Billboards

I really don't think about billboards all that much, I just sort of accept them as part of the experience of driving.  Whereas there are some people that think of billboards as an eyesore or a blight, I seldom look upon them that way.  Most billboards don't garner much attention from me but occasionally there is a billboard that is displaying something of interest or catches my eye for some strange reason.  Honestly, what I like about billboards the most is their light at night; I consider it a windfall for the city to get private companies to pay for a billboard in the first place and then as an extra benefittheir billboard is visible at night because it is well lit, making the roads a little easier to see.

The biggest change in billboards nowadays is that some of them are digital.  While I suspect that digital billboards are regulated by city ordinances these are the best billboards of our age because they are extremely bright and can display over a 24-hour period more than one ad and more than one message.  I like them a lot because the ad changes and I appreciate their added illumination.

Billboards are most effective for me as an advertising device when I am driving in an unfamiliar area.  I definitely do keep my eyes open for things like restaurants, hotels, and gas stations because all of those items can be quite applicable to my situation.  While I realize that my GPS can help me with those tasks too, it's not advisable to be accessing your GPS while cruising down the highway at a high rate of speed and it can't really replace the sheer convenience of a billboard.

Anyway, what really got me thinking about billboards was I was pumping gas yesterday and I heard these incredible bird calls that were really loud and persistent.  It didn't make any real sense to me and when I looked up to the sky I didn't see any birds whatsoever but I did see a nice billboard nearby and although I couldn't actually see the speaker on the billboard, I put two and two together and figured that the billboard definitely had a speaker that was sending out those birdcalls to keep those birds away and it appeared to be pretty darn effective, although louder than what I thought it should be.

In looking at previous billboards I remember seeing seated propellers in constant motion to prevent birds from roosting and also spikes to do the same sort of thing.  Birds are wonderful creatures to look at, but roosting birds, nesting birds, and birds that are relieving themselves can be a significant nuisance, even a health hazard, and absolutely no fun at all.

I like signage, billboards, advertising and all that sort of stuff on our roads because they provide information which we can pay attention to at our discretion while also providing revenue, lighting, and employment.    Far from being considered a nuisance, to me, a town or city without billboards or advertising is either a place that is superrich and elite in a very negative way or a place of utter and complete desolation.  Billboards are a convenient way of keeping track.

Stop and frisk

Not all law is good law and not all law coincides with true moral law.  This is a country of laws and our 4th Amendment rights are directly challenged when we give in to dubious 'laws' such as 'stop & frisk'. Our 4th Amendment states that: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…but upon probable cause…"  Stop and frisk as currently practiced is a direct violation of this statue.

Taking NYC as our template, their implementation of essentially a police state, all in the name, of reducing crime or protecting citizens, is a false flag to harass, embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, and abuse those that either have no power(s) within themselves, or are easily made to be scapegoats.  NYC tactics are deliberately setup to ostracize and marginalize peoples that don't meet a certain legally suspect criteria within the NYC power structure.

The proponents of stop and frisk, believe that they got their foundation for their validation of this application of 'law' from the Supreme Court Decision of Terry v. Ohio (1968), if this be the case, they are grossly mistaken, because the Terry v. Ohio (1968), does not and never will be the validation of stop and frisk laws. In fact, Terry v. Ohio (1968) invalidates stop and frisk and it always has.

First, let us get a better understanding of Terry v. Ohio (1968).  Chief Justice Warren stated in his opinion that: "we have no occasion to canvass in detail the constitutional limitations upon the scope of a policeman's power when he confronts a citizen without probable cause to arrest him."  Clearly, this says that in Terry v. Ohio (1968), there was probable cause to arrest Mr. Terry.  Therefore, had there not been probable cause, the Supreme Court decision in all likelihood would have ruled in favor of Terry.  In NYC, in 2011, 685,000 stops were made in which only 770 guns were recovered.  In Terry V. Ohio, each of the two suspects searched, Terry and Chilton had a firearm.  This demonstrates that NYC stop and frisk policies are virtually never about probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion (a clause nowhere found in our Constitution) but about harassment and extralegal tactics.

