Fiat money

We live in an era of fiat money.  That’s a formula for disaster because fiat money isn’t real money, it is the illusion of real money, and like any good illusion it may take you a while to figure out that you have been duped, but duped you will ultimately be.

What is fiat money?  It’s essentially a government decree, an order, that this will be the instrument and the sole instrument used in monetary transactions and that there isn’t any other legal tender allowed to compete against it.  In other words, dollars are our legal medium of exchange.   To make things even worst, fiat currency isn’t back by anything other than our belief that it is worth something.  Yet, that wasn't the way the United States monetary system was created.

Historically, our Government has had no problem with changing the rules on the fly.  President Franklin Roosevelt in 1933, made it illegal for private citizens to own gold, leaving citizens the choice of surrendering their gold to the Government at the price of $20.67/oz or of suffering the penalty of 10 years in prison and/or a $10,000 fine.  To make things even worst for those that were forced to sell to the Government at $20.67/oz, in 1934, Roosevelt declared that the price of gold was to be set at $35/oz, or a difference in price of a staggering 69% in one year!  That's a boondoggle for the Government and real raw deal for the private citizen.

Further, our 1792 Coinage Act states: "… that if any of the gold or silver coins which shall be struck or coined at the said mint shall be debased or made worse …  person who shall commit any or either of the said offences, shall be deemed guilty of felony, and shall suffer death."  I suspect that very few people are aware of said act which was overturned during LBJ's administration in 1965 so that the Federal Government could more effectively debase our currency which would lead ultimately to the inability of citizens to exchange theirpaper dollars for silver. After 1968, even if you were in possession of a $1 bill that stated:"this certifies that there is on deposit in the Treasury of the United States of America one dollar in silver payable to the bearer on demand", you would not be able to receive any silver on that demand.

Thomas Jefferson stated that, "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies" The reason that Jefferson felt so strongly about this is that the power to control our currency and what it is and what its value is, is the power to corrupt, confiscate, or destroy any and everything that private parties have and therefore to make those peoples subservient to the Government, which is essentially what occurs when the Government determines the rules and value of coin of the realm.  To make matters worse, we not only are stuck with the banking institutions but also with the standing armies!

Fiat money is a con game, a game that can continue for a long period of time as long as the participants believe in it.  However, like all con games it will end.  If we are fortunate it will end with the United States getting back onto a sound monetary-back commodity based currency, if not, our current system will fail us gradually, inexorably, and then suddenly with catastrophic consequences.

Debtors' Prison

As of 2011, according to the dailypaul.com, in the United States we have over two million prisoners, which equates to on a per capita basis of 715 prisoners per 100,000 people.  This is the highest per capita rate and also the highest incarceration numbers in the world!

Debtors' prison was a theme used in more than a few Dickens' novels, but never so prominently as in Dickens' Little Dorrit in which William Dorrit languishes in Debtors' Prison for 23 long years. Why was the theme of Debtor's Prison so important to Charles Dickens?  In all likelihood, because his father, John Dickens was himself imprisoned at the Marshalsea Debtors' Prison, In London, in 1824, for a debt of £40 and 10 shillings.  Later, his wife, and his three youngest children joined him in Debtors' prison, which sounds mind-boggling to us today but was fairly common back then.   It was not until John Dickens' mother died, that he came into enough money to pay his way out of Debtors' Prison. 

Because America was a British colony, Debtors' Prison also became part of our heritage.  There were at least two signatories to the Declaration of Independence (Robert Morris, James Wilson) that were sent to Debtors' Prison, as was the father of Robert E. Lee, Henry "Light Horse" Lee.  Eventually, though, Debtors' Prison were outlawed by Federal Statue in 1833, however, this left jurisdiction for debt crimes to the States, which continues to this day.

While most of us like to think of the law as being fair, equally applied, and cut & dry, it isn't.  Even if a state has laws forbidding the jailing of their constituents for debts, there are workarounds to do that very thing.  The easiest and most straightforward device to accomplish is for the party that is suing you for debt; let's say credit card debt, to take you to court in order to compel you to pay back the monies owed.  If you don't show up, more than likely, a summary judgment will be awarded against you.  What will this judgment do to you?  It will produce a court order demanding payment on such and such terms.  Should you not be able to appeal this judgment or if you simply ignore it, you will put yourself into the unenviable position of "civil contempt of court" which is a jailable offense. 

