The Big Picture - Ebola (this is a DRAFT)

The big picture.  Connecting the dots.  Looking behind the curtain.

I’ve been stewing over what to say if anything about the Ebola situation.  Fair warning – the following is poorly written, probably incoherent and disjointed.  My poor writing skills lead me to use a lot of rhetorical questions.  Assumptions are made.  While I’ve attempted to stick to the facts as I understand them, I have let some commentary slip into the document.  Apologies.  Read at your own risk.  (October 25, 2014)

As I read this over and over, I’m afraid it comes across as fear mongering regarding the possibility of contracting Ebola – like the craziness we are seeing on the "news".  That is not my intention.  Actually my intention was/is the opposite.  I don’t think I’ve achieved it.

First, the Ebola outbreak is an awful, dreadful epidemic in parts of Africa.  The people in these countries deserve our compassion as well as our resources to help them fight and eliminate the killer among them.  They deserve this because they are fellow human beings and we have the capability and capacity in this country to help.  I understand and believe this at my core (I’m an atheist by the way).  I would hope that those of you who proclaim some religious affiliation understand this as a core component of your belief system.  And, yes, you’re right, other countries should be helping two.

Secondly, there is also a non-altruistic component to our need to battle this disease where it is.  Stopping the epidemic in Africa means it will not spread to other regions and turn into a large worldwide problem.  If you require this type of rhetoric to get fired up about alleviating human suffering – “this is a national security issue that can actually be stopped overseas”.  The enemy just happens to be a virus, not a human terrorist we can shoot or bomb.  In this case the actions we need to take to fight this battle are not with guns and ammo, but with healthcare facilities, healthcare providers, healthcare facilitators, supplies, logistics management, transportation, medicines and technology.  We can do these things – we have the best health care system in the world (right?), we have the best technology in the world (right?), America is the most exceptional nation to currently exist or ever exist (right?).

We seem to have no compunction against sending our service members to fight and die because of “national security” threats that turn out to be dubious at best and in political/ethinic/religious environments so convoluted there is no way we can ever solve the root problems.  We have little restraint in sending them to face bullets and IEDs.  Remember 6,836 US service members have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014.  (www.icasualties.org/)  However, we balk when we can use our resources and send service members to preform truly humanitarian service AND resolve an obvious national security issue at the same time.  We question the logic in sending them to fight a battle where their safety is based on layers of plastic, following procedures and disinfectant.

This outbreak started in December 2013 and got truly “hot” in April 2014.  (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-22/ebola-timeline-worst-outbreak-in-history/5831876)  With the exceptions of NGOs like Doctors Without Borders, we (and practically the rest of the world) have done nothing to stop the spread of this epidemic in African countries.  It was not until a single case came to US “homeland” did “we” get fired up about this “terrible” disease.

I’ll offer a little commentary about shutting down flights.  Bear with me, but I think we have to consider several issues to see the big picture.  Disclaimer – I’m not an economist, political expert, international business expert, or financial expert.  Take what you like, do some research on your own, and leave the rest. 

Why is this photo op important:  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/24/obama-to-meet-with-ebola-_n_6042734.html

Here’s some issues to consider:

The world economy is a vast interconnected web.  This was demonstrated clearly in the most recent financial crisis.  Countries and financial markets no longer stand alone.  What happens in one part of the world can have direct and unpleasant impacts in other parts of the world.  Like it or not, the US is tied to the economies of the world.  If Europe or Asia is in big trouble, we’re in trouble.  If we’re in trouble, they’re in trouble.  Since 2008 governments have been attempting to hold the world together and keep it from financial collapse.  We are balanced on a tight rope and one major crisis could send us falling.  And, the safety nets may not actually be there.

European economies are not in good shape (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/58508129-79/germany-economy-europe-growth.html.csp, many other references available, please do some reading if you were not aware of this).

China is not doing well either (http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/58508129-79/germany-economy-europe-growth.html.csp, China injects $81 billion into banks to support economy.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/17/us-markets-china-repos-idUSKBN0HC0BU20140917  Many other references available, please do some reading if you were not aware of the economic conditions in China).

Growth in the US is lackluster.  Wage and salary growth has been stagnant for years.  While the stock market has been going up in the last couple of years, much of these gains are the result of financial engineering on the part of corporations, not real growth. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/18/us-markets-stocks-usa-weekahead-idUSKCN0I62F620141018, same notes as other references)

Industries are interconnected around the globe.  An example - If the Saudis don’t cut back on oil production, the supply of oil goes up significantly and oil prices drop substantially.  The drop in oil prices significantly impacts the economies of Russia and other oil producers.  If the price of oil drops enough, the cost to extract some oil becomes too high to justify continued production.  Think fracking.  Think North Dakota.  Think oil boom becomes a bust.  This is going on right now.  Are those lower gas prices really good for you?  

