pick up the baton. Now people are responsible for their own destiny, and nobody is taking their freedoms away by forcing them to pay into a retirement program.

Actually, I also envision a move away from the Welfare program to be simultaneous. Rather than forcing people to pay out more money in their income taxes, that money goes right to people, who then must decide how responsible they will be with that money. Private firms will come into existence with something akin to auto insurance now, but it will be unemployment/underemployment insurance. To apply for it, you'll have to give a lot of information, much like auto companies now look at your age, driving record, claims history, dedcutible, coverage amounts, etc. Some information that would probably be required for the company to know would include: age, employment history, education, skills, monthly payout amount that would be needed, maximum number of months that benefits would be received, etc. Although people wouldn't be forced to have nemployment/underemployment insurance, if they became unemployed or underemployed, they would be on their own, which some people may choose to do and just put money away.

The point is that it is not the goverment's job to force us to give up what we earn (in effect legalizing stealing and taking away our freedoms) so that it can "protect us" from ourselves. As long as the government sees fit to let us get away with as little personal responsability as possible, society will continue to deteriorate into a litigious, self-centered, "me-me-me", "I deserve this" society.

Federal Panel Sees Too Many Tax Breaks

Its about time! Somebody in government actually looks at the tax code and all its deductions and credits and sees it for what it really is: a complicated, unproven, untracked, inefficient waste of our tax dollars in an attempt to legislate morality. Maybe there is yet a glimmer of hope.

But a glimmer is probably all we can hope for. The commission's chairman, former Florida Sen. Connie Mack, said, "Anytime you've got a benefit, wherever it happens to be, whether it's spending or taxes, people don't want to give them up."

And so we'll run into the same old problems... there are things in the tax code that should be fixed, but that nobody in the government will have the guts to stand up and get to work on. Too bad... I was starting to think our government actually had a chance to do the right thing.

More legislative squabbling...

You know, sometimes I just get tired of hearing about all the squabbling and fighting that happens between the two major policical parties. I know I'm not alone.

But one thing that has truly confounded me is the question of why there are only two major political parties. Is it truly possible to fit most of America's political opinions into one of two boxes? In America, of all places, the people are known for their desire to have many choices. American individuality and individual differences in tastes, opinions, and preferences usually mean that there are 20 different choices in just about everything. And yet, when it comes to politics, somehow 99% of americans fit neatly and nicely into one of two descriptions: Republicans or Democrats.

Is it laziness? Are people just too lazy to put forth the effort necessary to inform themselves of what all the parties believe so that they can choose the one which truly represents them? In the 2004 presidential election, about 60% of americans turned out to vote, one of the higher percentages in a while. That's means that 4 of your 10 friends didn't vote at all. Are these people lazy? Are they disenfranchised? Do they just feel that no vote at all is a protest vote? Can that many americans be so indolent that they do not even vote once every 4 years?

Is it ignorance? Due in part to laziness and in part to stupidity, do people not realize there are more than two choices to pick from? There are at least 30 political parties in the country that could be considered at least regional, and at least 6 to 8 which could be considered national parties. Do people not know these exist? Do they not know what these parties believe? Do they not even know what they themselves believe?

Is it money? Is this two party-system due to two parties getting a majority of the funding and therefore capturing a majority of the advertising and publicity? Wouldn't it be a shame to have american politics now decided by two parties just because they had the most money?

Is it attitude? Americans like to be winners. We've grown up where our country is always a winner, where a lot of importance is placed on becoming a winner, or at the very least, liking the winners. This phenomenon is well shown by watching the sales of a professional sports team's apparel and other items when they go from mediocre to great. Suddenly everyone likes the team, because it is number 1, and everyone wants to identify with and be associated with the winner. So does everyone gravitate to one of the two major parties simply because they are the biggest winners and seem to have the only chance to win an election? I hear people say that they didn't vote becase they wanted to vote for a third party candidate, but figured it didn't matter since that candidate would never win, so they either didn't vote, or voted for the major party that was closest to their belief. I've also heard people say, I don't really like this party, but the party I normally vote for fielded a candidate I didn't like so I voted for the other party. Isn't that insane when you think about it? So rather than voting for something closer to your own opinions, you vote for something that is almost a complete opposite? That doesn't make a lot of sense.