Further to that point, what exactly is a stop and frisk?  If I am stopped, by a police officer, without probable cause of some crime, I have for all intents and purposes been "seized" by said officer.  If I am then frisked, I have also been "searched" by the same officer.   At a minimum, according to any reasonable interpretation of our 4th Amendment, the officer needs to bring directly to my attention what action(s) that I committed that gave him "probable cause" to search and seize my person.  If that is not done, or if there are no penalties asserted against this action, we are essentially living under a police state in which at any hour, at any time, for any reason, while you are in a public area, you can be accosted by the police an unlimited amount of times with no probable cause to do so.

Smile

I love a great smile and while I suppose it isn't mandatory that your teeth be straight and white, it certainly does help bring if you have it all together with your pearly-white smile.  People that smile, seem happier, and bring more happiness to others.  Although, like a lot of things, smiles can be faked, they can also be quite spontaneous and very natural.  When you see someone with a genuine smile it makes you feel good.  Smiles are just a more effective way of making others believe that you like or care about them.

Although a good smile isn't a requirement for employment and social settings it is certainly a wonderful benefit for both.  People that "light up the room" with their smile are the type of people that captivate you and make you feel good about them and yourself.   A smile can ease the tension around a personal or group session and can bring people out of their funk or shell in a very positive and emotive way.

Smiles are excellent in making people feel acceptance and it further helps to relax them.  A sunny disposition and a smile seem to go together and that is why we equate smiles with people that are either happy or in a good mood or both.  A smile is a wonderful way to greet somebody because it allows the other person to smile back in turn, sort of creating that "I'm OK, you're OK" vibe.

A wonderful smile is a great first impression, it's a way of saying, "I like you, I'm interested, I value you," all rolled into one.  Having a great smile is much more important than a great handshake because the smile comes first and at a further distance.  Also, for those with great smiles and teeth it is a subtle way of saying that you're healthy, have good hygiene and all the rest that is implied with it. 

If you don't have a great smile, is it worth doing so?  Of course, it is.  I am grateful that I received braces at a young age to correct my protruding teeth.  Although as a very young teenager I wasn't particularly sensitive about my teeth, as that was well before my dating years, I was also savvy enough to know that I certainly desired to have them corrected.  Had my teeth remained the same as they were with my two noticeably front teeth protruding it would have absolutely affected me in a very negative way.  I have no doubt that I would have dated less, been less confident about myself, less popular, less desirable, less successful, and much more introverted.   A good smile is worth every penny of the expense and the trivial inconvenience and pain.

While there may be plenty of things you can do or accomplish to make yourself a better person a smile is certainly one of those things who's worth is far beyond superficiality and will bring you and others a lifetime of satisfaction and pleasure. 

As Louis Armstrong (he, of the prodigious talent and great smile) sang: "When you're smiling, keep on smiling, the whole world smiles with you."

Rich cities, poor cities

Why is there such a huge disparity of wealth from city to city in America?  Additionally, what makes one city rich and another city relatively poor, or what makes one city more desirable than another.  While it's difficult to come up with a completely satisfactory list of all items that differentiate between a rich city and a poor city, the following items would seem to be of prime importance overall:

1.       Crime rate per capita

2.       Arts and cultural events

3.       Physicians/hospitals per capita

4.       Climate

5.       Natural resources and beauty

6.       Water

7.       Higher Education

8.       Government subsidies

9.       Transportation

10.   History

While traveling around virtually any major city you will typically see areas of modernity, high-worth, impressive architecture and on the opposite tack you will come upon dilapidated buildings, impoverishment, and lack.  That's just within one city.  However, when traveling from city to city and from state to state, you can't help but notice that some cities are much richer than others.  The poor regions often have prominent tell-tale signs such as roads in need of repair, abandoned buildings, infrastructure shortfalls, weather-beaten housing and the like. 

Is it possible that some cities have more income/monies coming in and therefore are able to upgrade and advance, whereas other cities have not enough income to maintain services and their population and consequently are in a downward spiral?  I do believe so.