Financial markets, investments and instruments are tied together in a complex web of derivatives, insurance policies and other financial contracts/obligations that I can’t even begin to understand or describe.  When things start falling apart, everything is connected in a big house of cards, so it all falls down.  This is what started in the financial crisis and was eventually brought under control (with much pain and suffering, and government support).  Note – I do try to post articles on the Facebook page that describe some of this interconnectedness (I think that is a word).  Here's a quote:  

• "Andy Haldane, director of stability at the Bank of England (great job title: perhaps each and every one of us should have a personal director of stability), made a study of modern derivative transactions and found that some of them involve up to a billion lines of computer code. That is beyond comprehension, not in a metaphorical way, but as a plain fact: no human can understand and parse a financial instrument of that complexity."  (From:  http://www.salon.com/2014/10/26/how_we_beat_the_1_percent_this_is_how_the_moneyed_classes_get_dethroned/ )

If internationally connected industries begin to experience significant downturns, it is possible if not likely the financial contagion will significantly impact other industries, then financial markets.  As a result recession or depression ensues.  That means masses of people out of work, potentially leading to regional and worldwide financial crisis and more importantly human crisis.

Now, rethink again what is going on daily behind the curtain.  What must be happening within and between governments to avoid mass panic and hysteria in all types of regional and global situations that could bring international commerce to a halt?  This activity does not fit into little Facebook memes, political ads, headlines, talking points, or the rants of some nut case trying to sell advertising time.  Fear, panic and hysteria are huge drivers of the markets and worldwide economy.  If fear and panic rule, the would could crash.  Really pause and think about it.  (http://www.benzinga.com/news/13/10/4014995/alan-greenspan-fear-drives-the-markets )

So, what the heck does all of this have to do with cutting off a few flights from some small, far away countries in Africa?

If the US cuts off flights, we set a standard that the rest of the world will consider following.

What will that standard be?  What is the threshold for cutting off flights?  1,000 people infected in the country?  500?  100?  1?  Or do you count deaths instead of infected?  Those are rhetorical questions.

We saw just in the last few weeks that two countries (Belize and Mexico) refused to let two passengers disembark from a cruise ship to simply transit through their country to board a plane to be taken away.  The travelers were showing no symptoms and later tested negative for Ebola.  These were Americans to boot.

Is the threshold based on a percentage of the population?

Lets consider a little math (I know, it hurts):

Here’s each primary country where Ebola is active.  The table indicates population, reported cases and the percent of population the reported cases represent.

Country	Population	Cases	% of Population
Guinea	11,750,000	1519	0.01%
Liberia	4,300,000	4249	0.10%
Sierra Leone	6,000,000	3410	0.06%

·       I’m just trying to evaluate magnitude here.  Other metrics might be used – i.e. deaths, active cases, etc.  I also recognize that a time metric is not included.

Now… consider the US with a population of 310,000,000 (310 million).  Apply the average percent of population for the three countries noted above of 0.06% and you get –

186,000 cases

That is one hundred eighty six thousand cases.  The US would have to have this many cases to be comparable on a percentage of the population to the cases in the outbreak countries.

Note – that is zero point zero six percent (0.06%).  It is not six percent (6%). 

Based on our reaction to 4 cases, my totally unscientific guess is, the US would be totally freaked out if there were 100 cases here.

So, lets say that the threshold is based on percent of population and the cut off percent is 0.06%.  Would we expect other countries to not cut off travel from the US until we reached 186,000 cases?

The population of Germany is 80,000,000 (80 million).  There is a lot of travel and business that goes on between Germany and the US.  Germany is the prime economic driver of the European Union.  Apply the 0.06% threshold and you get 48,000 cases.  Would the US wait until Germany has 48,000 cases before cutting off air travel from Germany to the US?

I’ll let you apply that 0.06% percent to a few other country populations:

India: 1.25 billion

China: 1.357 billion

Russia: 143 million

Indonesia: 240 million

Do you think we would wait till their populations reach the 0.06% level?

Lets take a look at the annual number of visitors from other countries to the US. 
Visitors to US – top 15 countries.  (2013 statistics - http://travel.trade.gov/view/m-2013-I-001/index.html)

CANADA	23,387,275
MEXICO	14,342,722
UNITED KINGDOM	3,835,308
JAPAN	3,730,287
BRAZIL	2,060,291
GERMANY	1,916,471
CHINA (EXCL HK)	1,806,553
FRANCE	1,504,654
KOREA, SOUTH	1,359,924
AUSTRALIA	1,205,060
INDIA	859,156
ITALY	838,883
VENEZUELA	788,069
COLOMBIA	748,116
ARGENTINA	686,098

Note:  A large number of Canada and Mexico visitors enter the country by land.  Most of the other countries a large percentage of the visitors travel by air.

