Dumb Question?

Why must bio-fuel consist of something non-toxic for human consumption?

Before you start laughing or yelling, remember that ethanol is pure White Lightenin'. And instead of filtering and reusing cooking oil in food processes of some sort, they are using it to make ... bio diesel.

So what? Already farmers are planting corn for the subsidies and the rising market price. The consequences are that there is less corn for export, less corn for food use, and the prices of food corn are skyrocketing. Children are literally going hungry because their parents can't afford to buy cornmeal/corn flour.

In the meantime, all the corn stalks out there are being plowed back under the soil -- where they do not decay and do form a hard-pan type barrier preventing natural soil processes. That means more fertilizer is used and more washed into the river systems, which ends up creating more "dead zones" in the Gulf of Mexico and other ocean areas, where our fishermen used to bring in tons of fish and shrimp, and which no longer support sea life.

Why on earth (no pun intended) can't the persons, who claim to know what to do, decide that menthanol can be used as a basis for renewable fuel? The contents of those acre-sized plastic bags outside commercial dairies could be used in the methanol process. The sewage that leaves your home could be used in the methanol process. The corn stalks, the non-recyclable paper that currently goes into land fills, the straw left after harvesting oats/rice/wheat ... all could go into methanol production. (It could also create methane gas, which could be considered an alternative source of gas power, rather than using the non-renewable "natural gas" pumped from underground.)

If they really think that used cooking fats can produce enough bio diesel fuel to run the trucks and trains and ships that deliver necessities across the country and around the world, they really do need to rethink the concept. Could a methane-related process produce a diesel fuel equivalent as a byproduct or ingredient for additional chemical processes? I don't know, because I'm not an organic chemist. But surely someone out there could get started on figuring things out?

The hill people in Nepal and Tibet use methane generation to light their homes and cook their food. Who would think that the USA would be so far behind? Maybe it's the fact that a prime starter for methane gas generation just happens to be feces. Quite frankly, if people don't care about using the rotten carcases and stinky swamp goo that generates petroleum, why should they care if feces could generate much needed fuel? Some might say that it is a matter of timing -- the guts and rot was then, the feces is now. Well, I say to them that the inhabitants of earth then did not create the mess that man has created on this planet now. And the ice caps are melting now, England is being hit by tornados, the far east is suffering massive damage from mega-monsoons, and the existence of feces -- pet and pigeon -- is creating a health hazard in New York City.

We need to stop flushing money -- and potential fuel -- down the drain.

More Than Just A Game

I play a lot of games. I do that because I can only read for so many hours each day, and my brain needs to exercise at least a little bit. Since this is the age of digital over-kill, I play games on my computer, some installed and some online. And awhile back I realized that I was classifying games as to whether they would ever be worth buying and, more recently since becoming a grandmother, what games I would not want to give to a child because the game gives the wrong message.



You might be surprised at what I consider a bad game. The first one I realized was a bad game: Feeding Frenzy. It has a lot of aspects that would make it a very good game to buy -- like randomization each time it's played, so you can never know it by heart and it is always a new challenge -- but it has one very bad thing I would not like to have a child deal with: It lies. You can screw up a level big time, miss all sorts of points, and yet the screen message that flashes whenever/however you manage to finish a level is Perfect!



I know I did not do the level perfectly. A child, with the ability to pay greater attention to detail, would easily know if s/he really messed up ... yet there would be that message: Perfect! And the child would be left to reach only a very few conclusions: The game lies; The game doesn't know how it should be played; The game has a different definition for "perfect" than what the child has been taught to date; It doesn't matter if you do a good job, since even wishy-washy effort can elicit praise of perfection.



Bottom line: That is not the type of message I want any child to be fed.