For whatever reason, we're now stuck with two major parties. Even though we want to choose between 10 value meals, 8 different models of camcorders, endless models and colors of vehicles, and millions of different pieces of clothing, we still only want to have two choices when it comes to politics. And that's what has gotten us into the mess we're in.

House debating Schiavo bill

Here we go again with lawmakers trying to take powers for themselves. I feel bad for the woman in the middle of this, Mrs. Schiavo. But really, congress has no place stepping in here. Last I checked, the republicans wanted to deny marriage rights to gays and lesbians, with which comes the ability to make medical decisions for a spouse. Now they are trying to deny those same medical rights to Mr. Schiavo, who is legally, lawfully, and heterosexually married. This is a matter for the court system to work out on its own, in its own due course. When one part of government feels like it doesn't like what another part is doing and tries to make its own rules where it doesn't belong, then you know government isn't working. Why doesn't congress stop wasting time and go back to work on what it is supposed to be doing?

Texas Capitol's Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court

One thing bothers me here. It is the way that in one breath we cry for the first ammendment to protect free speech and then in the next breath use it to quash the religious principles and heritage that founded this great country. If a large erotic (but not pornographic) mural were donated and put up in a public building, those crying for its removal would be labeled as anti-american because they want to tread on the first ammendment protection of freedom of speech. Yet, if a large mural of something stated to be religious is put up, those same people who look down on others for treading freedom of speech turn around and cry that this isn't freedom of speech, but a government endorsement of religion.

A religion does not have to be formal or formally recognized. Webster's first definition of religion is, "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usu. involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code for the conduct of human affairs." So, let's see. If I believe that the world was created naturally, through physical and evolutionary processes, that the purpose of the universe is for me to simply live in it, that humans evolved like all other animals and developed their own intelligence and agency, then I go out and plan a weekly hunting or fishing trip that can be seen as a ritual to nature, and create a moral code for the conduct of human affairs in nature (such as don't litter, don't kill what you can't eat, don't destroy nature), then I would have all the necessary points to be considered a religion. We'll call it the Church of Nature (I don't know if there is a body named as such, and if there is I mean no offense). Now, as a member of the Church of Nature, I paint a beautiful scene of mountains and forests and streams. Can that picture be put up in a government building since it is an affirmation of my religion and beliefs? What if I also add to the bottom, don't litter, don't kill what you can't eat, don't destroy nature?

This example is a little extreme, but it was to make a point. Will we get to the point where everything is somehow religious or offensive to somebody? What then? Will there be no decorations, no murals, no pictures of any kind? Where does it end?

The best solution is to first minimize the amount of land and property that government "owns" in this country. Government should not "own" land because that simply means that it is owned by all citizens equally. And unless all citizens have the same opinions, then all citizens should not own the same piece of property, as there will be continual squabbles over it. If everything is owned privately, then this whole problem is circumvented.

Social Security plan backed in Utah

Well, although the President's plan seems like it might be a step in the right direction, it is far too little. Social Security has always been a socialist policy, and will continue to be so as long as people are not given a choice of whether or not to participate, and as long as any money is forcibly removed from people to pay for it, whether as taxes or anything else.

Socialism is defined by Webster as, "a theory of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government." A second definition states that the Marxist theory calls socialism, "the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principless."

So what does that mean? It means a system where individual controls and freedoms are given up to the government or the group to control. People put up a big stink about big brother and the Patriot Act taking away their freedoms, and yet they are more than happy to give up their freedoms because they think they are helping others and that the government needs to protect us from ourselves.

The part that really scares me is how Marxist theory says that socialism is just the stage between capitalism and communism, on the way to communism. And the way this country is headed, we're running towards communism with open, yet unsuspecting, arms. As soon as the government starts to take control away from the individual, and starts telling people what they can and can't do with their own property, that nation is in trouble. That began with income tax, and has continued with Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.

Oh what a subtle snare this is! Make people think they are helping themselves by letting government protect them from themselves. But they don't realize the freedoms they are giving up. In essence they are allowing the government to steal from them. And oh how this weakens society. Remember the old saying, "The chain is only as strong as its weakest link." As the people allow government to group us together and take our property from us to distribute it amongst everyone, the entire chain becomes weaker still.