First off, taxes are not evenly distribution throughout cities, counties, states, and through our federal government.  That is to say, taxes are taken away from certain communities and not replaced at a 1:1 level, so that in certain cities, millions upon millions of dollars leave those communities every year and something considerably less than that finds its way back.  That obviously makes certain cities poorer and other cities richer.

Another factor that influences the makeup of a city is the employment of its residents.  In general, the fewer people employed, the less income; although the makeup of the jobs and their consummate salaries plays a very significant part in overall size of the income pie in a particular city.  But a city in which there is high unemployment without residual income from retirement or pension accounts is a city in decline.  Additionally, there is a direct correlation that those with Bachelor's Degree or higher make considerably more money than those that do not have Advanced Educational Degrees.    In fact, that is an important reason why some cities have gone from rich to poor, because the middle-class jobs that employed their predominantly blue-collar cities has declined precipitously over the last twenty years. 

Finally, people vote with their feet.  When the opportunities are few and far between for employment in your particular community, you will seriously consider looking for work and employment opportunities elsewhere.   The most motivated people will leave first, leaving behind those that are less able, older, and those set in their ways. 

While cities in decline can turn it around, to do so, takes vision, determination, and carefully planned long-term decision making.

9/10 of one cent

There is one common item that most of us purchase that is priced out to the one-thousand cent and that is gasoline.  When we purchase gasoline the price should always be rounded up by $.01 because the gallon price of let's say $3.57 is in reality $3.579 which translates into $3.58 per gallon and what appears to be $3.57, is essentially a penny more or more precisely $.009 more which is exactly 9/10th of a penny more.  This extra $.009 which may seem trivial does add up. For instance, the average consumer who uses 500 gallons of gas a year would spend an additional $4.50 (500 x .009) on gasoline because of this 9/10th of one centWhile that might not sound like much, it's enough to get yourself a decent meal at a fast food place. 

Of course, from the oil business perspective the view is a little bit different, because they deal with really large numbers.  According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2011 the United States consumed about 134 billion gallons.  Assuming that all those gallons had an extra $.009 tacked onto them that would mean an additional   $1,206,000,000 (134,000,000,000 x .009) was spent on gasoline just from that modest and almost immaterial increase per gallon of $.009.  That's right, folks, that's 1.2 billion dollars more spent on gasoline for that innocuous $.009 that is tacked on and hardly noticed.

Having stated the above, I often wonder why more retailers don't add on this $.009 charge, especially given that everything is computerized and consequently adjusting your cash register to handle and round up a given number would seem to be a relatively trivial matter.  While I'd be the first to admit that while selling something for a high price, let's say $20 and above, it might not be worth the exercise there are plenty of stores that sell goods for consistently low prices or have consistently low margins.  In particular, I think of grocery stores and those bargain stores such as Dollar Tree, Dollar General, and the like.

In fact, one of those stores did make the change and took their price all the way out to the one-ten-thousand of a cent.  That store is the 99 Cents Only Store which implemented a new pricing policy of 99.99 cents or $.9999 in 2008 and got hit with a class action lawsuit in 2010 for their troubles.  The suit probably says more about our litigatious society rather than the merits of the suit because I believe their price increase was absolutely brilliant and probably necessary.  To put this in perspective, Family Dollar, which despite their name does sell goods for more than $1, claims that their average transaction in 2010 was $9.91.  Using this number for the 99 Cents Only Store this extra $.0099 would cost the consumer about $.10 per trip which is trivial.  For the 99 Cents Only Store this $.0099 price increase was probably a necessary step in order to maintain or improve their gross margin and it essentially gave them another penny to absorb any additional costs involved in purchasing the products that they sell--meaning that they can hold the line on a larger variety of products for a greater length of time.

It is this extra penny that businesses with low margins and/or low pricing need to make a play at.  The consumer is pretty much is acquiescent to it and/or easily accommodative to it.  A penny here and a penny there do indeed add up. 