Mind you, FF is not the only game with bad messages. At least two SCRABBLE-based games give out a similar false message -- great round, or similar wording; you can get that "great going" type message if you score less for the round than you could score for a single decent word, if you quit the round without finishing it, etc etc etc ... then the game has the nerve to say you can do better. I should hope I could do better than stinko, but I was just informed -- after each messed up level -- about how great I was doing. So which is it? Am I doing well, or failing to live up to my full potential? I don't want any child to be lied to and confused like that!



Parents, moralists, and politicos are constantly screaming about the damage done our children by violent games. I think they have the wrong target. Some of the games I play are not person to person duels, but they do have shooting up and smashing and otherwise destroying part of something. When I'm furious at something in the world, I can go play game X or game Y or game Z; my younger son says he knows a lot of people, of all ages, who use the games to relieve the anger, frustration, and potential violence in a safe and sane manner. Rather than rant about those games -- which all the players know are not the real world -- how about going after the games targeting the youngest kids, games which lie in their praise then flip the message 180 to tell the player s/he could do better. How about less confusion, fewer lies??



Instead of false perfection, why can't designers create games that just give the score, or score information like "You collected over 80% of the points available on this level!" ?? If they want to add an honor roll -- where cumulative scores raise your character/status, credit is given for total games played, highest score to date, etc. Something like that would not only avoid the spurious lying that currently goes on, but could actually give the kid a point of comparison and a goal to work toward.



I do know one thing: I'm going to be watching for those games which give wrong impressions and/or false messages. And I will be pointing them out to the mother of my grandbaby!

More Than "Smart Enough"

Dear Andy Rooney,

I know I am smart enough to be President. And I believe that you, after you read on, will not only acknowledge that fact but actually might end up supporting me.

I am smart enough to be President because:

• I know I don't know all the answers, or even most of some of them;

• I know how to ask questions, listen to the answers and then ask more questions until things are clear, defined, identified in a manner where answers are possible;
  

• I know that a good leader is just that -- a leader not a dictator;

• I am not afraid to seek the counsel of, and actually hire if possible, those who know far more than I;

• I understand most of the Constitution, in its original meaning and not necessarily as the Court has reinterpreted it;

• I understand why the President must be a figurehead -- a single individual speaking for a multitude, while working toward realizing the will of the people is almost as important as the "won't put up with it" of those same people;

• As President it should be my duty to work on saving this country from itself, on feeding our hungry despite the hunger of others, to provide medical care for all our people rather than having a disgraceful level of poor or no medical care for a large part of our population;

• A critical responsibility of the President is to educate -- not just children but adults, not just voters but Congress;

• I believe that we, and our country, have limited resources and those resources should be spent on "we the people" -- regardless of tyrany, pain, and/or evil somewhere else;

• I believe there ARE answers, and that they can be both found and instituted, despite the fact that there will always be some portion of the population which feels slighted;

• I believe that we the people can see and understand, accept, and "forgive" some things, because the overall picture becomes clear;

• I firmly believe that "selfish" is NOT a 4-letter word. The more people dependent upon me/you/all-of-us, the more we need to take care of ourselves else we shall be unable to help anyone anywhere any time.

I once said that anyone who volunteered to be President of the United States had to be crazy; I still believe that, but I also realize that some forms of "crazy" might not be all that bad.

Am I likely to become President? Well, let's just say that I am more likely to win that $10 million and be presented with a big check on live TV. Would I want to be President? NO! I am old, tired, much of me worn out, disabilities which severely limit where I can go and what I can do, and I am just recently a grandparent for the first time. Would I accept the "sentence" if it were the result of the vote? Yes. Gladly? No. Honestly afraid of all the necessary work and extended period of having no life of my own? Yes.

Well, Mr. Rooney, do you think I'm smart enough to be President? Or just smart enough to know that no one is smart enough to go it alone?

Think about it ... while I do my best to put it out of my mind.

They just don't get it!!

Thanks to PBS I am watching the declared Presidential candidates "debating" at Howard University. Much of what is being said is the same as has been said so many times before. But one gentleman has really REALLY got it all wrong.

A national sales tax is about the worst way to equitably tax the people of this country or any country, state, or political division.