We are in essence rewarding people for being lazy or stupid, while punishing those who work harder and/or smarter. Did we learn nothing from Darwin's theory of Natural Selection and from evolution? In nature, a weak animal cannot be saved from preditors by its friends, it is sad but true. If an animal becomes lazy and weak, or doesn't want to work hard to get food, or isn't smart enough to adapt and eat, then it will die, and there is nothing its compatriots can do. However, we keep trying to save the lazy and dumb, providing for them a means for survival and rewarding them for their laziness by giving them a handout. Then they pass that on to their children (which can be many since we give people an incentive to have more), who learn the lifestyle. So society as a whole deteriorates, becomes weaker, becomes dumber.

Where does all this lead? Why, to communism of course! Just as Marxist theory says! When enough people are lazy and dumb and don't want to work for their meal, they will become the majority, and the lawmakers will be elected by them. Slowly but surely, the laws will become more socialistic, until one day we find ourselves in full-fledged communism. If that day comes, don't say I didn't warn you.

Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

You know, it is amazing to me how many people end up getting so upset with an issue when it shouldn't have been an issue in the first place. At least not one the goverment should have put their hands into.

It seems that every time government tries to legislate morality we run into problems and divisions, as a country. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for morality, and wish that everyone would live highly moral lives. I'm also of the personal belief that the heterosexual, monogomous, chaste-before-marriage lifestyle is the way to go. However, when legislators and goverment try to tell the people what is and isn't moral when it comes to things that don't directly affect others, then things start to get crazy.

The recent upheaval over Gay Marriage is the obvious example. How come we let people live together (whether heterosexual or homosexual) but when they want to "marry" as homosexuals we say no? Why do people get automatic benefits as a spouse at all under government rules? Another example that comes to mind is Polygamy. Why is it illegal to marry 10 women, but not to sleep with 10 outside of marriage? How about prostitution? Why is it that a person can engage in as many sexual relationships as they want so long as they are not paying for them directly? Is that to say that somehow the exchange of money is more powerful or important than the exchange of feelings? Whether by money or by pleasure, everyone gets paid something for consentual relationships.

No, the answer is not to dictate morality through legislation, but rather to leave it to churches, families, and individuals. I have come to the conclusion that the answer is not to recognize marriage legally at all. Marriage is a religious rite, not a legal partnership. A legal partnership may be drawn up by two or more individuals, and will be binding in a court of law. So if someone wants to get married they can do so, in their own religious way. At any time before or after their religious ceremony of choice (which no government should need to sanction nor collect a fee to allow), they can enter into a legal partnership which states whatever divisions of property, conditions, requirements, benefits, or obligations that the partners wish to create. That way government stays out of legislating morality, and sticks to enforcing contracts, which is exactly what it is supposed to do for citizens.

Original Intent and the Income Tax

"Oh, look how far we've come!" That is what those who are in favor of socialist policies say, and point to all the people that "we" have "helped" with programs like social security, welfare, medicare, and all the others.

I, on the other hand, wonder how we got this far down the wrong road, taking away people's freedoms by taxing them heavily and then using that money to promote laziness and reliance on government. It is simply legalized stealing, forcing people to pay for things they never use so others can use them, forcing people who work harder and smarter to pay for people who are lazy and/or stupid.

Everything that government can do, the private sector can do better, and much more efficiently, without usurping the rights of the people to make their own choices.

After all, we Americans claim that we're free! But what are we free from? What did we gain freedom from when we declared our independence? Freedom from tyrrany? Freedom from oppression? Yes! And what does that mean? Freedom from government!!

Avian Flu

One Nasty Bug�

Well, this is one thing I hope not to see happen, the spreading of avian flu to people. In addition to the human suffering and death, can you imagine how it would affect economies? If this thing starts spreading in a world as connected as ours is, people will be afraid to go outside, many businesses would fail, and fear would permeate the hearts of people all the time.

