this is it

and i'm not talking about the movie about michael jackson. no, i'm talking about the apparent utter incompetence and disconnect of the california government with the california people. in the midst of massive state worker furloughs, millions of dollars slashed from even vital services in the budget, elements of the legislature are trying to block an 18% cut to their salary set to take effect next month. this is beyond comprehension, and only goes to prove once again the saying that "absolute power corrupts absolutely." considering that many in sacramento have or have had a successful professional career or are married to someone of that caliber, not quite sure what the crying is about. no one seemed to bat an eye when balancing the budget required making virtually every service bleed red ink and furloughs were instated on the state employees, cutting their pay by 10%. that is a very real amount of money being lost from the california, especially since some of the services that received cuts are money makers for the state (e.g. dmv, csu, etc...). my advice to the legislator who had the audacity to even bring up the issue of legality would be to shut up and start shopping at wal-mart, especially since part of the way the legislature "balanced" the budget this year was by cutting money from programs that they had to have known they were not legally able to touch. but anyway, make sure you guys read the article and then contact your legislator to make sure they know how you feel. www.ca.gov will help you get in touch with them.

random thought

so, was sitting here thinking about giving blood (since i did today...you should too if you can) and came upon a roadblock. and it goes something like this: if you were dying (as in within hours) and needed a blood transfusion to live and only matching blood available in time was from someone with hiv, would you take it?

healthcare. again.

so a lot of people seem to be under the impression that if there is a government option for healthcare in the reform, that it would push private insurers out of business with competition. but i find that claim quite dubious, almost actually a downright lie. history has taught us that generally speaking, private business is usually much more efficient than government ever is. so then, need i even ask? oh fine, i will. if a government option pushes private insurance companies out of business, then were they really operating efficiently to begin with? my prediction is that a government option would do two things:
- first of all, it would result in lower premiums as well as more efficient service on the part of private insurance firms so as not to lose customers to the government.
- second, it would always run over it's budget. that's just what tends to happen at the government level.
with that in mind, bring the government healthcare. we'll find out who is there for their members and who is there for wall street.

and side note to congress: trim the bill down a bit. it should be quite simple, really, and definitely needn't be a 1000+ page behemoth. and none of those last-minute trickeries where you have five minutes to read it before the vote either.

tax sugars

hmm, sounds a bit weird to say that. but sugars really need to be taxed, maybe even on par with tobacco. the american heart association just issued guidelines on how much sugar one should consume every day which are much lower than many people (myself included) usually consume. but it would be nice if congress were to act proactively instead of reacting to what has happened for once. in this case, the what has happened is the expanding american waistline. however, since it is still expanding, congress acting now would slow that expansion. the current debate in congress over healthcare actually is much more intricately linked with this idea than might initially appear. as the waistline expands, health problems increase accordingly as well which equal more expense. currently, there is much concern over the plan costing maybe $1 trillion over ten years. which really isn't bad. however, if more attention is brought to the effects of sugar, people's future medical costs could be lowered as they avoid sugar-related medical expenses. sounds weird to be saying that, but any good medical professional will tell you that they definitely exist. beyond that, tax revenues could also be used to fund any healthcare proposals. also, funding in this manner will more evenly spread the cost of reform instead of only taxing the top earners in the country.
anyway, just a couple of my thoughts on this matter. comments are welcome, questions are as well.

is it really worth it?

video related

ok anyway, on to my blog. it seems as if malaysia wants to take the painful and expensive route of punishing all crimes. of course, it is probably too early to tell how it will affect national policy over there. but if they want a model of what not to do, look no further than here in california, where we have people imprisoned for far too long for relatively minor offenses of possession.
more than likely as it is here, i don't think this lady's taxes (maybe even her whole income since she's only semi-employed) even approach the cost of housing her for the week plus the transport costs to and from prison (never mind her 18 month trial). so if she becomes a symbol, and more malaysians follow her, a problem may soon emerge that is bigger than the problem they seek to prevent.

what's going on today?