Grocery Stores

You'd be an unusual adult if you didn't frequent some type of grocery store, but I wonder how many of us take grocery stores for granted.  To me, every time that I go into a grocery store I am amazed at the amount of products on display, their freshness, their organization, their convenience, their quality, their good customer service, and their very reasonable pricing,  All of this is available to me, for just a short drive and the competition is fierce in this industry.

The logistics of getting fresh produce to your grocery store in plentiful supply is impressive.  This takes an extraordinary effort of coordination, transportation, refrigeration, packing, unpacking, distribution and knowledge.  Supermarkets are one of those things that we just assume is a given, and don't pay any mind to, unless something goes terribly wrong. 

To be able to get fresh food, or readily packaged food, is a real godsend, and something that in the great eons of time has seldom been available.  At my grocery store, pretty much everything that you want in order to have a balanced and nutritional diet is available with no questions asked or unnecessary fuss.  This is really astonishing and makes our lives much better.

The ability to transport foods and keep them preserved or fresh is the reason why we have such an abundance of these foods in our grocery stores.  Being able to stock up on foods that we need or crave is a time-saving and money-saving convenience.  Most Americans do not grow or have the inclination to grow or hunt for their own food and would be befuddled should it ever come down to that.

Yet, despite our taking grocery stores for granted, it takes a complicated series of maneuvers that are carefully orchestrated together to make everything look so effortless and complete. In order for a grocery chain to be efficiently stocked with products that fill its consumer needs, a sophisticated inventory system is setup which takes into account: distribution cycles, pricing, reliability, turnover, historical norms, and safety stock.   Through this sophisticated analysis and with the benefit of a database that can run through more than one scenario, decisions will be made that have worldwide implications for food distribution since food and food products have become completely globalized.

These foods will often make their way from their original distribution point to massive and centralized distribution centers of 350,000 sq ft or more for storage, organization, and ultimately to the efficient distribution of their products to us.

All of this handiwork takes the utilization of energy.  Without the necessary fossil fuels or reliable and refrigerated transportation, the whole process would come to a grinding halt.  Energy, more than any other factor, is the Achilles heel of the supermarket business.  Should energy shortages ever become the norm in America, or should energy costs rise in cost or become unstable in some fashion, the ramifications for us as consumers would be felt very quickly in the price, availability, and reliability of our day-to-day grocery shopping habits.

DUI

Driving under the Influence (DUIs') aren't really about making the roads safer for me and you; they are a lot more about the symbiotic relationship between 'opposing' attorneys, extra and unmerited revenue for government agencies, and in some jurisdictions: free and undeserved mandatory labor.  While I would agree that people that actually do have  their driving abilities impaired should be subject to a reasonable penalty for using our public roads, I do not agree with our current DUI laws which are arbitrary, capricious, and morally suspect.

For instance, how is it that the needle for a DUI is constantly moving ever downward so that the blood alcohol level to be considered DUI is becoming lower and lower.  That isn't good science, that isn't science at all, which makes for arbitrary and very bad law.  For instance, in Georgia, in 1954, you were considered to be under the influence of intoxicating liquor at 0.15 percent.  Since that time, Georgia has reduced its' definition of "under the influence of intoxicating liquor" to 0.12 percent, then to 0.10 percent, and now to 0.08 percent.   Then,  in May of 2013 the NTSB put out their recommendation that a DUI should be further reduced from its current 0.08 percent (in all 50 states) to 0.05 percent.   Since the Federal Government likes to wield its big stick and withhold highway construction monies from states that do not adhere to its dictates, the chances of this becoming the new standard for a DUI are quite high.

What a DUI should be about is actual driving impairment and nothing else.  Therefore DUIs should be based on sound science with proven and reliable studies as compared to the arbitrary levels to which we are subjected to daily.  It is these studies that should solely determine the amount of alcohol level permitted to define whether a driver is or is not "under the influence of intoxicating liquor".    The inability of government agencies to follow this reasonable and sane process is demonstrative proof that DUIs are in fact not about good law but instead a source of revenue, harassment, and oppressive police/government actions.