Therefore, it is wise to remember, that any time that you have a mandatory court appearance you should absolutely make that appearance and do the best you can to defend yourself which starts with adequate preparation and a knowledge of the law.  Not doing so, could ultimately land you in a modern-day Debtors' Prison.  And even though, it doesn't make any logical sense, to jail someone for not paying their debts, (which is a civil not a criminal offense), or to fine someone continuously who is indigent, the state is a blunt tool which neither knows what the left hand or the right hand is doing. 

And let us not forget Dickens' Scrooge who when asked to contribute to the welfare of the poor and destitute, responded not with charity but with the infamous rhetorical flourish "Are there no prisons?" 

No electricity

I heard a knock upon my front door, yesterday, and it was a representative from the Utility company.  I had seen their truck outside earlier but hadn't thought anything of it, other than routine maintenance.  But no, he stated that he needed to turn off the power to my house (and all the others tied to that transformer) because the power transformer had sprung an oil leak, and therefore power would be going off in another five minutes.  He reminded me to open up my garage door in case I wanted ingress and egress, but I already knew how to yank the emergency release cord on my garage door trolley and therefore I had the capability to open my garage door without the aid of electricity, and believe me, I've had to yank that cord before!

I appreciated the heads up he was so courteous to give me as it gave me time to complete and organize some work on my desktop and when the outage came twenty minutes later I wasn't surprised by that fact. Meanwhile, my computer desktop remained on because of my surge protector/battery backup, but I didn't waste all that much more time completing my tasks at hand and then I put my desktop in "sleep" mode, which is something that I had previously not tested.  Nice to know, that after 90 minutes or so, when power was restored, my desktop didn't need to reboot and the same browser windows I had left open were still there.  Sweet.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  Without power to the house and no separate electric generator, I now had no internet, no TV, no AC (it's summertime), no fans, and nothing that plugged into an outlet that worked.  Pretty much I was back to pen and paper. Yes, I had my cell phone, so I wasn't completely cut-off from civilized life, but definitely my quality of life had become  impaired.

Electricity is something that we take for granted, but what if rolling blackouts or arbitrary blackouts were to occur on a regular basis.  Your productivity, your lifestyle, would be challenged to the absolute maximum; that is definitely the type of paradigm that I don't want to be a part of. Without electricity, the functionality of my house becomes more akin to shelter and not a whole lot more.

I remember back in California, in 2001, during the Governor Davis' truncated era, when we suffered rolling blackouts because of a mismanaged or manipulated energy crisis.  When you're at work and the power goes out and there isn't any real hope that the power is going to come back on in a few minutes, there isn't much that you can do when you're in the Hi-Tech business except to pack up your briefcase or backpack and head back home.  Without power, you simply don't have a business.  And it follows that without a business, you don't have any income and the downward spiral continues onward from there.

Electricity is a wonderful and necessary thing and while typically losing power during a thunderstorm or other severe weather conditions is an unfortunate inconvenience, losing it for any extended period of time, or even having erratic service has dire consequences that most people don't even contemplate.

Our modern lives are tied to the benefits of electricity and we are ill-able to circumvent it.

A Man's World?

Is this still a man's world?  Well, truth be told, I'm hard-pressed to imagine that times have ever been better for females in the USA.  Sure, females apparently still aren't paid at the same compensation rate as men which is a disgrace but employment opportunities and economic freedom have seldom seen these heights for females but alas, it hasn't always been this way.

Back in colonial times, it was the family unit that was paramount, and not the individual.  Additionally, as is common knowledge, this was a patriarchal society.  The woman was subordinate to the man, but in respect to that subordination, it was the man's responsibility to provide for his wife and their family. 

The rule of law in colonial times was "Common Law".  Common meaning not so much "common sense" but in that the law was "one law" which was common to all peoples and therefore consistent in all senses.  It was this "Common Law" that families had to respond to or answer to as one.  Therefore, the man of the house could very well be held responsible for his wives' behavior as well as his children and be subject to fines or public censure.

For instance, whereas, in modern America we are intimately familiar with our 1st Amendment Rights and therefore our Freedom of Speech, that right didn't exist back in colonial times.  Saying the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time could get you accused and convicted of slander and the punishment for such was the infamous "cucking/ducking stool" depending on whether your stay in the stool was merely for public humiliation or for public dipping into actual water.  In either case the chastisement was embarrassing, humiliating, and could in some cases be deadly as in an unintentional drowning.