Look at what people would buy, and how they would pay sales tax:

• Food -- For people with low incomes, food can be twenty-five percent (25%) of spending; those with high incomes think nothing of spending hundreds of dollars on food, food preparation, food preparers ... and it is surely well under ten percent (10%) of their total income. Hmmmm.... starting to see the unfairness yet?
• How about housing ... if we are to have an equitable tax, shouldn't housing also be taxed? Other than the fact I have no idea how they would manage that, it is still a matter of those with low income spending a far higher percentage of total income on housing than do the well off.
• It is true that the wealthy spend much more on things like cars, airplanes, clothing, shoes, furniture, household items of every nature ... but what percentage of their income is being spent on such things?
  

The bottom line is simple: Those with less income would end up paying sales taxes on eighty or ninety percent of their income; those with greater income would end up paying sales taxes on fifty percent or less of their net income. A sales tax drains the very people most in need of tax relief, and gives the wealthy yet another "cut" in taxes they pay.

One thing I've never seen anyone speak of, and I have yet to read, anything recognizing the basic bottom-line fact: Those with lower incomes will spend all their money in the United States, while those with wealth are likely to spend in the Caribbean, the Riviera, the various Pacific island nations. With a sales tax, the wealthy could spend and spend and never pay a dime of tax... all they need do is buy from outside the US.

And don't even start on setting up tariffs and duties for imported personal things; tariffs, duties, and taxes on things like that are hard to enforce and could end up with a negative gain in tax revenues -- for every dollar collected it could well cost two dollars or more to hire and train the people necessary to keep the records, appraise the goods, impound, store and collect. The secret of making a profit -- which is what this country wants to do, or at least needs to do until the deficit is gone and a reserve built up -- is income exceeding the expenses of making that income.

The moral of this story? Complex problems are seldom solved with simple responses.

My proposal is for a flat tax. OK, it's not quite that simple but bear with me while I explain the skeleton of my thoughts. First, an integral part of "flat tax" is also a guaranteed minimum income for every man, woman and child in the country; if the person/couple/family income does not meet that minimum then they don't pay taxes -- in fact, for the program to work and be fair, the government would provide a stipend to bring income up to those minimum levels set. If a President wished to be magnanimous, s/he could cajole Congress into making all individual's annual income over five billion dollars tax free. (Gotta get them campaign contributions from somewhere, yah gno.) Bottom line would be that all income in excess of that "guaranteed minimum" amount would be taxable at a flat one percent (1%). Before you say that is too low, please realize that many wealthy individuals do not pay that much, not when you get down to the actual income received.

The flat tax would also hold for corporations. Unlike now, corporations would deduct dividends paid to stockholders; if not for the funds received for the sale of stock, the company would be hard-pressed to acquire adequate capital to get going. Stock values need to remain high for the company to benefit, and values go up when two things (we'll forget about speculation and market manipulation) occur: The assets of the company increase in value, and the dividends paid out amount to a good return on investment. Bottom line: Pay dividends, remain solvent. A bankruptcy, or even restructuring, doesn't profit anyone. (And don't worry -- those dividends will be taxed via the individuals who receive them.) If done correctly, mega-corps and conglomerates with brother-sister-mother-goodgriefgrettlemyfriend consolidated accounting that spreads the income so thin you can't find it via normal pathways, would be split into separate entities for tax purposes. This would serve to isolate the profit where it actually occurs and point out the money sink-holes that generate only losses. Unable to shelter their income with consolidated losses, corporations would have to start reconsidering business practices and do things that only show a profit, rather than hanging onto businesses that did nothing but eat up the cash. There should be only one exception to this profit-or-drop-it: Not for profit companies which "spent" at least 75% of "total gross income" in recognized charitable work. Corporate funds transfers to the NFP charitable company would be deductible, as would be employee expenses for individuals who worked periodically for the NFP with the parent corporation footing the employee salary and expenses.

