Social Security*
Ideas on:
Taxation*
“The world moves forward on the backs of neurotics” The well-adjusted go with the flow; they change nothing.
Though she sometimes went to an extreme, Ayn Rand told us that people are frightened by radical thinkers. She tells us to bear in mind that originality is the only road to improvement, of anything.
The major difference between us and dogs is the power to reason. Do we have too many dogs in the public arena?
A member of the synagogue in the neighborhood told me about a news story about the advantages of speaking with your infant using your hands to accompany your words; the end result would be a more intelligent child. He said that obviously explains Jews and Italians.
I oppose socialism, and to a large degree, populism, however, When it comes to a commonality-of-interest where self-interest
becomes selfishness, populism is the only solution.
We allow selfish people free rein, according them an advantage because they are able and willing to pay for it, which is wrong.
I speak of public services where we are effectively blackmailed by sharing in a common source ( other than gasoline) : natural gas, electricity, and water. It occurred to me that it would not be outlandish to lovers of liberty that if technology could make it possible, all private residences should be limited to a generous monthly allowances of gas, electricity, and water, which, when expended, would compel abusers to go without for the rest of the month, and rewards to those who leave a surplus. This could be pursued at the state or local level.
I believe public power should be a public trust, run by the very same people who run it under free enterprise, but with efficiency and public satisfaction as the criteria for success, instead of profit, or the price of stock in the market.
Under no circumstance do I mean for civil servants and government officials to have any say whatever in the daily management, hiring, or operational practices, of this Public Power System.
The * election * of State Public Power Commissioner by* popular* vote is essential to guarantee that the Directors of the trusts: Electric, Gas, and Water, adhere to the parameters set for them by the legislation that births the system, to maintain the delivery of public power at peek efficiency, and to determine rewards and penalties for success and failure that would not be based on profit.
AT THE SAME TIME; all cities, and communities of cities should be given incentives to institute their own more efficient power plants; hospitals, manufacturing plants, apartment complexes, and well-defined communities within cities, should be motivated to build their own cogeneration plants for greater efficiency, reliability and security than the monolithic plants we now depend on, which would reduce the overhead, and burden of the larger plants until they no longer need to be as large. The faster communities and large businesses assume production of their own electricity, the faster will be the disappearance of long distance delivery, ( power lines! ), and massive blackouts.
The American infrastructure is nowhere near as intelligent as it should be considering state-of-the-art technology. America is a nightmare instead of the idyllic dream it should be; we need a Leader! Because of our money-driven election system we can’t even hope for an excellent one to step forward. If one does, the moneyed won’t follow him, and the grassroots won’t believe in him.
A note:
Since the Feds gave electricity-providers a competitive marketplace ten years ago, they have not yet produced lower prices. In fact, as of today, 10/15,2006, they are reported as having asked for rate increases more often than in the past. Yet, since *their* liberation, long-distance phone calls have dropped 50%, and airfares, and trucking rates by 25%. It is predicted that power-providers will soon be asking for shocking rate increases to make up for past losses, at the end of present controls in 2007.
So, there really is only one solution, public ownership. I don‘t like that idea, so, make it a public trust managed by the same “savages” who are committed by stockholders ( like me!) to rip us off, under the control of regulations that redefine the goal, from the measure of profit, to the measure of efficiency, and cost controls, with the guarantee of irresistible bonuses.
2003:
I believe smoking is not really an addiction with most people; it’s just a habit. This habit is a result of symbolism: smoking a cigarette is symbolic of relaxing. If you merely tell yourself that you don’t really need to show yourself that you are “going to relax now,” you will find that you are not really addicted. This will work only if you truly want to stop.
An addiction is what your body needs, and will react if deprived of it; a habit is what you do, merely to do it. I beat smoking when this idea came to me in 1974, as a man with indications of a pending heart attack, and an entire family history of early deaths; after trying other ideas for over twenty years. I am now an obese 75 year old who‘s physician thinks is 50. No kidding!
Anyone know a good way to defeat food addiction?< BR>
Sex is no problem.
2007; Well! . . .
The engineered structure of a building is art only to the extent, if any, that the basic structure was designed to appeal to the eye; facades other than a blank wall containing no expression, is also architectural art.
Though music is in the category of art, it is music, just as golf news is covered by sports reporters, though the activity is a game, not a sport.