Changes became to become afoot when the Continental Congress came together in 1776.  Abigail Adams, the wife of our future 2nd President wrote to her husband: "I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands. Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

While it took many years for that revolution on behalf of women to develop, it did indeed come, step by step, precept upon precept.  In the 1850s public schooling which had been advocated by President Thomas Jefferson began to come into fruition.  Along with this, women were given the opportunity to work in the factory.  This was still an agrarian society in which men were reluctant to leave their farms and the freedom of being their own boss, whereas women saw this as not only an opportunity but also a chance to make some money.

The Civil War and the fight against slavery brought more women to the forefront of the fight for equality.  The 1850s and 60s were the beginning of the women's suffrage movement in which in 1890 the state of Wyoming granted women suffrage. Slowly but surely other states came along and they too granted suffrage to women before finally the passage of the 19th Amendment was accomplished and ratified in 1920.

Now, nearly a century later, women in America have really come into their own.  For instance, more women than men attend college, and more women than men graduate college.  This has been the case since 1985 and the gap between men and women is continually growing. 

As for crime, in 2008, it was estimated that one out of 18 men, and one out of 89 women were in Correctional Control (prison, jail, probation, or parole).

In a modern world in which brawn is far less necessary and the mind and discernment thereof has become paramount, males appear to be the lesser sex.

Conviction

Do you have convictions that match God's moral law or you one of those tired and timid souls that changes your mind with the prevailing winds of time or gravitates to the attitudes of those that surround you for better or for worst?

Conviction is important.  If there is no standard that you hold your life to, than to what are you measuring yourself against?  Inside of every person is a conscience that will guide you to correct and moral decisions.  You can try to circumvent that conscience through ignorance, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, or abuse of all sorts of things but that is a false escape with ill consequences.

You cannot escape yourself.  Life is a test, and each of us gets different obstacles, that must be met.  Having the right convictions, the right knowledge, and doing the right thing will help to give you the strength and wisdom to face and to ultimately overcome your obstacles and to move forward.  In failure, in defeat, in bad decisions, you will regress. 

How can you be sure that your conviction is correct, as opposed to a self-righteous intolerance that is sadly mistaken?  That question isn't easily answered but we can receive that answer through honest reflection, from the studying and learning of great soul's lives, and implementing or embracing their words, their actions, and the recognition that like creates like.  So that, for instance, if in your worldview you believe that only through the sword can the world be purified or corrected, you must also realize that one day that sword will itself be "tolled for you." 

Having strong and right convictions will allow you to stand, for instance, before Charles the Fifth, the Holy Roman Emperor, and say, as Martin Luther did " "Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen."

These are the type of sentiments, the convictions, that must reside inside each one of us.  To know right and to do wrong is itself a great sin.  We hear this in James 4:17 "Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin."

Life shouldn't be a popularity contest.  To be popular, often consists of pandering to the crowd, mirroring what they want to hear, and what they want to see.  But how quickly the crowd can change, how quickly the winds of time can change and that is what makes popularity a chimera, and a false and lesser god.

Have the courage to be of great conviction, have the wisdom to be a true friend.  Doing the right thing may not bring you earthly riches and the easy life, but it will bring you the soothing comfort to know that in your conscience, when put to the test, your spine was straight and true.

Good Ideas

What should you do with a good idea?  First, you should take the time to think it through and carefully ponder upon it.  Then after you have considered it, contemplated upon it, and perhaps refined it, you should do some additional research on your idea to learn more and to take it even further to the next level.

After all, just because you thought carefully about your idea, doesn't mean it's original or new or even good.  It might or might not be.  While doing your research you should be able to determine whether your new idea is really something new at all or just pretty much a copy or a tribute to someone else's idea.  Still copy or not, a good idea is a good idea.

Further to that effect, you should want to take your idea and get some feedback from people or persons that you respect and that would be knowledgeable about your idea and its prospects.  Their feedback could be invaluable in developing the idea further or in seeing other perspectives that maybe weren't apparent to you upon your initial thrust.

A collaborative effort has many advantages and not that many disadvantages.  It would still be your choice as to whether to work with others or to walk away, but it is better to have that choice than not to have it, because just one so-called small improvement upon a good idea could have massive implications to the positive.