Oh, the tax rate on corporations would be the same as for individuals: one percent (1%) of gross income. They could save so much money currently spent on creative accounting and conglomerations of funds transfers, that they would pay more taxes on the bottom line and save money at the same time. (No fees/salaries for those accountants which spent all year looking for ways to reduce the tax burden.)

Since I am not running for President, I will only mention in passing the things this new revenue would make possible: universal health care, pensions large enough to live on -- a total revamp of Social Security (not just retirement) and Medicare.

This type of total change, a turn-over in thinking, would not come easy for some. Many have spent their lives doing complex things to keep everyone befuddled and others feeling dependent, and this type of open honest change would be anathema to most politicians and high-level civil servants. They might actually tuck their tails and run for the hills! (Hey, a girl can dream can't she?)

Oh, one other thing: All elected Federal positions would be strictly limited as to how much money was collected and spent on campaigning. A limited number of public service announcements would be mandated for each newspaper and radio/television broadcasters; no amount of money could buy any additional space, nor additional air time. To successfully run, the candidate would have to go to the constituents on a face-to-face level. (Think we might also consider outlawing bill board ads and other similar eye-sores?)

If you have read this far, you've been given the opportunity to do a lot of thinking. Don't worry -- you can keep it a secret if you'd like. But on the other hand, you might look deeper and see if you personally could push for sane changes in all sorts of activities.

tiafn

P.S. Before you think I'm totally crazy, Google GDP -- Gross Domestic Product (formerly GNP) -- and compare one percent of GDP to current tax revenues

Bass Ackwards ... all too common

Tonight I again spent a number of hours with PBS. America at A Crossroads held my interest, for it spoke of the who/how/why/where/whatever of being an Islamic American. I wasn't glued to the tube, but I was listening with both ears. Nothing on the program made me feel endangered, and only a few things had the touch of "shame on us for thinking and acting that way" -- "us" being we who are not followers of Islam.

But the epiphany I experienced had little to do with Islam, and a lot to do with being American. Our one nation indivisible had once again been doing things a bit backwards, for perhaps the best of reasons, but wrong nonetheless.

When we speak of different ethnicities or belief systems, all American, we blindly follow the pattern that who knows whom started who knows when. First state the difference -- christian, jew, muslim or native, african, italian et cetera -- and only then add the "American" as almost an afterthought (or to avoid the appearance of divisiveness or bias).

I think that it is long past the time where American comes first and is placed first when we speak of individual differences and preferences. It would certainly be more accurate, since those we speak of generally are long standing or born-to-it Americans ... people who generally share the same hopes and support for our country.

Henceforth it is should be made a rule: American first! American Muslims, American Natives, American Africans, American Jews, American Irish, American Catholics, American Greeks, American Americans.

How much closer we would find ourselves, when each "difference" began with the one thing we all share: American

Think about it . . .

M-I-Ceeee R-O-essssssS Oh-Eff-Tee Vis-tah

Dear Microsoft:

I watched a short video about your latest "ain't Vista great?" presentation.
I thought about it, and I think I should let you know a few things ... since apparently no one else has bothered to say anything at all (or you haven't been listing).

First, when I install an operating system on my computer, I do it so my computer will operate, and my software will work on the operating system.
* I do not install an OS to watch sports.
* I do not install an OS to live stream full length movies.
* And I most certainly don't install an OS to give myself a big ANIGIF for my desktop.

I could, if I so desired, install a lesser version of Vista on the system I'm currently using. But if I did so, I would be reducing the effectiveness and speed of any software I currently use; I have finite resources on this system, and I don't need aspects of the OS eating up those resources before my software I need even loads. It is bad enough that simply loading XP means more than 256Meg of my 1Gig memory is hijacked; if I loaded Vista, and threw in a cutesy waterfall on the desktop, I'm certain I would have less than half my one Gigabyte of RAM left.

I believe in updating software when a better working version is available. I do not believe in having to replace my hardware to simply use a newer OS.