“Background” music: pleasing and relaxing sound that you are not necessarily aware you hear; sound you consciously listen to is not in the background; music that crashes upside your head is definitely not background music. The producers of this noise counter that it is not necessarily to sooth, it may be to turn customers into idiots. That’s a good thing! But it is not in the background! . Pain to the infidel restaurateurs who invade our senses with loud noise when we eat, read, and talk!
(Voices in radio commercial I heard over twenty years ago)
Six year-old boy: “Ma! I want to run away from home. “
Mother: (Unbelievably calm) “Why?”
(Boy, communicating a total lack of self-doubt) I just want to!
Mother ( Still very calm) Oh!…OK! Do you want me to make a sandwich for you?
Yeah!
( Sounds of sandwich-making)
What about an apple?
OK!
(Sound of an apple dropping into a bag, onto a sandwich, wrapped in paper )
Here you go, in a nice bag.
Thank you!
It may rain later, you better wear a jacket.
OK!
And you should wear your rubbers because it may flood.
OK!
Well, have a good time.
(Silence for three seconds)
So! Are you leaving?
(Silence for one second)
Aren’t you going to drive me?
I can’t recall the sponsor, but hours after I had discussed anarchists and the undying hunger for unreasonable individual freedom with friends, this ad came to mind, and I had to share it with you-all.
Return it when your through with it. You can’t keep it.
A former Hitler Youth wrote an article, in connection with this
Holocaust, of a recent talk he had given in Colorado. He wrote of three kids who admired Hitler and came to hear from one who had not only known their hero, but had shaken his hand; they were thrilled. The man spoke of Adolph in negative terms.
After the talk, they came to him in awe; in contrast to the other
290 others who had attended, these three admired their hero and had left as they had arrived: “Hitler Youths.” Did they hear only what they wanted to?
Of course! That’s what kids ( and many grown-ups) are made of. I therefore doubt we could prevent this new form of temper tantrum: mass shootings. I grew up in Brooklyn with switchblade knives in our zoot suits as the weapon of choice at school. We need a way to go back to the lesser evil. ( Forget the zoot suits, though) {Mine was mustard pants, rust jacket, gold shirt, mustard tie, and rust colored sued shoes. }
We could go nuts trying to convince political paranoids that easily accessible guns is the problem, but it is , to a very large degree, and we should demand painful accountability of parents, and sellers, and we should outlaw games of human slaughter, made specifically for kids. . . even grups!
In the brief on the second amendment, I make the point that the amendment does not address the right to bare arms, it addresses the right of the states to have militias. So we can resolve this problem if we of intelligent persuasion rally for it by demanding a gutsy Supreme Court.
It’s my impression that the percentage of kids who go nuts trying to cope with life are no more a percentage of the present population than before. I believe, as many do, that it’s not guns, but entertainment that conditions kids to look upon the of killing of humans as no more real than a movie.
And, I believe we should look upon the combination of
teen-suicides and shootings as a whole, telling us that the problem is kids having to deal with life, and some failing at it; no more a percentage than in years past, and not go overboard. Outlawing guns, by itself, won’t do it.
We must, as I cover in the Law and Order brief, hold responsible the providers of entertainment that provoke people to kill. I am certain my proposed legislation would result in the disappearance of murderous games, and movies, created specifically for the immature mentality. I don’t think electronic game-parlors would go broke if left with bloodless excitement.
A simple solution: If it can be proved that a work of art, form of
entertainment, or publication, had directly caused an act that
brought damage to life or property, regardless of the perpetrator’s
pre-disposition, the financiers, creators, participants (actors), and distributors of that product can be held liable, as individuals. Then let the prospect of lawsuits by injured people set creators on the right course.
I would like to see federal legislation prohibiting insurers from
covering such judgments. If it were so, higher quality would be in
our future. Let’s try to keep lawyers out of it; profit by the injured and the sharks is not my goal, punishment is.
Judge John L. Kane Jr., Senior Judge, U.S. District Court, in
Denver, Colorado, thinks free speech is threatened by any law
holding publishers and authors of possible incitements
to damage responsible, when it’s clearly the responsibility of the
reactor to the incitement. ( My paraphrase of his letter to
Reason magazine, December ‘99 issue ).
Does he believe that individuals are solely responsible for their
own acts, to the point of acquitting a verbal inciter from
responsibility for a riot?