A good idea should then be tested and re-tested, looked at, and refined as necessary.  Although it's nice to have the luxury of 'winging it' -- why not take the time to develop the idea before you test it to see if it flies.  After all, an idea ill-prepared, is an idea that will probably fall flat on its face and while we can learn from our failures, it may also discourage us from going further if we test something too prematurely.

As Edison wisely said, "Many of life's failures are people who did not realize how close they were to success when they gave up.”  So giving up on a good idea is not something that we want to do.  Sometimes an idea must be pushed aside for a bit because we have hit a barrier which we believe to be impenetrable but if one allows their mind to still contemplate upon it, success may yet come.

Good ideas are far too invaluable to let go.  When you feel an idea tugging upon you, urging you, whispering to you, you should listen to that still small voice and act upon it.  After all, if you close your mind or refuse to listen to your ideas, that stream will dry up on account of inactivity. 

Ideas, like life, are a two-way street.  You learn by listening, interacting, thinking, pursuing, trying, working, and by giving focused attention.  When a good idea comes into your head, it's like Opportunity knocking upon your door.  Get up, stand tall, and open that door.

You'll be glad that you did.

Sam's Club Supersmart Checkout

I have a vision of a grocery checkout system that doesn't currently exist but could easily exist with today's technology.  Take Sam's Club, for instance, in which the following items are believed to be true:

1.       You must be a member to shop there

2.       You must present your membership card which has a magnetic strip

3.       All items sold are packaged and bar-coded.

4.       The exact weight of all items being sold could be/or already has been entered into their merchandise system.

5.       No items are bagged, although you can box them at the checkout register.

6.       There is an attendant at the front door when you enter to check your membership.

7.       There is an attendant at the exit door to verify your purchases against your receipt.

To me, it just doesn't make any sense that you as a consumer, shop throughout the store, and put your items into a grocery cart, only to have to take them out upon checkout and then have them put back into your grocery cart.  Why not make it more seamless, gather more information about your customers, reduce labor expenditures, and also cut down on self-service theft.  It can be done.

The grocery cart that I envision would have a scanner gun attached to the cart.  The scanner gun would only become detached when you activated the release mechanism with your membership card.  Now, Sam's Club has a record as to what time you showed up at the store which will ultimately allow them to know how long you were in the store to purchase the items that you selected which can be further data mined.

Once the scanner gun is activated you would go about your business just as you normally do with the exception being that every time you purchased an item you would scan it in.  What happens if you change your mind about a purchase?  You could scan it again and select "cancel previous purchase".

What if you forget to scan an item?  That's where the weight of the items comes into play.  When you checkout you will roll your grocery cart unto a calibrated weight scale.  Your cart will be weighed with the products that you have purchased and compared to the estimated weight within a very tight tolerance that the products should come to.  If the weight matches within the parameters, you are good to go, and can now select any boxes that you desire to box your goods on the way out with the caveat that perhaps 10% of the time you will be randomly selected for further verification. If the weight doesn't match, your receipt would have to be checked against the items in your cart by an attendant.

Could the system be fooled?  That is to say, could you in theory scan in an item with the same weight, but then actually put into your basket a different, but more expensive item that weighs exactly the same?  That is, deliberately shoplift? Yes, but that would eventually create an inventory imbalance in which one item sold would be less than what it is suppose to be and another item would be more.  Sam's Club would have a computerized list of all purchases of the item that they now have more of, and they also have your membership card ID to match this information to.  Upon entering the store again for your next visit, you and innocent others having scanned the same item previously will be more closely

monitored and your chances of being "randomly selected" for an audit of your goods purchased would be significantly higher.

That is why it is best to have this type of checkout system at a Membership only store in which the Terms & Conditions of said membership would spell things out in detail.

Advertising in Books

We are surrounded by ads.  There are ads on your TV, newspapers, magazines, billboards, automobiles, flyers, webpage, your cell phone…  Ads are just about everywhere.

Let's first discuss print media, in which when you pick up your local free newspaper or the national newspaper they are full of ads and in fact their greatest source of revenue comes from those very same ads.   Magazines that you subscribe to or buy off of the stand may be more than 50% ads.   But have you noticed that virtually all books that you buy or borrow are ad free except perhaps for a postcard posted in the middle of the book or a list of the publisher’s books listed at the end of the book that they hope you might be interested in perusing and then purchasing from. That's pretty much it, as you certainly won't see any advertising (except for the occasional movie or TV tie-in) on the front, the sides, or the back of the cover of the book or really nothing in-between.  Why is that?