What a waste of the courts

Girls sued for delivering cookies

Ok, is this lame or what? The lady sued two teenage girls for bringing her cookies. She claims to have been so scared she spent the night at her sister's house and then went to the hospital because she was shaking and had an upset stomach. I mean come on, this is pretty sad. The entire award was for $900 to cover the medical costs, but the girls parents had already offered to pay those costs and the woman refused! She was so bitter that she just HAD to use the legal system to get vengance. I wonder how many thousands of taxpayer dollars were spent just hearing this case. The taxpayers should sue her for not accepting payment of medical bills from the parents and instead wasting the court's time and taxpayer dollars!

Legacy Highway Debate Continues...

Legacy Highway Debate Continues
When is this debate going to end and how much is it going to cost the taxpayers? The tree huggers are out there trying to save wetlands of all places. Has anyone actually seen the wetlands? They smell, they're hard to build anything on, and they are a breeding ground for mosquitos, which now can carry West Nile Virus. Are the wetlands really all that important?

Regardless of that debate, the whole point would be moot if the true underlying issue was confronted. The true issue is land ownership and the government's place in it, as well as in road building. As with most things, if the government does it, then it gets messed up, takes twice as long to build, costs twice as much, and is run as well as a 5 year-old runs a lemonade stand. It is not government's job to own or try to "protect" land, nor is it their job to build roads. Government's main job is to defend us militarily, and enforce property and ownership laws. If government was returned to doing just that (like it was in the beginning) then we'd pay very little in taxes and we'd pay for the things we use and not for the ones we don't.

Zombie trick expected to send spam sky-high

Click here to read.
As I've predicted in the past, SPAM is far from being vanquished by the so-called spam-blockers which have recently been highly touted.
The best way to deal with spam doesn't involve a single magic bullet, in my opinion. It is going to have to be a combination of several approaches, none of which include legislation, which I feel is ineffective and is not the government's job.
One technique is simply to use a good challenge/response e-mail system. Tecnically speaking I'd go with a "Third party delete from pop3 auto blacklister / whitelister, with bayesian filtering, collaborative filtering, user subject line filtering, and optional challenge-response", such as the one currently being brought into the market by Spameater and others. This basically means that the first time someone sends you e-mail they will get a response back that says that they are an unknown address to the system and that they will have to type in a word shown in an image in order to get their e-mail to you, after which their address will be whitelisted (unless you blacklist them) and they won't have to go through it again. Spammers most of the time wouldn't even receive an auto-reply e-mail, and even if they did, they don't have the time to reply to millions of these e-mails.
Another technique would be to have an agreement by the computer standards organizations about an upgraded SMTP protocol. This could then reject all messages without a true and valid SMTP stamp, which would act much like caller-ID now works for phones. If e-mail tries to go through any major servers without the valid SMTP stamp it would simply be killed. This would also be useful as ISPs or individual users could automatically reject e-mails without valid SMTP information or at least see where it is coming from before they open it.
A technique for individual ISPs would be to set limits on how many e-mails a day can be sent out by users. Most users wouldn't need to send out more than a few hundred a day, ever. But in those cases where that is legitimate, then those accounts can be sent up to another level where they can send more e-mails after a review of why they are sending so many.
Individual users can be smart about where they use their e-mail address. They can also create "shells" of e-mail addresses that then forward on to their main address for those times when they have to sign up for something. Say for example that you want to sign up for a newsletter called Joe's Newsletter and that your address was JohnDoe@whatever.com. Users simply create a new address or alias called JohnDoe_JoesNewsletter@whatever.com and point it to forward to their normal address. Since you'd never reply to this address but would only get stuff from it, then as soon as junk started coming from that address you'd know they sold it and could kill the address, and if necessary give them a new one, informing them that the address you originally gave them and only them had started receiving spam and that you suspected they had sold it.
I think a combination of these types of techniques could go a long way in curbing the spam problem. But, what it all comes down to is that there are enough people responding to spam to make it profitable. As soon as that number becomes too small to make money, the spammers will stop. Whether through education, filters, ISP efforts, or whatever technique is used, when the money stops flowing so will the spam.

BYU Engineers Create Revolutionary Lightweight Mt. Bike Frame

Click here to see the news story from KSL News

This is such a great new concept! The possibilities of this IsoTruss material are virtually limitless! Lightweight and strong bikes, planes, and even entire buildings!