What is the threshold for cutting off travel from a particular country?  I honestly don’t know.

Here’s what I think…

If we start cutting off travel from specific countries, other countries are going to do the same.  Some countries are going to pick very low threshold numbers for cut off.  Remember Mexico and Belize reaction to two people on a cruise ship.  Based on a percentage basis alone and with some bad luck it is conceivable that a large European country, one of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China) or some other large 2^nd or 3^rd world country could have a runaway outbreak that leads to several hundred people infected and 1,000s being monitored.  (Look at the population of the outbreak countries above again.  The populations in the current outbreak countries are very small.)

Here’s one nightmare scenario and what I think is being managed behind the curtain.  Yeah – this is all speculation, and a concocted scenario.  My goal here is to present a story of interconnectedness.

If the US sets the precedence of halting air travel from particular countries, other countries are going to follow suit.  (Actually this has already started.)

An outbreak occurs in a large country numbering in the 100s.  Based on percentages this is highly possible, but also highly manageable.  Let say – India (or take China if you like.)

Other large countries move to cut off air travel from India.  Remember the US set the president.

Millions of travelers are taken out of the global travel market.  Airlines take financial hits.  Hotel companies take financial hits.  But they’re manageable.  (Except for India based airlines and hotels.)

Small out breaks (i.e. 1 – 20 people) happen in a couple of 1^st or 2^nd world large countries – lets say China and Germany. 

Because of the perceived threat of a spreading contagion some large countries start to ban travel to and from China and Germany.  Remember – the US set the president.  Now – we have 10s of millions of travelers taken out of the global travel market. 

Travelers in other, non-impacted regions stop traveling because of fear.  Booked air tickets drop significantly.  Hotel occupancy drops significantly.  Now, large international airlines start to fail.  Hotel chains start to fail.  Thousands of employees are laid off.

Planes are not owned by the airlines, they are leased through leasing companies that are part of the largest banks in the world.  Airlines stop making lease payments on planes.  Banks start attempting to collect on financial protection for loss of lease payments that were bought from other financial institutions.  The lease insurers can’t keep up with the rate of lease failures and payments due.  They begin to fail.  Banks can’t recover losses on plane leases.  Airlines begin to default on other massive loan payments that are due.  Hotel companies do the same.  Financial institutions begin to fail.  Small businesses dependent on travelers begin to fail.  Worldwide travel spending continues to shrink.  Local economies and small businesses are hit with large reductions in revenue.  And… I think you see the potential picture.

I’m not attempting to predict the exact sequence of events.  Nor have I included all of the interrelated business and counterparties (I may have gotten some wrong).  But, I do think our leaders are thinking about and talking about these types of scenarios behind closed doors.  I hope they’re talking to and listening to people much smarter than me.

One day we may encounter a virus or bacteria so virulent that we must take the steps to close borders quickly, on a massive scale and suffer the economic and social consequences.  The current strain of Ebola is not it.

Just to be complete – the travel bans have started:

http://news.yahoo.com/travel-bans-issued-reaction-ebola-221058647.html

Out of the countries listed in the article these appear to have the most significant populations:

Colombia 48 million

Kenya 44 million

Ivory Coast 20 million

Facebook Follow-Up: Hobby Lobby Decision

I was involved in a thread with a friend on Facebook about the attached meme I posted regarding the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court decision.

I had requested some source information and data related to some statements made.  Here's the response I got.

• Pretty well documented that hundreds of thousands (if not millions) have lost their complete coverage from companies like IBM, Home Depot and UPS, etc. Not to mention the ridiculous increase I have seen in my insurance and just about everybody else that I know, I would be surprised if you have not seen the same. There have been many examples of people losing their options to use their doctors published in all types of media sources. I am not sure how these things are less important than one company making a stand to not have to pay for a small group (4) of contraceptives that they feel go against their beliefs. No matter if you are pro life or prochoice, I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic. For what it's worth, I am fiscally conservative and middle to liberal on most social issues. My distrust of the government comes from years of studying history, that is what I got a degree in and what I have spent much of my free time studying for many years. The fact that anybody thinks that the government should be involved with this baffles my mind.

I decided to take the conversation into private messages instead of in the comments to the original public post.  This was my poorly structured response:
----------------

Question 1 – Do you think that as a society we should attempt to provide at least basic healthcare to all of our citizens (like almost every other industrialized country)? If you don’t think we should provide this as a society, we can end the discussion here. Stop reading now! We'll never find common ground. If you do, while not perfect, the ACA is a first attempt at doing this. I believe it is worth giving it a chance.