To the point, when you are reading a newspaper or a magazine you have the option upon seeing an ad, to pay attention to it or to simply read the article(s) on that page and once finished, to move on to the next page.  For me, advertising in magazines and newspapers seldom bothers me and occasionally the ads serve their purpose as I read them and perhaps cut out a coupon.  Honestly though, I seldom find them to be a distraction or an irritant.  I mean, a lot of the time I really don't even notice them.

That's why I don't understand the book publishing business at all.  I mean, if magazines have a pretty good idea of their demographics, I would suspect a book publisher to have the same pretty good idea too.  That being the case, why not try to enhance your revenue by soliciting ads.  I just don't see this as being controversial whatsoever.  Unless the subject book is literally splashed with ads on every other page I don't believe the continuity of the books will be disturbed whatsoever.

Now let's take electronic media which may be the best starting point for advertisements in books because the logistics and cost are probably much lower and the testing of these theories are much easier/quicker to explore.  The Kindle Fire sells itself with ads and also without.  The difference in price is $15.  But what is the ad?  All the ad does is it shows up anytime you turn on or wakeup your kindle, to get rid of the ad is as simple as sliding your finger to unlock your kindle.  That isn't worth $15 to me and quite frankly I don't even know why there is any controversy as I don't mind the ad and secretly I hope for a special or enticement on some product that interests me.

So why doesn't Amazon or somebody else sell electronic books with or without ads.  No doubt, Amazon has some good personal information about you that would help to target their ads on behalf of advertisers and/or the book publisher will already have a pretty good idea of the target audience that the book appeals to.  All Amazon has to do is then offer you the book with or without ads and discount the book some appropriate % with ads.

Then, let the marketplace decide.

See You Soon

I was at the gym the other day when one of my friends that I workout with said “see you soon” to me as he was leaving. As soon as he said it I have to admit I sort of liked it and the more I thought about it the more I really liked it.

After years of hearing “take care” or “later” or “see you later” or “catch you later” – it's nice to mix it up a bit and "see you soon" is just a really nice sentiment that hits the spot.  I do also like "take care" because that just seems like a nice, caring thought.  Whereas the variations of "later" just seem a bit too businesslike or even perhaps a little dismissive.  Yeah, "see you soon" has a real nice feel to it.

Now, thinking about it, "see you soon" isn't something that you would say every time or for everyone.  I mean, that's what makes the phrase so special.  You save it for someone that you actually are hoping to see "sooner" as compared to "later".  I like that.  Now, of course, once you start using "see you soon" with someone you can't switch it up and start throwing in "see you later".  That really won't work because that person would perceive a letdown, so unless you're trying to give that distinct impression, you will have to use "take care" or another appropriate substitute.

And while I suppose you can say that "say you later" or "take care" are just part of social necessities, really not meaning much of one thing or another, I beg to differ.  It is a form of social contact and is usually the last or just about the last statement that you say to an acquaintance or a friend so there is more here than a mere formality to it. 

Words do matter, and there is a rhythm to our conversation in which we have to play our part.  Whereas "how are you doing" is a form of "Hi, Hello" it can be much more when you put a little bit more emphasis on it and say something to the effect, "No, really, seriously, how are you doing?"  People understand that to mean that you want to engage them in a more meaningful conversation and chat for a while.

I believe that "see you soon" has more of the connotation that you care, and perhaps more importantly, it leads the door open, that you'll indeed pick up the conversation where you left the next time that you meet which could be right around the corner. Whereas your "see you later", on the other hand, sort of shuts the door and says pretty much to the effect we're done for now and with no real promise that the conversation will be picked up at any near point.

Now perhaps I'm reading into it way too much, and perhaps I'm taking words too literally, but given a choice between being a touch more considerate or receiving a little extra consideration I have to say I prefer that.

See you soon!

CAR SAFETY

In America, way too many people die or are seriously injured in automobile accidents each year (and all over the world for that matter!).  According to the NHTSA there were 32,367 vehicle deaths and 2,217,000 injuries in calendar year 2011 for the USA. While the trend has been going down due to car safety improvements, it seems to me that this can be improved upon even more dramatically without a lot of cost to the consumer or distress to the car manufacturer.  