I feel it is definitely possible to limit the parameters of the freedom to speak - very, very, carefully - but we can do it, without damage to our freedom of political and religious communication. ( which is precisely what the right to free speech is all about.) It’s a toughie!, but mature people could deal with it, in the absence of spineless fear.
I’m looking for data to contradict, or support, all, or any part, of the following argument:
(1) The U.S. economy is a creation of Western-white mentality ( read Anglo-Saxon/ Caucasian.) If the population of the U.S. were to eventually become overwhelmingly non-western, it would inevitably lead to a gradual collapse of the U.S. economy, which is a creation of Western man. The entire world would follow as a direct result of their loss of their largest customer.
(2) As the technological, and creative economy of the world
collapses from the absence of western ingenuity within the U.S., a new non-technological America would replace it, and prove unable to support its population . . . and the world!
(3) The earth would eventually return to a mainly agrarian state; world technology would collapse, and Ted Kaczynski will gloat.
(h4)
“The reason why school tests show American students, collectively, have lower IQ’s than in the fifties, is due to importation of non-whiles since then.”
Really?
Two issues: Doctor-assistance, and non-Doctor-assistance. If I
want to go, for whatever reason, Don’t even think of preventing me. Those
who
oppose it fear their own deaths, and don't want to recognize
anyone else's
lack of, or will to, challenge that fear, or lack the ability to deal with it. I won’t live anyone else’s fears. I hope "Dr. Death" success in eventually getting voluntary, non-doctor-assisted
euthanasia made legal.
No person has the right to compel a stranger to tolerate whatever
pain that
stranger chooses to no longer feel. It doesn't matter what
comforters are
available, no one should have a right to approve, or even judge, personal
actions that do not physically
involve themselves. I want religious convictions held by each individual
restricted
to that individual's life, and no others. Certainly not strangers.
I like the way Edward G. Robinson went bye-bye in the movie, "Soylent Green." That's intelligent! Becoming a box of cookies is another matter.
The Doctor, not because he "murdered," but because he told the
legal system to go to hell, will spend the next few years in a cage;
like an animal. The judge had a socially sound basis; if the courts
are to remain
in control, as they should. But "K" didn't murder; the deceased’s, they wanted to die, they got merciful help, from "K," not society.
There’s only one flag, it sits atop the White House. All others are
copies, the manufacture of which does not require a permit.
I believe free speech does not generally include a physical act, but
burning a copy of our national symbol is, in the very nature of the
act, a passionate expression of political opinion; if this is not
speech that is protected by the constitution, then no verbal
expression is.
This law is a verbal expression of absolute stupidity by a congress
of imbeciles. The problem is they each represent the same animal as themselves, in larger numbers. So they vote. . . for re-election.
Refusal to salute the flag because the country is racist, or other complaints, is dense thinking. All the benefits we enjoy in the US are connected to this nation being what it is, whatever it may be, including the benefit of the right to object to it, entirely, mostly, or on any single issue.
For this reason, you should pledge your allegiance to the system; the flag is the symbol of the system.
The very fact that the constitution affords you the right to refuse to pledge your allegiance, is the reason for you to do so in gratitude for having that very right; it is the right to refuse to pledge allegiance to which you would be pledging your allegiance.
Whatever it is you object to, it is not the system, but certain people. Some abuse it, as sure as there are those who compliment it. Whatever you object to is the product of individuals, not the system, and it is to, and about, them you should complain, knowing that, just as you think you have a right to what you want, others have a right to their wants, and we all have different wants that often clash, which is why we all should love this nation, and pledge our allegiance to the place where variety of beliefs and inclinations can and do co-exist, without police oversight.
Our flag is also the symbol of our obligation to permit others the right to object to your values, as others must permit you the right to object to theirs; a very difficult thing for people with convictions.
I’m reminded of Socrates who railed against Athens’ system, and when told the system he wanted existed in nearby Sparta, he was not about to go there. He knew the system he wanted would not permit the freedom to speak. ( I had warned him about that! )
So, salute the symbol of a nation that permits dissent, or be of the moral character you claim to have, and that Socrates lacked, and leave for a place more to your liking, which doesn‘t exist.
We’re much in fear of a central government with the ability to
track us wherever we go, or whatever we do; what about our fear
of each other’s ability to escape retribution or responsibility for
heavy criminality?