Ok… so I looked at your first two examples of coverage loss:

Question 2 – Who at IBM lost their complete coverage? Recent source? It is my understanding that IBM transitioned their retirees to a healthcare exchange. The retirees receive a payment to offset the cost of purchasing insurance. I can’t find a source that states current employees lost complete coverage. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/07/ibm-moving-some-retirees-_n_3886749.html

Question 3 – Who at Home Depot lost complete coverage? Recent source? Based on looking at their website, health insurance is offered to both full-time and part-time employees. I see that last year there was reporting that Home Depot would transition part-time employees to the exchanges. Here’s info from their website:

https://secure.livethehealthyorangelife.com/files/orientation_guide_usparttime_us.pdf

That’s enough research for me. I don’t see anyone loosing “complete coverage” in either of these examples.  

Are any of the “examples of people losing their options to use their doctors” that are substantially different from when a company changes their insurance provider and a new network of doctors is provided? Sources please. “Substantially different.” In my experience this is a rather common experience for those of us who have had employer provided health insurance. (But hey, I'm only a sample of 1.) 
I agree, my insurance cost did go up this year. About 6% more than the increase in previous years. So the effective increase was actually more. I’m ok with that if it means that millions of women, children and men in the country will have access to affordable, quality healthcare. (If Georgia would approve medicare expansion, it would mean that I would not have had to pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Now you might ask why would I pay for health insurance for my ex-wife. Because I can't let my daughter's mother go without health insurance. Long sad story.) I would of course prefer that our government have the balls to tax the mega-rich and mega-corporations to pay for healthcare for all, but we’ve got to vote better and get off our butts and actually protest before that is going to happen.
Regarding the statement: “I don't see how the government should be involved in mandating that employers support and pay for anything having to do with this topic.” My understanding is the employer is not paying for it. The employer is paying for medical insurance coverage which is part of the compensation package the employer agreed to provide the employee. The employee worked for it and earned it. The government is attempting to ensure women have access to healthcare that is defined by the woman and her doctor, not the misguided religious and misguided scientific beliefs of the employer. Their objection to these specific 4 treatments is flawed. See links:
http://www.latimes.com/local/abcarian/la-me-ra-craziest-thing-about-hobby-lobby-20140630-column.html
http://mediamatters.org/research/2014/03/24/what-media-should-know-about-hobby-lobby-and-th/198591
The bigger issue is where does this end with a corporation claiming religious exemption from laws? (rhetorical) Again, I say read the dissent. (Read the majority position as well.) The dissent starts around page 60:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-354_olp1.pdf
Look through my shares for the last year, you’ll find many posts related to my position on healthcare and corporate control.
I think maybe I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. In very brief, my position is the government is us. We are the “them”. Or we should be. If government is bad, it is because we let it get that way. I believe our country and government has been taken over by mega-corporations whose only motivation is profit (for shareholders and executives). And, these same mega-corporations have successfully convinced us that “government” is the problem. That seems to imply that WE are the problem in the eyes of the corporations. Hey, they have religious beliefs, so they must have eyes too. Don’t buy into this lie. Government can be a force for good and progress. It has been in past. It could be again. (Yeah - lots of if, ands, buts, exceptions, clarifications and qualifications needed for this brief statement.)
Question 4,5 – Based on your study of history - Do you trust corporations more than government? Do you trust religion more than government? If your response to either or both of these questions is “yes”, your study and information set is significantly different from mine. (And that’s cans of worms I’m not up for opening.)
That question is rhetorical. I don’t need a response. Actually I don’t need responses to any of the questions or requests for sources. The questions were just foils to structure this poorly written response. I’m content with my understanding of the issues related to the questions. I appreciate you have a different point of view and I’m not going to change it. Please accept that I too have a different point of view on this topic from you. I’m not yielding, but I do recognize when there is a windmill in front of me. I’ll continue to side with many who decried this decision. I’m done. Cheers!
(Its late, please excuse any editing errors.)

----------------------

Commentary - 

As I have found often to be the case when you dig into the details of the broad claims and unsubstantiated like those made above you find that they just don't hold water.

Is it possible to be "fiscally conservative and middle to liberal on most social issues". I used to define myself this way, but I don't think it is possible. If I have to pick a label, and I don't like to do that, I'd pick Progressive.