When I think of automobile accidents I often reflect on the NASCAR car races shown on TV in which incredibly and in often harrowing circumstances the driver of a high speed car after running into a wall or into another car (or cars) often survives relatively unscathed.  Although, obviously, that isn't true in every case, it is true in a remarkably high amount of them and consequently this is something well worth looking into and emulating. 

This leads to the premise that if race car drivers can survive in high speed crashes why can’t we, the common people, do the same.  While we most certainly won't be comparing apples to apples, it would seem that two significant factors could immediately help improve our fatality and injury statistics. 

The first item to look at is our seatbelt design which is known as a 3-point since it goes across your lap and diagonally across your chest.  But check this out, this design was initiated by Volvo back in 1959!  While we can be grateful for this innovation, time demands an improvement.  Fortunately, there are a few experimental seatbelts in the works, such as the "criss-cross" or  the "3x2 safety belt" but essentially you want to develop something that will restrain the driver's body from moving forward at a rapid pace during a car crash--and that improves upon our current 3-poin seatbelt. For instance, in NASCAR they use a five-point safety harness, something similar to that, modified as necessary for our use, makes a lot of sense to me.  The physics behind this improved seatbelt design should be studied, experimented with, and then implemented as either standard equipment, optional, or as a consumer add-on.

The second idea to improve vehicle safety is the use of a helmet.  What's this you say?  Helmets for a car!  You have got to be kidding, but no I am not.  It is best to remember that out of all your body parts your brain is the most irreplaceable.  Head injuries most definitely can be fatal, and if not fatal, quite debilitating.  Again, logic would dictate that a helmet could be designed for vehicle use that would protect the driver and at the same time not obstruct their hearing or vision. 

While I am not an advocate of making either of these changes mandatory, I do believe that these options should be readily available.  A typical 3-point seatbelt appears to cost the manufacturer $12 (Anzellotti Sperling Pazol & Small, LLC).  Whereas, a good helmet perhaps ranges from $40-75 in price.  These costs aren't prohibitive and the upside in vehicle safety makes it well worth the while to take a serious and studied look at.

Soccer Rants

Ball Possession:

One of the stats that they put on soccer telecasts is percentage of ball possession.  I find the stat to be kinda annoying and kinda interesting, but what really got me was questioning how a team like FC Barcelona can consistently have 70% ball possession or above.  Really?  So I did a little research and I found out a lot more about this term "ball possession" from OptaSports as follows:

"Opta now record possession in a football match by means of an automated calculation based on the number of passes that a team has in a game."… 
"During the game, the passes for each team are totalled up and then each team's total is divided by the game total to produce a percentage figure which shows the percentage of the game that each team has accrued in possession of the ball. "

Aha, so that explains how Barcelona puts up these insane ball possession numbers.  Barcelona are the kings of short, precise and concise passing which is what Opta records ultimately as 'ball possession'.  Consequently, 'ball possession' is a misnomer.  How about some full disclosure?!  And why not just call it what it is, which is simply a stat of passes made by each team.

Corner Kicks:

Perhaps I am just ignorant but way too many corner kicks look helter-skelter to me and that just doesn't make any sense.  Here you have a real scoring opportunity in the opponents' end of the field and you would think that putting the ball in the back of their net would be a high priority.  If soccer was run like the NFL, there most definitely would be a playbook and that is just what soccer needs.  Perhaps these plays are well disguised and I'm just ignorant of that, but based on the low percentage of goals scored from corner kicks, that doesn't appear to be the case. 

Further to this point, it has been shown that a " ‘critical delivery area’ between the 6-yard box and the penalty spot has been identified" (Hughes and Petit, 2001; Taylor et al., 2005) so why not try to place the ball into that critical delivery area each and every time.

Throw-ins:

Throw-ins are fairly innocuous, until you are down by your oppositions' area of the field and then they can become something more.  I refer specifically to Rory Delap and his amazing throws into the penalty area from the sideline.  Obviously, something like this can only work under certain conditions:

1.      Must have a nice run-up on the pitch

2.      Must be close enough to the penalty box that the throw can be even attempted

3.      Must be able to make the throw

I really don't know how difficult it is, to develop the skillset that Rory Delap has.  Perhaps he is a freak of nature, perhaps not.  But having said this, it would behoove a coach to at least test his players for their long throw ability and if any of those players have that potential to develop it. 