DUI proponents love to recite statistics that demonstrate how many lives have been saved from having strict DUI laws in regards to blood alcohol content.  Their premise is that if you continue to lower DUI levels, our roads will become safer and less deadly.  If this was indeed the case, why allow any public consumption of alcohol whatsoever!   In fact, why waste your time lowering the DUI levels, as opposed to simply eliminating alcohol as a legal beverage in this country.   Isn't this the ultimate objective?

While driving is a privilege and not a right, it's biased and unfair to arrest, incarcerate, compel to enforced labor, and monetarily fine drivers who have committed no crime other than to have an arbitrary amount of blood alcohol in their body.  This serves no good purpose and many bad ones.  Bad laws and bad justice do not make good citizens and builds contempt for the law. 

Credit Cards Con

Credit cards can be a real boon for the consumer but it can also be a real bane.  It's definitely a dual-edge sword and should you get on the wrong side, having bad credit will definitely negatively impact your life and livelihood.  That can be most unfortunate, as at age 18, you can qualify to get your own credit card, yet, at that age, you may not have developed the maturity to handle it well.

The first question you might ask is why would any credit card company take a chance on someone so young or on anyone in particular.  The short answer is that they are in business to make money and their top consumers are people that don't have the discipline, or the funds, or the inclination, or the desire, to pay their credit card bills in full.  They want and they encourage this via "come-ons" and higher than necessary credit limits, hoping to tap into that common consumer desire to have it "now". 

While your original intention may have been to use your credit card responsibility, you may be tempted, had an unexpected expense, or just have had too many expenses at once, and have to utilize your credit card more than you originally desired.  Fortunately, as long as you are able to make your minimum payment, your credit card will remain valid, and consumers that are unable to pay in full are the type of customers that credit card companies' desire.  They want you to visualize your credit card statement as something that doesn't need to be paid in full, just something that you need to pay a portion on, and they have no problem with your credit debt continuing to rise as long as you can keep your payments current.  The interest that the credit card issuers charge the consumer in comparison to their internal cost of those monies is such a huge differential that their profit potential is massive and that is where the banks make good and steady money off of your borrowing habits.

With so many people living and struggling paycheck by paycheck it only takes one unexpected event to put you upside down with your debt obligations and once that happens the credit card pyramid begins to break down rather quickly.   In fact, credit cards are really a one-way street.  That is to say, should a credit card company no longer feel that you are a worthy credit risk they can unilaterally reduce your credit limit without notice or even cancel your account and demand payment in full.  Should this happen to you, you have no legal recourse other than to plead your case and hope for some consideration.

Once you get on the wrong side of not paying your credit on time, you will receive an adverse mark on your credit report.  This impact is serious, and it takes seven long years to remove a detrimental record from your report which is a very lengthy period of time.  Although you can legitimately dispute a mark(s) against your credit, it's an uneven fight in which essentially the default is that you are guilty as charge, although it will be investigated. Also, Credit Report companies do allow you to comment on your written credit report that the consumer has disputed the charge.

The bad news for getting on the wrong side of the credit card companies is that everything escalates rather quickly.  For one miss payment, you will probably have to deal with the following:

1.      Late fee

2.      Higher interest rate

3.      Negative report to credit report agencies

However, if you do manage to make good on your late payment in a reasonable period of time, you can probably mitigate or eliminate all of the above.  If you don't, the consequences are severe and your credit score will go down.

The problem with a damaged or poor credit score is it not only affects your ability to get credit cards, it negatively affects your insurance rate, your ability to purchase/finance a car, your cell phone contract, your deposit with utility companies, your interest rate on any and all borrowing, and worst of them all, gainful employment. 

It may sound like a 'catch-22' but those that most need a job in order to pay bills and get back in good credit graces are denied employment because their credit is bad.  Having bad credit will put you on the outside looking in and make your cost of living much more prohibitive than someone else of equal background and skills. 

Credit Cards Pro

I remember with great joy when I received my first credit card back in the day.  Finally, incredibly, American Express was willing to take a chance with me.  As soon as I received the card, I just had to use it, even though there really wasn't anything that I absolutely needed.  I decided to purchase a book and thereby use my card, and, by Jove, the bookstore accepted my payment by credit card.  Sweet.