Thankfully - I've had no response. :)

Facebook Follow-Up: Feeding the 5,000

• I like the sentiment "celebrate what unites us instead of what divides us", and am happy to do so and will try to do so. However - On social media, I find I am offended almost daily with posts of hatred and intolerance based on political, social and religious views. I will not refrain from speaking out. The post that prompted the satirical comment regarding Jesus feeding the 5,000 was related to taking food away from people (including children) who need help because they have a problem with drugs. In my book that is not how you help hungry people. Besides this scheme only has one benefit, it puts public money in the pockets of shareholders and executives of companies that provide the testing services.
• If you don't like what I share, please feel free to un-follow me, or un-friend me. I participate twice a week in a group that offers the following advice - "Take what you like and leave the rest." I kind of like that. I try hard to keep people in my news feed who hold different religious and political views from me so that I can be informed of other perspectives. However, I un-follow people regularly once they cross any one the following personal boundaries: (1) a statement of pure bigotry (race, gender, religious, sexual preference based) (2) a demonstration of intolerance (I don't count being intolerant of intolerance as being intolerant.) (3) an unwillingness to do enough research to understand some ridiculous memes they are parroting. (Like the call to drug test welfare recipients. The only people who benefit from these types of programs are the shareholders and executives of companies who preform the testing for the state. Quoting someone out of context. It usually only takes a little research to determine if a quote is accurate and if it is within the context it is being used or ridiculed.) (4) bemoaning the persecution of christians (5) support of anti-vaccination (6) a belief that any religious text is the source of all truth (and/or a science text) (Actually, I usually give people a pass once or twice. But if they continue on a regular basis to cross one of these personal boundaries, I restrict them from my news feed.) Note - I would do the same for a muslim, mormon, hindu or any other religious zealot (or non-religious zealot) who preaches intolerance and a belief that they have the only path to a god or afterlife. I'm unlucky in that I don't get to interact much with people of other belief systems. Across many social media channels, I regularly see: bible quotes, right wing memes, left wing memes, request for prayers, repetitions of Fox stories, Rush quotes, statements in support of republican far right wackos, and statements in support of far left wackos. Generally I don't complain, but when the posts cross one of the lines above, I reserve the right to comment. As noted above, if you have boundaries like me and I've crossed one, please feel free to unfriend or unfollow me. I'll keep speaking out against the zealots, bigots, hypocrites, intolerant and misogynist - and sharing post about LEGOs, bourbon, food and some science. Take what you like. Leave the Rest. If you need to call me something, the following works:
  

  Jerk Asshole Asshat Liberal Progressive Atheist (I've been called much worse. Feel free to add to this list.) Friend Just don't call me a democrat. I prefer "anti-republican".

  
  

  Cheers!
• 
  
• 
  

Internal Job Interview Questions

A friend recently asked me for some advice regarding questions I've used in the past when interviewing someone for an internal job posting.  Here's a running list I've maintained over the years.  

1. What intrigues you about this new role and why do you want to leave your current job?
2. Does your manager know you have applied for this job?
3. Would your manager recommend you for this position?
4. If you had to give a new employee a couple of insights to working at <this company>, what would they be?
5. If the people who work with you are asked why you should be hired, what would they say?
6. What do you like best about your current position at the company?
7. What don't you like about the job you're in now?
8. What other positions have you held with the company?
9. What was your biggest success story in your current position?
10. Can you tell me what you know about the position you are being considered for?
11. What do you know about our department?
12. Why do you want the new position?
13. How has your current position prepared you for this position?
14. Tell us about some of your experiences outside of <this company> that relate to this position.
15. What have you learned from your current position that transfers well to this new position?
16. What existing relationships in the company do you have that will be beneficial in the new role?  Why?
17. How will the new position change things for you? 
18. Tell us about your experience in the travel technology industry?
19. What is a project you are particularly proud of?
20. Based on your experience here at <this company>, when you are given a project to create <user documentation for a new software feature>, how would you proceed with this project?  What steps would you take?
21. Why should we consider you for this position?
22. What in your background makes you an excellent candidate for this position? Why?
23. While I don’t expect you know everything and we know there is a lot of training required for this role, what do you think are the most important training topics will you need to be successful in this position?
24. What recommendations would you make for a successful transition from your current job to the new job?
25. How will you handle it if you don't get the job?

Standard Interview Questions:

http://jobsearch.about.com/od/interviewquestionsanswers/a/interviewquest.htm

A toast.

Here's to a long life and a merry one.
A quick death and an easy one.
A pretty girl and an honest one.
A cold pint-- and another one!

Climate Change Primer

A little reading the the climate change denier:

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/13/the_ultimate_guide_to_debunking_blizzard_based_climate_change_denial/

Links for reading:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/01/21/3187581/noaa-nasa-2013-temperature/

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/images/gw/Precipitation-Change-Map.jpg

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/global-warming.php

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/overview.html

http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/overview

http://www.who.int/globalchange/climate/summary/en/

Once you've read it all, I'm willing to entertain your comments on this topic.

Contraception Insurance Exemption - I say no!