Football Penalty Flag

Football is America's most popular sport with powerhouse TV ratings but why is it that the powers-to-be can't see the obvious and make a small tweak to the current usage of penalty flags to make the game much more enjoyable and of more interest.

That is to say, why is it in football that when an official throws the penalty flag it’s always yellow?  You would think that by now they would have some innovations to this aging and inadequate tradition.  Hey, how about this?  Why not one color flag for defense (let’s leave that yellow) and another color flag for an offensive infraction (let’s make that blue).  There, that solves the problem.  Two penalty flags--simple. Yes, it's a bit more complicated for the zebra-stripes but hey, the officials can practice this new procedure in the preseason and iron out all the kinks so to speak on the gridiron.

Will mistakes be made?  No doubt, but that can be rectified.  If the wrong flag is thrown down, the offending official should follow that up by throwing down the correct flag and then picking up the wrongly used one.  Having corrected this mistake in an expeditious manner, or, as in the much more likely case, having thrown the correct flag down to begin with should leave no doubt in the fan's mind, on which side the infraction will be called.  This means that by the time that official turns his mike on to announce to the crowd what the infraction was we will already know which team/side it was on.  That’s a really good thing.   How good?

Well, the most important thing to remember is that the game is for the fans.  It is much more satisfying to be able to enjoy the moment as opposed to worrying as to whether the penalty flag negates the play.  Especially, as every real fan knows, when it’s a big, big play.  Is there anything more exciting than when your team scores a critical touchdown?  Why mitigate that excitement?  It's not necessary and this simple adjustment will take care of that issue. 

So that we will find that in the future when the offensive player scores a touchdown or gains some serious yardage and you see a yellow flag it won’t stop the celebration because you will know that that flag is on the defense.  If, however, the flag is blue, you can suspect the very worst and not waste your time with meaningless and senseless celebrations. 

Just to make a final point, it's good toremember that other officials in other sports carry more than one color.  Think soccer. Yellow means caution and red means ejection. Simple.  Straightforward.  So it’s not like it hasn’t been done before.  Just as the yellow flag was a quantum leap as it replaced the inadequate whistle or horn, so will two flags be superior to the current usage of just one, and the game, the excitement, the passion, will all be the better for it.

TSA Blows

The following incident occurred to me on June 16, 2011.

On June 16, 2011 I was in the security line at LAX.  As far as I could determine, each passenger had to pass through the Backscatter X-Ray Technology machine.  (This is the machine in which you have to place your feet on the foot images and then have to put your arms in the air with your fingers of each hand nearly touching each other for 10 seconds.)  The TSA representative made it clear that you were suppose to have no objects in your pants or clothes, so my wallet, boarding pass, carry-on luggage were not in my possession, but had instead gone through the security scanner machine.  I had on no belt, no jewelry, and no shoes.  I was wearing a dress shirt and slacks.

I was surprised when I was taken aside after going through the X-Ray technology machine.  The TSA agent next to me had an earpiece and a small microphone.  It was apparent that he was getting instructions from some other TSA representative.  I was then told that they needed to pat down my buttocks which I allowed.  I was further told that I had “four anomalies in my groin area”.  This statement I found to be absurd as the specificity of the anomalies seemed completely out of place and the “reading” of my x-ray was a false flag, a smokescreen, or some misguided or misjudged attempt to fluster me.  Next, the TSA agent took a flat white special paper with an arrow at the top of it and ran it over both of my hands, front and back.  I was not told what this was for but I assumed it was for a check for explosive debris or drugs being on my fingers. 

Next I was told that they needed to do a “private screening” of me because of the anomalies.  I was not; at that point, even aware that private screenings were conducted for US citizens traveling domestically and was frankly puzzled by the “private” part which I considered to be not in my best interests.  However, having taking a position of both being stoic and following Matthew 5:39 “resist not evil” I followed the TSA agent who now had a partner to a private room that was just past the security area.  Before leaving, I was asked which bins were mine and the other TSA agent took those with him and brought them to the room. 