A law was passed a few years ago, that makes it easier for public
administrators to track down deadbeat dads, with a government
data base containing income, driver’s lic., hunting and fishing
licenses, to which this law added our SS#.
Is it necessary? Is it safe? Does it threaten us with a too powerful
government? The connotation does, that’s for certain. See my
brief on a National ID card. Tell me what you think.
However, there are the children; we have the right to demand, not
only in regard to e-mail, but computer-life itself, that programmers
create, at all possible speed, the means to keep the imagination of
the devil’s people from invading our homes, just as we have the right
to demand of gun manufacturers the means to prevent a trigger from being depressed by other than its owner, only
because we know that technology promises the possibility.
On the other hand, there’s unsolicited fax messages. Senders steal the use of our machine, ink, and paper. The cost of incoming faxes is a burden: large numbers of
transmissions with the push of a button, no cost for labor, and no
need to be present at the time of sending, makes it’s abuse too
inviting. Recipients bear the cost of the paper, print cartridges, and the use and maintenance of the receiving machines. It’s theft, pure and simple!
The requirement to make it possible for us to phone an 800 number to
halt a particular source does not, in any way prevent the sale of
our numbers (our property, actually), and, the very idea that we
have to do a dance to get rid of a pest who uses our property as a potential source of income is an unacceptable compromise legislatures have made, probably in return for campaign
contributions. Besides, asking for removal of your address confirms the existence of it, and becomes permanent on mailing lists for sale, which is what mailers want. I ask for total outlawing the keeping, and use of, a fax number without written consent. ( Opt-in)
We often read where a judge found in favor of defendant who
sued a city,
county or state office for sexual abuse by a civil servant. The general damages were
in seven
figures, and punitive damages the same or larger. Why are we,
Joe and
Judy Taxpayer being punished? How much does the perpetrator
pay?
Lawyer don’t take a case with no promise of big bucks, and big
bucks come
from taxpayers and insurers. That’s why we are the
defendant, not the administration of ‘The City’, ‘The County’, or
whatever. And we accept it without a murmur of dissent.
There should be an office to represent taxpayers, who should
automatically file an action after each judgment against the state
or a
municipality. (S)he should move to recover as much as possible
from the
employee found responsible at trial, even if it puts the employee in
debt for
life. This idea originated with me when I read about a civil servant costing a city’s taxpayers $100,000, for seducing a subordinate over a couple of years.
Also, prosecutors who are found guilty of withholding evidence,
resulting in
a canceled conviction, and a new and expensive trial, should be
made to pay, ( and police officers who cause dismissals due to their knowingly doing wrong). Why don’t we recover from them?
Then there’s my idea about a massive regional airport in the
California desert to replace the large ports along the coast. It
would eliminate destructive plane crashes west of the mountains,
and free-up most of that land for economic opportunities. It will be
necessary to establish several layers of air-lanes to keep separate helicopters and light craft moving passengers to and from coast cities; introduce building-top chopper ports all over the Southland; an economic shot in the arm for both the coast and desert communities. I draw a picture of this, and its advantages, as part of the plot in my novel, “The FECMA Conspiracy.”
The Supreme Court says no state can pay welfare recipients an
amount equal to that paid by the state they came from, when it is less. California
wanted to save money ( they shouldn’t have mentioned money.)
The Court stated 7-2, that states don’t have the right to “select
their citizens.” or in any way decide who can ensconce
themselves within the comforts of a more generous state than
their own.
Only to the degree that welfare money is federal, is the court
correct. I don’t believe the 14th amendment covers the right to
financial support by citizens of their new state. Taxpayers within a state should have the right to refuse to give newly arriving
dependents the extra income for which they had not contributed.
After they pay taxes in “our” state for a time, they would then
have the moral right to “our” benefits.
The 14th’s intent was to prevent penalties from being levied to visiting, or new residents, and
it’s not a penalty to have to earn the right to higher benefits. With
this courts decision, every state has the incentive to keep their
welfare benefits at a par with the lowest state in the union. The
court is wrong.
Let’s not get into each other’s life, but let’s not be fools either;
when an issue effects the rest of us, we have the right
to avoid it, if we can. We are a society, like it or not. See my brief
on medical care.