This is a response to some posts on Facebook regarding providing exemptions to religions organizations and religious corporations from providing Contraception Insurance in their health care plans.  I say NO!

I'm going to cop out a little on my response and not attempt to offer the many arguments on why this is a bad idea.  Many have written and spoken on the many reasons why this should not be permitted based on a variety of cogent arguments - medical, social, economic, legal, religious.  I'll offer a couple not too cogent thoughts.

Thought 1 - Where does this end?  Lets delve into some reductio ad absurdum.  Lets say a religion objects to blood transfusions, or organ transplants, or vaccines, or any form of medical care.  Opps... all of those are not absurd cases.  These are all current religious objections to medical treatments.  Should an employer be able to exclude insurance coverage to any or all medical procedures?  If a contraception exemption is permitted why should other exemptions not be permitted?

I'll try again for something absurd...  Lets say a religion objects to chemo therapy because cancer is obviously a type of cell that grew naturally in the human body and therefore cancer is part of god's plan and should not be disturbed in any way.  Can the employer who subscribes to this belief be able to exclude chemo therapy from their health plan?

How about an employer who wants to include treatments in their plan.  Lets say an employer requires that all male employees must be circumcised?  A new male employee must "drop trou" for the HR director to prove they are circumcised.  If they are not circumcised, the company offers free circumcision through their health insurance.  In order to be be employed, the male job seeker must submit to a free circumcision procedure.  I know, absurd, but would it be permissible?  And, yes of course someone could "always" find another job.  (rhetorical question no need to answer)

Thought 1.5 - What happens when an employer previously held one set of religious beliefs and then converts to a new religion with a new set of beliefs?

Thought 2 - This particular contraception insurance issue touches on many more issues that involve religious belief (including the interaction of religion, government, morals and ethics).  Here is another cop out.  I'd prefer not to delve into any more religious discussions unless the person I'm talking to has read their sacred religious text cover-to-cover at least once.  (I'm not talking about a periodic study of select sections of the text at "church" meeting or study group.  I'm talking about the entire text cover-to-cover - from start to finish.)  AND - also that the person has read at least four of the books out of the ten books at the top of the this page:
http://www.christianitydisproved.com/books.html

(I've read the sacred text of the employers engaged in this contraception case - twice.  Ok - I'll confess, on my second read I skipped Numbers and Judges.  And I've read multiple versions of the gospels and commentaries on the gospels.  Spent two semesters studying the bible in college.  I think have a basic knowledge of their belief system and its workings.)  I would ask that the person I discuss religion related issues offer some level of understanding of my lack of a religion.  That is why I've requested reading some of "my" texts.

As I started this - many others have spoken much more eloquently on the problems with the exemption being granted.  I encourage more research on this topic, maybe my objections will be better understood.  Maybe not.

Truthiness - Facebeook - Semi Rant

As I've done before, I'm ranting here instead of on Facebook.

I recently started typing a response to someone who sent me comments on some politically oriented posts I’ve made on FB.

The comments this person made were snarky (which is ok and can be fun).  However, these comments also seemed to question my integrity.  I've got a thick skin, but just no need to go there.  I try to avoid it.  There were ways to question my posts without it being turned personal.  When I have gone to sarcastic, and sometimes personal attack type responses I can be brutal and relentless.  I don't like that side of me and I try to avoid it.

My response turned into a long response with numerous rebuttals to their comments.  

Rebuttals like this:

• This person seems to have a problem with "timeliness".

• One of my posts was a shared article from 2010 which questioned the charity activities of a particular political pundit.  When I shared the post, I specifically noted it needed more research.  And my subsequent research indicated that the parent charity organization scores rather low with a respected rating organization and that the pundit no longer engages in the questionable events.  Seems to me like there was some thing going on.  I presume the "commenter" feels that time heals all indiscretions - particularly when a charity serving veterans appears to have been abused for personal gain.

• Another of my posts was a well done survey conducted in 2006 regarding voter identity documentation.  Again this particular "commenter" felt this data was too old.  I feel the data is still relevant.  If one considers census data, which is used for 10 years, I think if you dig into the details of the survey data and survey topics you will find it is most likely still relevant.  (Personal opinion.)

½ way through my written diatribe I realized its just not worth it.  They have their world view.  I’m not going to change it.  I have my world view.  They are probably not going to change it.  Personally I’m comfortable with my world view and the effort I put into checking, expending and shaping it.  For me, it’s not a good use of my time and brain cycles to attempt to engage in political dialogue with those that have a significantly different and intransigent world view.  

Feel free to comment on my posts if you feel the need.  If I feel the need, I’ll dig deeper and I might respond.  I’ll even mark posts that I think need more investigation.  I think I do an okay job of vetting shared information, but I’ll admit I’m not perfect.  I make mistakes, or post "fringe" articles.  I have removed posts in the past because I’ve come to question their voracity.  