Inside the small room, there was a table that the bins were placed on.  I was told that they were going to close the door in order to conduct my “private screening”.  I was further told by the TSA agent how he would touch my private parts, which was with his palm facing towards me.  The TSA agent proceeded to pat me down over my entire body which surprised me as I was told the “four anomalies were in my groin area.”   I was told to raise my hands, but midway through this pat down he told me to put my arms down “as I was not under arrest”.  That statement was strange, as by definition a TSA agent is not a law enforcement agent.  The TSA agent had on light blue gloves which eventually found their way to my genital area which was firmly brushed.  I was not groped or fondled.  He then took another white special paper with an arrow at the top of it and ran it over both of his hands and left the room. 

This left me alone with the other TSA agent who I had designated as ‘good cop’ because of his desire to make small talk with me.  I assumed that the room was bugged but I did not know if it was. 

Eventually, the other TSA agent returned, he told me that I could leave.  I was never given the results of my “tests”.  I was never told as to why they were unable to find the “four anomalies in my groin area”.  I was never apologized to. 

I collected my things and left.  It was my belief that they weren’t checking for explosives but that they were instead checking for drug residue with the swabbing.  It is also my belief that “four anomalies in my groin area” was a deliberate false statement and in fact, a code for me to be treated the way that I was dealt with.

Since this episode, I have gone to the TSA site and clearly the TSA did not follow its own rules.  To wit:

1.     It’s my option to go to a private room or not.  That option was never given to me.

2.     It’s my option to have a witness to the “private screening”—that option was never given to me.  Instead, I had two male TSA agents in the same room, interrogating me.

3.     I was swabbed w. the white paper device not once but twice. “Under the Constitution, searches in airports are only for the purpose of protecting the security of airline transportation; they are not general law enforcement stops.”

All of this that I went through was for nothing.  I had nothing on my person and this was simply a violation of my rights, a sign of the decay of American ideals and dreams, and the use of arbitrary power directed at me from an unidentified person with what appears to be immunity for the decisions that are made from their remote room and in which I as a person have no right to confront or question. 

These are the signs of a police state.

Fraternal Twins from Mixed Race Couples

Fraternal Twins from Mixed Race Couples

Only in recent times, and specifically after the Civil Rights era of the 1960s, has miscegenation, or the intermixing of different races in marriage, become generally socially accepted within America.  This means, that now more than ever, there are more mixed race relations of all races within America, and these relations will produce offspring who would logically be considered to be of mixed race and those children will go on to have children of their own and so forth.  We can see this demonstrated in census and other government surveys to which more and more people embrace and identify themselves as being of "mixed race".

The skin color, the overall look, height, and facial characteristics that children will receive from their birth parents is dependent upon the mixture of the genes from each parent, to which those percentages are not the same from one birth to another, so that while brothers and sisters will have the exact same parents, their looks will vary, sometimes quite considerably from child to child.  Obviously then, In situations, in which a mixed couple procreates, the extremes of difference in look will be far greater in degree than from those that are married that are closer in complexion and/or of the same race to begin with. 

In America, there is a historic legacy of prejudice against minorities, in which in particular those of the black race have been treated poorly, in fact, a significant percentage of the blacks here in America can trace their ancestry back to the time of their ancestor's enslavement in America.  This type of historic prejudice against blacks is not the type of color prejudice that can simply disappear over a short period of time, and although it has been minimized significantly since the Civil Rights era, it still exists in this country today, despite whatever laws and Constitutional protections that are granted to all citizens, regardless of race, creed, or former servitude.

The thing about fraternal twins from mixed race couples that makes this area of social interaction, so intriguing, is the fact that these twins are born at the same time from the same parents and live in the same household.  This would imply that no matter the difference in skin color or general look that they will have, that all things being equal, if there was no skin prejudice or racial prejudice in America, whether one twin was lighter or more Caucasian looking, would not make any material difference in these twin's overall success and social acceptance in America, to which their accomplishments or lack thereof in aggregate would be approximately the same. 

This means that the study of fraternal twins of mixed race couples, especially in instances to which the twins have meaningful pigmentation differences in their complexion, should be looked carefully at, as the results of such a study would say a lot as to whether America is a country that lives up to its bold words of freedom and equality for all, or rather if America, mouths the words, but fails significantly in living up to that legacy.

The experience of America to date, which while making meaningful progress in racial harmony and equality since the Civil Rights era, is that far too often, people are categorized based upon the color of their skin, rather than the content of their character, and further to this, that this prejudice begins quite early and is systemic, persistent, prevalent, and insidious.