hmm, so what is there to blog about today. i think i already exhausted my thoughts for the week on the healthcare debate, as well as clash for cunkers. and nothing notable happening in aerospace industry either. boeing still isn't quite sure how long the 787 will take, and they plan to test the orion crew module in abort tests starting early next year. but none of that is really surprising i suppose. and the state budget has even managed to avoid front page and especially my wallet (and thus my extreme interest, ire, and disgust) for a few days.
oh. i remembered what i can talk about. remember a couple weeks ago, gates got arrested "because he's black?" then he and crowley went to have beers with obama (and biden) to "discuss race relations in america." but then within the last two weeks here in california, we had a large race riot in one of the state prisons. dorms are now uninhabitable, in once case completely burned. yet why is no one suggesting that we invite some of the prisoners directly involved to go to washington and talk it out over some beers too? while some might argue that this riot was between two minority groups (blacks and hispanics), there's no denying that it was still an issue of racial tension here in america and one that is certain to rise with the gradual "browning" of america that is expected to happen over the next several decades. so what better way to highlight and bring positive discussion on the issue than to bring real average citizens into the discussion? (i'd hardly say crowley and gates are very representative since a similar episode is undoubtedly played out weekly with other minorities but none are world-renowned harvard professors.) this incident is being highlighted as a further failure of the california prison system, but i think it's far more representative of both the imbalance of incarcerations and definitely an indicator of the racial barometer in the country. if anyone is really serious about discussing race relations in a meaningful way, they would seize the nice opportunity afforded by this riot to start a real discussion. sure, Ph.Ds can sit around all day at posh conferences and talk about it until their faces are blue, but i can assure you that many are not directly related with it like the common man is.

"death panels"

so lately, the so-called "death panels" have been all the rage in the news and apparently in town hall meetings. but why? first of all, it was definitively debunked by all major news organizations. but let's assume they were going to operate these "death panels." armed with the knowledge that up to one third of the lifetime healthcare costs for a person are in the last three months, there needs to be something that should be done. that's an extremely disproportionate amount, especially when this person dying is the national average age (or greater) of mid-70s. they've already lived for at least 1464 months, but the next three are going to cost 100x more each and end result is still death. so apparently we need to figure out several things:

• how to spread the cost of the final 3 months out over greater amount of time, possibly by spreading that care over more time
• how to make the care given in the final 3 months more effective so that those final 3 actually aren't final 3
  
• how to learn to accept our own death
• how to let go of loved ones who are dying

we clearly want to lower the cost in the final three months. along with that, we want to make the treatments more effective. but what isn't being talked about much is much more personal. of course, losing a loved one is never easy, especially if that loved one is oneself. however, we need to come to a concensus on something. for one, people are scared to die. look back over pretty much all civilizations, and no one was really fond of death. most cultures have always included with death an option of further life, either by way of an afterlife, reincarnation, heaven, hell, etc., just as long as one is never truly gone. we as people don't know what awaits, so no one wants to go. connected with that, of course, is the fear of losing a loved one. we as a people should learn to better accept that those we know and love will more than likely die (if we don't first). now of course, we all want to believe that no one can put a price on someone's life. but at the same time, let's sit back and think before we rush out and spend a small fortune on the procedure that only has 20% chance of success and additionally will only be negligibly helpful in extending life.
on top of that, let's consider the wishes of the one who is actually dying. i know if my parents were dying, i wouldn't be rushing to pull the plug. but i also know that they would not want heroics pulled to save them, especially if they had something such as dementia or alzheimer's and were barely cognicant of their surroundings. also, at that point, why are the kids even interested in prolonging life? now i know not everyone dies a painful death not knowing who is visiting them. but even if they aren't, many who are dying come to accept it long before others do. so if they are dying that painful death of cancer with a healthy dose of alzheimer's, let them die. why keep them in their misery and also continue to torture yourself since they have no clue who you are when you show up?
anyway, just a patchwork of my thoughts. leave me comments as always, tell me what you thinks.