The original American Express card conditions stated that you had to pay off your balance in full with each statement, so that it behooved you to use a little trick to delay the inevitable.   Since my budget was tight, it was pretty easy to learn that in order to extend my payment out for another 20-30 days, the simplest way to do that was to recognize my billing cycle and make my expenditures right after that cycle ended.  So if the billing cycle ended on the 20th of the month, the stupidest thing to do was to buy something on the 19th or 20th of the month.  Doing that, you'd be stuck with the bill almost in real time.  No, I liked to float the money by making my purchases right after the 20th, which worked out real well for me and gave me a little cushion.  Of course, when I finally got the bill, sometimes I looked at the items and thought to myself, dang, I bought that weeks ago and it hardly seems fair to make me pay for it now.  I mean, really

Since that time I've received and utilized many credit cards.  The biggest difference is that over time the annual fees went away and instead I've gotten some lucrative points/bonuses just for having a certain branded credit card.  The only credit cards I carry now with an annual fee are ones that I have received a big incentive such as two roundtrip airfare tickets.  That will keep me in their good graces for a short while, but unless they have some additional come-ons to entice me, I usually end up canceling the card after getting my benefits and moving on.

Having said all that, the most amazing thing about credit cards is the monetary credit that is given to you.  I'm not saying that my family and friends are a bunch of tightwads and uncaring, but when you request a little money from them, as I have in earlier times, they look at you in a completely different way.  It's almost like you're some sort of degenerate, loser, cheater, and hustler all rolled up into one.  But with a credit card company they treat you with respect.

You know the old saying that there isn't anything free in life, so when you use credit cards without an annual fee and you do pay your balance in full each month, plus you get points as a bonus, you do wonder to yourself, how is it that they make a profit on me.   The short answer is they don't.  The only fee that they make directly on your account is their portion of the merchant fees when your card is used.

To demonstrate further how good I've got it, every once in a while I screw up on my payment, in which I accidently just pay the minimum, or don't click through enough windows so the payment doesn't even go through.  What I have found out is if you only make that mistake once in every twelve months a courteous phone call will often get the problem rectified.  So I screw up, I call them, apologize, and make the complete payment, whereupon they will forgive the interest, penalty, and late fees. 

So if they are doing all that for me, how is it that the credit card issuers are making money?  That's for Part II.

Container Ships

Do you ever take a look at your clothing label or pocketbook or toy and notice that there is a little label that says "Made in China". For most of us, we probably don't think any further than, "thought so", or perhaps a few of us are upset that it doesn't say "Made in USA", but I wonder how many people ever say to themselves, "isn't China far away?"  Yes, it is.  Shanghai, China to Los Angeles is approximately 6,500 miles so those goods have a very long way to travel to us.

Container ships came into existence in 1956 but they were slow to take root.  It wasn't until the Vietnam War that container cargo began their breakthrough.  A test was conducted in transporting ammunition in containers instead of break-bulk (e.g. boxes, crates, drums, barrels, or pallets) in 1970.  Upon arrival in Vietnam it was determined that (globalsecurity.org):

1.      Vessel turnaround was improved by 500%

2.      Manpower efficiency was improved by 600%

3.      Number of handlings was reduced from a possible eight to two.

4.      Ammunition was in better condition on delivery.

Soon thereafter a steering group was created in the Department of Defense to coordinate container development with commercial container systems.

China exports most of their goods via container ships.  Container ships consist of 20 foot container boxes with typical dimensions of 20 feet in length, 8 feet in width, and the most common height is 8 feet 6 inches.  Each one of these containers is considered a twenty-foot equivalent unit or TEU.  Modern state-of-the-art cargo ships can handle 11,000 TEUs which is a staggering number.  According to factsanddetails.com the average cost to transport a TEU from China to the USA is around $1,500.

Without these container ships the cost to ship the quantity of goods from China to the USA would be prohibitive because you need a great deal of capacity in order for the economies of skill to filter thru.  These container ships are incredibly efficient, relatively fast, and an effective means for China to sell its exports and consequently it becomes quite beneficial for both parties.  