We could reduce a burden on our system, and prevent many
voter-approved ballot measures, and state legislation, from being
voided by the Federal and state Supreme Courts, if those courts
were to judge the constitutionality of each of these before they are
put in the hopper, or on the ballot. The court’s structure should be
enlarged to accomplish this.
Then there’s the idea where cities would organize labor, and communal-living societies of street people, on a voluntary basis. It should be heavily regulated, but living and roaming the streets is not unavoidable if cities would create constructive societies for them in which to function, for the benefit of both them and us.
No solution is a good one unless it puts potentially productive people back on track, and the permanently ruined into healthy, mutually supportive, communities, wherein none of them are to be left totally un-contributive.
If you agree with me, write your thoughts to your CongressMember and Senator. The papers too. talk it up. This is my way to do
just that. You do it your way, even if it’s only to tell them to read
this page. That will go a long way. If you don’t say anything, the
ACLU will win. They’re too guilt-ridden, fearful, and inflexible.
I have a solution to every area’s overcrowded airport parking
problem, if anyone’s interested. John Maxwell Flesch, A major
character in, “The FECMA Conspiracy,” thought it up, and made it happen.
So, why is Viagra covered by insurance and HMO’s? The
problem’s a sad one, but it isn't bad health. These expensive
pills caused another premium increase and complaints are on the
increase by those who demanded coverage for them. I don’t insist
that a man without lifting capacity not use this possibly excellent
discovery, but just pay for it yourself, Bunkie.
California approved a bill to make contraceptives a covered benefit by insurance and HMO’s. The premise? if Viagra for men could be, then you can't persecute women. I predicted this to my AssemblyMember.
Contraceptives, and abortions, are in the same category: they are
Not health problems; if you want to prevent, or abort, a pregnancy, then pay for it. The National Organization of Women, in the 70’s
succeeded in making the insurance treatment of normal maternity delivery equal to illness, which shot premiums to the ceiling. That made it acceptable to insure a house in the event of fire when you intend to put a match to it. I’m waiting for ( that to become law.
By returning to the original intent of insurance and health care, we
could return the product to affordability. Acquiring erections,
fetus-rejection, pregnancy, or its prevention, and any other
convenience is voluntary ( unless life/health-threatening ) and
should be permitted as exclusions by insurers, both private and
government. Excluding a procedure from coverage doesn’t prohibit
it from being performed. There’s no reason to require that
everyone chip in for these things. The inability to afford a family
should be an incentive to avoid building one.
See my brief on Health Care, and a national insurance plan.
WE INVITE YOUR COMMENTS. But please be civil.
What is your opinion of this web site?
© 1997 burtonridgeway @yahoo.com
Please visit these other briefs:
A better way to secure our benefits:
Social Security
*
Ideas on:
Taxation
*
“Political leaders everywhere have come to understand that to govern they must learn how to act . . . who are we really voting for? The self-possessed character who projects dignity, exemplary morals, and enough forthright courage to lead us through war and depression, or the person who is simply good at creating a counterfeit with the help of professional coaching, executive tailoring, and that the whole armory of pretense that the groomed president can now employ? Are we allowed anymore to know what is going on, not merely in the candidate’s facial expression and his choice of a suit, but also in his head? Unfortunately. . . This is something we are not told until the auditioning ends and he is securely in office. . . As with many actors, any resemblance between the man and the role is purely coincidental.”
Arthur Miller, playwright.
A proposed end to the spectacle:
”The FECMA Conspiracy.”
*
Who’s body is it, anyway?:
Abortion
*
A better approach in:
"The War on Drugs"
*
Our kids are in trouble:
Public Education
*
Are we destined to go on and on about the right to own an
arsenal?
Guns and the 2nd
amendment
*
Is it really a threat?
National ID Card
*
A commentary on the not-so-little things about our legal
system.
Law and Order
*
THE solution:
Health Care
*
Our cities are terrible!
*
Proposed changes in the Constitution
*
Rev./Rab./Fr. Burton
at the pulpit
*
On Near-east problems
*
For your funny bone:
Thoughts too minor for serious people
*
Home page
*If you are from Brownsville, Brooklyn, and remember a kid named Saul, Arthur, Annette, or Lila, Gritz, on Hopkinson Avenue.(449) tell SHGritz@hotmail.com. This is a favor for an opportunist friend of one of us. Blackmail actually!