clash for cunkers

yes, i did actually transpose the "l" from the word "clunkers" over to "cash" on purpose. seems to be quite a popular topic of late, so i figure i might as well say something too. anyway, the cash for clunkers program has proven to be at least decently popular, with people trading in older vehicles for something modern and fuel efficient. definitely a good idea on several fronts. but there of course were gripers. and as usual, they end up being rather insignificant...
some environmentalists have expressed concern that the people would only go for the low end of the mileage requirements. (data has proved them wrong-average replacement gets 10 mpg more than what it's replacing.) they also were concerned that by junking an old car, you negate any benefits because a new one has to be built. but by and large, i do not think people are placing an order for a new one. they are buying a car that is already on the lot aka a car that has already been built. since both cars are already built, do we want a more polluting or less polluting vehicle being driven?
other people were concerned that taxpayer dollars are supporting foreign companies since toyota and honda share top spot with gm and ford in terms of cars being sold. they seem to forget that honda and toyota (as well as nissan and kia is building one in ga) all have several giant factories in america, mostly in the south. meanwhile, gm and ford have steadily been moving their plants to mexico for awhile, and also have some in canada (as do toyota and honda). but when one reads the new car sticker in the window, they would soon realize that the average honda or toyota is just as much american as their gm or ford counterparts. (and in some instances actually contain more american parts or final assembly than the "american" cars.) due to the volume of cars involved, it becomes increasingly prohibitive to manufacture cars in japan and ship them over. so no need to boohoo over that since i'm gonna guess that probably 50-70% of the cars being bought are primarily american in parts.
then some were concerned as to why the program costs so much and even more so wonder why we're spending more money on it. first of all, they're not getting more money to support the program. the program was already funded from the outset (by the stimulus act of 2009) with about $4 bn, but initially they figured they'd just start with $1 bn. that apparently wasn't enough, so now they have to go for $2 bn more. but the money was already there, just hadn't been appropriated yet. beyond that, let's say it was $4 bn total. that's $4 bn to the people who paid taxes to fund it in the first place. over the past year or so, the government has basically given several companies blank checks under the premise that they're "too big to fail." some of them turned around, and despite their horrific performance for the year, proceeded to give out a "performance bonus" to the executives. i can guarantee that none of the bonuses was anywhere near the absurd sum of $4500 maximum available under the program. (no, i do believe they were bigger by substantial margins, probably around the order of at least 1000x bigger.) but as the sputtering economy will attest to, the real entity that is "too big to fail" is actually the consumer. despite marvelously beautiful sale prices, companies have still lost massive amounts of money over the last three-five quarters as the consumers all stayed home except for essentials. why? because they were all on the verge of (or some already had) "failure" in the form of foreclosure, bankruptcy, or job loss (or combination of three). something is wrong with american government if they will use our taxpayer money to write blank checks to corporations on the verge of failure but can barely find a way to help us, the payers.
however, there is one concern with the program. currently, the federal government funds highways with guess what?! gas taxes! raising average mpg by of over 700,000 cars at once by 10 will have an immediate effect on highway funding, which was already $8 bn short for the year. this is in addition to the collectively lower driving due to higher gas prices as well as the general trend of mpg to improve due to normal replacement of old cars. when congress gets back from summer recess, they should consider raising gas tax at least $0.10/gallon. will this possibly have a negative effect on commerce? yes. but we cannot keep coming up with "emergency funding" every couple months because there's not enough money. and beyond that, this country currently has one of the worst transportation systems in the industrialized world, getting a grade of "d" from the engineers. if our economy is to remain viable, we need proper transportation. while of course highways are only one facet, they are still the most used and therefore need the dollars. the negative cost of an inefficient highway will soon outweigh the negative effects of an increase in the gas tax. with the memory of lackluster fresh in everyone's minds, it's doubtful that an increase in the gas tax will then lead to a runup in gas prices reminiscient of last year's record highs.
anyway, those are some of my thoughts on the cash for clunkers program that is currently going on. comment, let me know what you guys think

space race for the 21st century

a little over 40 years ago, america landed men on the moon and they walked around. yet since then, we've returned a couple times in the years immediately following then no more. the saturn v rockets used by the apollo programs were technological marvels. apparently much more marvelous than even originally envisioned by von braun. most of us have cell phones and our cell phones are probably 1000x more powerful than the computers on board those rockets and even any computers used in designing them. we now have programs where we can design and test structural loads as well as aerodynamics on the computer without a need to build costly mockup models to test every new change and variation. (i believe boeing 777 was the first large plane designed this way.) so my real question then is why are they saying we'll need at least another decade to reach the moon again and are now doubting being able to even hit that target?
i think part of the problem is that it's a government program. although space flight was first dreamed up by private citizens such as tsiolkovsky and jules vernes and robert goddard was interested in rocketry, it wasn't until state involvement that it ever really took off (no pun intended). consequently, for the last 80 years or so, basically all major space activity has been government-funded.
but that needs to change. nasa should take a step back and reorganize. in light of the increasing budgetary pressures here in america, i don't think it would be a bad idea to have nasa take a less active role in the space program's development and operation. there now exist several private companies with capacity to lift decent payloads to varying degrees of orbit at what is becoming more and more of a bargain price. so instead of developing another lifter, nasa should simply shift to developing the payload. maybe they could guarantee a set number of launches purchased per year. or they could simply put out a list of scheduled stuff to be launched and then take bids on getting it all up. now granted i know most of the satellites today were actually not launched as payload on the space shuttle. but given the cost of the space shuttle and current advances in robotics, many things could be automated in space. (i bet astronauts weren't worried about job security because of robots lol.) that of course could also free up money to better fund human space flight to moon, mars and beyond.
but there's also another consideration. that would be international cooperation. despite apollo 11 being an american mission, we insisted it was for all mankind. and there's such things as international space station. so space flight can also be funded by partner countries. yes, icbms and satellites can be launched on the same rockets. but that needn't scare us so much that we limit ourselves in partners for space flight and exploration. india recently launched a probe to the moon, china recently orbited a manned spacecraft, and even iran has put a satellite successfully in orbit. and all this is in addition to the traditional spacefaring countries of the us (and japan) and russia and the consortium of european countries. so clearly, a little more collaboration, a little less politicking, and we could drastically lower the cost to develop and further advance space flight and access.
anyway, leave me messages, comments. if we all think together, maybe we can get more done.