Of all the crap, half-truths and lies I regularly see promoted on Facebook and the media, I’m inclined to give myself a pass occasionally if one of my posts ranks a “meh” on the Fox “truthiness scale”.  Some of the “commenters” to my posts have in the past claimed the “use-of- absurdity-to-make-a-point” principle to justify statements made by a particular radio entertainer/pundit.  If you don’t like something I post, I recommend you apply this principle to my posts.  (I'm still not sure what principle(s) they use to justify believing anything Fox News says.)

I'm ok with all of the commented upon posts.  Sure the Solon article pushes the "truthiness" boundary, but no where near some of the information presented by right-wing "news" organizations.  

If you think one of my posts crosses some line, there are actions you can take that do not involve contacting me.  

If you follow me, you know that I regularly remove people from my FB feed when I feel their views are too extreme for me.  I encourage all to do the same.  Its funny that for most of these "commenters", I long ago removed them from my FB news feed.  

Not Angry

For later reading...

http://www.christianitydisproved.com/

Thoughts on drawing...

Near Sighted Monkey

Unboard

LEGO, Star Wars, VW Micro Bus...

What more could you ask for?

LEGO Lord of the Rings

Approx 150,000 bricks and 1,700 mini-figures.

> See full model here <

The Bible on Abortion

Interesting read:

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/bible.shtml

"Earl Grey. Hot." - A little 3D Printing Reading

Amazing changes are a coming:  Could 3D Printing Change the World?

"Earl Grey.  Hot."  - I want my replicator:  Feeding the Final Frontier: 3-D Printers Could Make Astronaut Meals

An Overview:

Welcome to the Future: Congress Takes on 3-D Printing
By Ben Schreckinger | National Journal – Feb 11, 2013
Last month, Congress entered the brave new world of 3-D printing after gun enthusiast Cody Wilson uploaded a video of himself onYouTube firing a semiautomatic rifle loaded with a homemade high-capacity magazine. The plastic magazine, manufactured on a 3-D printer, was designed to send a message: Congress, and the Obama administration, can try to ban such magazines, but technology is outpacing efforts at gun control.

Within days, Rep. Steve Israel, D-N.Y., proposed banning 3-D printed gun magazines and firearms that could evade metal detectors as part of a renewal of the Undetectable Firearms Act. “We have this new technology that allows criminals and terrorists to buy cheap 3-D printers, use them to literally manufacture firearm components that can fire bullets, and bring them onto airplanes,” he said. “I want to make it harder for the bad guys.”

This may be the first time 3-D printing is the subject of legislation, but it certainly won’t be the last. The technology, which has more than once been anointed the driver of a “third industrial revolution,” allows for the production of objects by depositing thin layers of materials. The process is called additive manufacturing, which stands in opposition to subtractive manufacturing, the traditional process in which objects are produced at factories by making small parts out of larger pieces of material, like sheets of metal. By allowing for the on-demand production of single, customized items, the technology promises to end the system of large factories and long supply chains in the markets for many goods—and to transform the global economy.

Currently, the executive branch is well ahead of Congress in anticipating the disruptive effects of 3-D printing. In August, the White House announced the formation of the National Additive Manufacturing Innovation Institute in Ohio with an initial investment of $30 million from five federal agencies. The Commerce Department is working to develop universal standards for many aspects of additive manufacturing processes by next year. And the Army has already deployed 3-D printers in the field in Afghanistan. But Congress will likely find itself in on the action soon enough.

One area in which there’s already a specific policy proposal taking shape is intellectual property, where the rapid pace of innovation expected in 3-D printing could require a more agile form of protection. Attorney William Cass suggests the U.S. could adopt a European-style “utility model” as an option for inventors. The utility model offers all of the rights and protections of a patent but can be obtained more quickly and cheaply, and it only undergoes exhaustive evaluation if challenged in court. The House and Senate Judiciary committees could see the utility model on their agendas in the future: Adoption of the model would require an act of Congress, according to Cass.

3-D printing also holds implications for the half-trillion dollars in annual defense appropriations. Banning Garrett, director of the Atlantic Council’s Strategic Foresight Initiative, predicts that rather than purchasing physical equipment and replacement parts, much military spending will be redirected to the purchase of designs. Spare parts will be printed at the point of use as the need arises. “That’s going to hugely reduce the long-term costs of weapons systems,” Garrett said.