Thankfully, even new improved versions of Linux which come out will be able to run quite well on my current hardware.

Maybe I'm not the normal consumer; I've been know to keep my automobiles for ten or twenty (20) years when they are working well. I simply have never believed in planned obsolescence, and have always been angered by forced obsolescence. Maybe I simply appreciate the worth of "tried and true" things since I fall into that category myself and, at age 39 and counting to 65 this year, I've owned and used business and home computers from when a floppy was good for 320K and I didn't need a hard drive to run my bookkeeping business. At one job I actually had a system which used eight-inch (8.5?) truly floppy disks for both the operation and applications; data was stored in the form of print outs and "most recent values" only.

I'm not saying I'd want to go back to what I had before, even though DesqView on DOS worked wonderfully well and at speeds comparable to XP -- on a 386 vs. the now required Pentium-or-better. I was even able to run a full function COBOL on my little 386, and dial up to the mainframe for on-site testing of the software we were developing off-site.

I simply think that no one should need to upgrade hardware to run a new OS; it's stupid when most of the software being run won't be written for the new OS, and there will few differences in performance that are positive.

So, bottom line, please Mr. Gates and cohorts ... stop improving things! It would be so much nicer if you simply fixed the stuff we're currently using, and I don't mean once a month patches ... I mean FIX it!

Sincerely,

DOSosaur and future penguin

There are MANY ways to leave ...

The White House needs to remember something we were taught as kids: Clean up that mess you made before you go anywhere else!


All the effort being extended to surge into Iraq and clean up the non-existent civil war are, not surprisingly, aimed in the wrong direction. The Iraqis don't want soldiers living in their slums. They want the power on, sewers working, potable water ... all those "little things" which would make the slum part of their towns go away.

There is something called "Broken Window Syndrome" here in the USA. What it says is when one window on one building is broken, another window will soon be broken. And the more broken windows there are, the more new ones will be broken. In other words, people will follow the example -- particularly when it seems clear that nobody actually gives a snit.

If anyone had to live in the conditions the United States and allies have forced upon the majority of Iraqis, they'd be pixxed off -- including people like you. As far as most of us are concerned, no one has the right to take away our utilities if we've been paying for them as we're supposed to.

Every human being has the innate right to fresh drinking water, a way to light the dark, a way to keep the cold or heat at bay, access to enough food to stop starvation. There are people, in what used to be the civilized part of Iraq, who have lost those basic survival items they grew up with. It's not just various refugee camps in Africa and Asia where people are living in abominable conditions, wondering if they will be able to eat or drink safely.

If the only problems in the cities and towns of Iraq were lack of television and closed schools, we could probably justify pulling out and letting them take care of the rest. And if those were all the problems they faced, it is unlikely they would be sitting and hating
. . . hating being without,
. . . hating feeling helpless,
. . . hating their neighbors because they are different or have more or want more or simply are aware of the conditions we have to put up with.

It is long past time to fire the contractors who have been sucking in the money while making things generally worse. It's time to suction off some of the funds they've collected along the way, and use that money to put people on the ground who can do the little things -- like repair generators, fix boilers, string power lines, run phone cables, repair sewers and sewer plants, repair water lines and reconnect the sources of safe water. And if, on the way out of the country, we could provide decent paved roads which the sand won't destroy for a few more years ...

Stop and think about it. I'm over 60 years old and I'd be out there taking pot shots at any invader who destroyed my life and living conditions as badly as the USA has done in Iraq. Even if Sadam had those elusive WMDs, the people of Iraq didn't. Yet the people of Iraq are in far worse shape than the war criminals kept in various sites. It is considered unethical to keep a prisoner in the dark, deny food, deny water, isolate them. So why isn't what we've done to the average resident of Iraq considered even more unethical?

Think about it for a second or two. And then consider throwing open your political window and screaming something about "I'm mad as hell, and they shouldn't have to put up with this any more!!"