education in california

first off, i'll say that this is sort of an extension of the high school exit exam post, but not really. but anyway, continuing on now, i present a plan for education that could potentially save billions of dollars while also generating new revenues and of course helping to better achieve the goal of actually having people learn. because the current system in california is set to soon drive away companies due to a lack of an educated workforce to replace their aging and retiring baby boomer employees.
here in california, we have an exit exam that all high school students must pass to receive their diploma. not even going to argue the fairness or not of it in this blog, that's an entirely different animal. but seeing that it can be taken as early as end of sophomore year of high school, why are they then required to go to school for another two years still if they pass it? instead of having them languish for two more years, why not have greater access to associate degree programs that the students can then do for the remaining two years of "high school" for those who pass? for those who have not passed, individual metrics would be available and it could be determined if they were just blown out the water completely, or were close on all counts, or simply just failed one section of it. then they would have classes designed to review the concepts to prepare them for another taking of the test. in this way, we don't waste two years of the passers life, but also don't dismiss those who fail.
as it is, quite a decent percentage of californians just drop out of high school anyway so giving them their diploma at 10th grade would decrease the dropout rate and also decrease the total cost of high school expenses to school district budgets. even paying a modest fee at a community college would save billions over sending people for two more years that are essentially unnecessary since they are not even given a diploma based on them. furthermore, after going to both high school and being in college, many lower-division classes in university are basically the exact same classes that are at high school level, but with a few additional concepts thrown in. so why waste time educating for something that will be retaught again next year?
and on that line of thought, why are there basically the equivalent of 8th grade classes being offered at cal-state campuses? (and uc? i don't go to uc and haven't looked much into it.) that takes precious instructors who could be teaching college-level classes and basically squanders their time on stuff that should've been learned long time ago. now the only exception to this would be at any campuses where there is no readily accessible community college within say a 25-30 mile radius.

let's do healthcare

people are afraid of government run healthcare here in america and point to canada as the prime example of what isn't wanted, which is really mostly just the wait times. beyond the fact that that isn't really what is currently proposed, let's also look at that wait time fear. immediately, we're not going to see any improvements. but over time, as more people receive that "cradle-to-grave" healthcare, they will get more preventative care done earlier in life where there is time to wait instead of reactive care when something goes wrong. which of course will usually turn out cheaper. anyway, link relevant and related: http://bit.ly/19ksdC

california budget

again, they're on the verge of sending out IOUs to their creditors here in the state of california. meanwhile, they continue to slash services and funding all across the board, but disproportionately on the poor than the rich. and the legislature is insisting they know what we the people want, but that is seeming less and less true every day. here's a concept that works: the legislature goes ahead and works without pay for at least a year. not just long enough to get the budget balanced again, but to also make sure that the new balanced budget is actually working. then afterwards, their pay needn't be three times the state average. bring it in line with something more reasonable, like say ~$80,000/year at the most. most of them are also professionals as well so it's not as if they'll exactly be paupers all of a sudden if they don't get their state checks.

gitmo closing

all i want to know is why everyone is afraid of closing gitmo and moving detainees into the continental us? if we're not qualified to detain them, how can we be qualified to try them? especially since we haven't even decided what to try them with? and is farming them out a few at a time to countries around the world the most cost-effective situation?

nuclear waste solution

obama's main qualm with nuclear power is that we don't have a good strategy for dealing with the waste. what i would like to know is exactly how much waste is generated? we currently have made many advancements with heavy launch systems. am i proposing to just maroon the stuff to float around above the atmosphere to maybe re-enter at some point or worse yet hit other space debris? absolutely not. instead, launch the stuff in canisters and set them on a trajectory to take them straight into the heart of the sun. of course, i can already hear the howls of protest about how we shouldn't pollute the sun. pollute the sun? how? first of all, that would assume that the material ever even reaches the sun intact. secondly, the sun is nothing but a giant nuclear powerplant itself. seeing that the sun > 98% of the solar system's mass, no ammount of material we throw at it will make an appreciable difference. so let's quit wasting money digging holes in the ground and lining them with concrete and just launch the debris already. if someone is really worried that we might harm the sun, then launch it out of the solar system instead. and as an added bonus, put nominal instruments on them to measure random stuff along the way.