Members of the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee are likely to be hearing a lot about the technology, too. It appears poised to bring about a global trade rebalancing, as the new economics of manufacturing reward high-skill workforces like that of the U.S. and make supplies of cheap labor in countries like China less relevant. The committees will also have to adapt U.S. policy to the changing physical footprint of the global trade in goods and parts. “Instead of pushing molecules around, we’re going be pushing bits around,” said Tom Campbell, a professor at Virginia Tech who studies additive manufacturing and coauthored a 2011 Atlantic Council paper with Garrett on the future of the technology.

Campbell would like to see Congress take a largely hands-off approach to 3-D printing itself. “The last thing I want to do is have the government clamp down on new rules or laws that impede innovation,” he said. But he does believe countries such as Germany are gaining a competitive edge in certain aspects of the technology, and he sees a need for more government funding for basic research on applications of additive manufacturing that remain in the theoretical stage. Already, scientists are working to develop methods for printing human organs and for printing meat, advances that would come with policy implications of their own.

If all that isn’t mind-bending enough, separate reports surfaced this week of efforts to develop the means to 3-D print meals in space and to print a moon base with moon dust. Congress, welcome to the future.

Taxes and Economic Growth

A little reading:

Tax Rates Compared to Economic Growth

Do tax cuts lead to economic growth?

Snarky - Post Election Comments

I had indicated on "the faceboob" the night of November 6 that gloating and “snarkyness” was reserved to that night and civil discourse would be offered by me going forward on Nov 7.  I will attempt to live by that rule on "the faceboob", but I’ll offer snarky here.  

You have the choice to read it or not.  If you are a republican - I warn you - Do NOT to read.

I would like to be one of those people saying “we all need to come together and work together for the good of the country”.  I would like to believe that will happen.  But, I’m partially a realist.  Already seeing the nasty, bigoted, intolerant speech propagating through the inter-tubes one cannot actually believe this is going to happen.  I’m also partially a Pollyanna at heart and would like to believe constructive dialogue and compromise can happen.  However, the craziness of the last four years and what I see already today from the "right" (and left) tells me nothing will change.

I encourage the real Republicans out there to purge your party of the religious zealots and racist.  Return to the real Republican core.  Your party has accomplished great things for the country in the past.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note:  I reserve the right to return snarky back to "the faceboob".

So!  Without further adieu, a little snark:

1.  Let me be sure I have this correct...  He is such an excellent business man that he could fix all of the problems in this country, however, he could not run a successful operation to get elected. 

2.  Religious Right - how's the prayer working for you?

3. The congressional republican caucus met on the morning of Nov 7 to commit to the proposition that Barack Obama would only be a two term president.  Ha!

4.

5.  Mittens - May you rot on the trash heap of failed political campaigns.  How's the Fox News contract look?

6.  Whispered across the country on Nov 7 - "God, where are you?"

7.

 

8.  Just a simple - "FUCK YOU" - to Fox News.

9.  And another simple - "FUCK YOU" - to Rush Limbaugh.

Interesting Articles:
WSJ - Money 

Biggest Looser 

Rove - Senate Candidates 

The Politics of Monochromatic Marketing

It just hit me today looking at the most recent Cover photo on Ann Romney's Facebook page.  How could I have missed it.  The heart of the Republican strategy - Monochromatic Marketing.

I'm guessing that is not the specific business term (some of my Marketing MBA friends can provide the correct term.)  But you've seen it.  I believe this theory of product presentation is often used at Target and many other retailers.  You know the displays - a group of sometimes totally unrelated products that share the same basic color scheme are put together in a display.  Marketers know that putting products together by color makes all of the products more interesting and appealing to the shopper.  This drives sales.

Look at that picture!  White, white, and more white.  It is a perfect marketing color scheme.  Not a bit of color to be seen.

Perfectly "monchromatically" grouped.  Looking at this one picture you begin to understand how the Republicans have been able to bring together conflicting constituencies to form a whole - The NRA, Evangelical Right, Oil and Industrial Billionaires, Wall Street Executives, Mormons, Heartland Voters (aka rednecks), Catholics (60% white - they add a little color).

Below, notice how color confuses the marketing message.


No one will buy that...

Brilliant!

Rich Kids for Romeny - Ha!

Funny satirical video.

Redneck "Red Cup" Wine Glasses

Do you feel like a sell out because you like to enjoy a nice glass of chardonnay every once in awhile?  Your vino just tastes better when you drink it from a wine glass but your buddies give you a hard time because you’ve given up your classic plastic red cup and you look like you're trying to be one of them high class, hoytie toytie folk!

Next time you uncork a nice bottle of wine, drink it out of our Red Cup Wine Glass Set and keep up your rugged, party goer image.  The red cup has always been your friend so include it in your vintage Bordeaux experience as well!

Set of 2. Ceramic.  Each measures 8 inches tall x 3.75 inches in diameter.

> Click Here To Order <