the high school exit exam

here in california (although i'm sure we're being watched and probably emulated soon), there is much debate over whether the high school exit exam is fair, is accurate enough, is administered properly, etc....the list goes on. but one problem: it only tests up until the 10th grade level of school at most to begin with. i'm sorry, but if you're in 12th grade, then that means you're presumed to have passed the 10th grade. you might think you forgot, but the human brain is capable of things that will startle most brain users. so if you cannot pass a test on the 10th grade material after six tries, then maybe you shouldn't be in the 12th grade now at all. (before you get your panties all in a bunch, special ed isn't being factored into this equation. i'm quite aware of the fact that not everyone is cut from the same cookie cutter.)
but on a slightly different vein of thought, if we are only going to test to the 10th grade level, why not just test them at the end of 10th grade for everyone? if you pass, then congratulations, here's your diploma, now go out there and be somebody. if you don't, then you have five more tries and up to two years of school to try and get it right. we could potentially save billions of dollars from being wasted on kids who don't need it (aka those who pass after 10th grade). the saved money could be shifted to better educate kids in the lower grades to increase the passage rate as well as increase funds for community colleges and universities. (or at the very least balance the state budget.)
how this would affect the dropout rate might not be crystal clear and would probably take awhile to fully be actualized. but i doubt it would be any worse than the current stats for dropouts, which are pretty disheartening. if california (and the rest of the us as well) is to compete in a 21st century global economy in the mid-long term, something must be done soon to combat the drastic cuts to education both in primary, secondary, and higher education levels.

dpd officer misconduct

this posting is referring to this incident: http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa090325_mo_detained.6f8a23c1.html

that is quite uncalled for on the part of the officer. at the very least, he needs to be put on leave. the job of the police is to enforce laws, yes, but it is also to serve the citizens. this was not an act of service on his part. also, the dallas pd should issue a formal apology for the incident and consider covering the cost of funeralizing the mother-in-law at the very least. and any judge who presses this ticket shows the complete lack of compassion in the dallas court justice system.

dickcheneyship

so now it's even more evident that getting cheney away from the white house was a good idea. beyond the fact that the office of the vice presidency isn't under the president or congress, we also find out that it's also not fit for "big government." but what exactly is big government? according to cheney, if the government wants to follow me around, break into my house and rummage around, even arrest me and torture me, it can and that's all within the right. but if government offers healthcare to me, it's gotten too big. if it offers me assistance until i get a job, it's gotten too big. if it's paying for my education, it's gotten too big. so basically, government as envisioned by cheney is a totalitarian, 1984-esque construct. *shudder*

a significant part of the stimulus package recently passed and enacted by the government deals with infrastructure upgrades and improvements. many states and cities reportedly have hundreds of "shovel-ready" projects to make sure the use of the funds happens as quickly as possible. but before all funds are thrown to the shovels, some considerations need to be made.
while i definitely cannot speak from personal experience on any of the projects, my guess is that most of them were begun a year or more ago, in rosier times of the economy. consequently, they may be based on rates of growth that are no longer being realized by the areas to be affected by the construction. so, despite the mandate of the funds to use it asap and responsibly too, it might be in the best interest of the respective agencies to do some reviews of the impact. undoubtedly, more than a few "bridges to nowhere" will be the end result of the legislation.
areas that may especially need consideration are newer developments, especially ones with high rates of foreclosures. although the president is trying to stop the rush of foreclosures that is occurring, success has not yet been necessarily met. so in some cases, it might be in the best interest of cities to instead of continuing to pay for upkeep of deserted neighborhoods, they instead go a little further and buy all the homes and raze them. a large amount of abandoned homes usually creates exceptional places for crime, stretching police and fire departments thinner as well as maintenance departments. several cities in the rust belt have done this already.
in addition to the savings, in the city coffers, they also give cities a chance to become greener as a whole. urban sprawl can be reduced with instead concentration on more core city. less sprawl will also mean less use of cars to travel long distances to and from work and less concrete covering the landscape. this could help more local farmers with reasonably small amounts of land that is close to the point of use.

been a long time

so i guess it's been quite a bit since i last posted a blog. was looking at some of the things in the last one and was kinda amused. things have kinda changed in the last looks like 21 months since i posted that. anway, i get the feeling that i'll finally use this thing a bit more now that i got it more figured out. check back often for snapshots of my thoughts.