I am amazed that these massive ships are able to navigate the ocean so well, because storms, tempests, and hurricanes are all part of our natural weather system.  Not too surprisingly, back at the home base there are expert meteorologists who study in real time any approaching storms or other disturbances and then advise the ship captain of avoidance routes or other options that are most pertinent.  Without this necessary feedback the captain's job and safety record would be significantly more problematic.

Despite the awesome size of these ships, the crew to handle them is surprisingly small.  In most cases for these container ships, the crew will not exceed 25 people in which their responsibilities will include not only the successful navigating of the ship, but any routine maintenance, staggered hours of duty,  paperwork, and often times numerous ports of call.  As a reference point, the Al Miqab, one of the 10 largest yachts in the world, has a crew of 60. 

The value of container ships may seem obvious to us now, but that wasn't always the case.

Closed captions

I absolutely love close captions, but I'm not necessarily the audience that close captioning is suppose to appeal to.  With the exception of sports and comedy (the former I don't need to read their commentary, and the latter I don't want to spoil the punch line) I prefer close captioning for all my other viewing experiences.   Closed captioning actually increases my attention to the show that I am watching. 

Although my hearing is fine, sometimes the enunciation on the program I am watching is something less than desired or it's muddled or it's easily misunderstood.  Closed captioning allows me to get the clarity of what is being said.  You could also say the reason that I like close captioning so much is that my favorite activity is reading.  I love reading the written word and while reading I can read at my own pace and thoughtfulness.  While watching a TV program since the words are spoken I am forced to listen to the pace of that speech, which I find somewhat annoying, especially when I have a pretty good idea what the next line is going to be.  Having the spoken words scrolled along the bottom of the screen actually keeps me more engaged, and ultimately because this is the written word it allows for greater comprehension, because when you mishear a word it can change the entire complexion of a given scene.

Although close captioning was ostensibly setup to help those that are hard of hearing, people whose reading comprehension is poor or needs improvement, and peoples that do not have English as their native tongue, it can encompass a much wider range of the population as it does in my particular case.  Another advantage of closed captioning is that when you are watching a program with someone that likes to talk or interrupt you, you still have the ability to pick up what was being said by reading it at the bottom of the screen, that way you aren't forced to re-run or pause a given scene which is even more annoying. 

Another benefit of closed captioning is it gives me the opportunity to know how to correctly pronounce a given word.  There are a few words that trip me up now and again, and by virtue of closed captioning I get the luxury of reading the word and hearing the correct pronunciation.

Of course, while this isn’t a benefit, another thing that I love to see, is when they write down the wrong word such as "illusion" when the appropriate word is "allusion" given the context of the show.  Also, you will see words that are pronounced the same but they will display perhaps "bear" when they really should have put down "bare".  I love noticing that stuff and chuckling to myself.  Usually, however, they get it right which is the most desirable thing.

While I'd be the first to admit unless you are going to a special showing at a movie theatre that most patrons would find close captioning to be distracting, it's the perfect accompaniment at home.  Also, I was delighted when the Metropolitan Opera added closed captioning to their performances in which you can watch the translated words scroll upon the horizontal LCD screen on the seatback in front of you.  Of course, this is completely voluntary, you don't have to do it, but most people do.

40 Acres and a Mule

African-Americans have been given a raw deal.  While African-Americans are hardly alone in getting the shaft from our government, no other group of peoples were forcefully kidnapped from their country of origin under oppressive and inhumane conditions, and then resettled here as slaves (non-persons, considered to be only property) other than blacks.  And while not every black came to America as a slave, or was a slave, or suffered the indignities of having once been a slave, or are a descendent of a slave, the ill legacy of slavery affects every black and this continues until the present day.

The richness of a country has a lot to do with its natural resources, its work-ethic, and its success in trading with other countries.  In order to benefit from one's country one needs the opportunity to do so.  Those that control the land, business, education, money, employment, and the law, control the economic fortunes and opportunities of the public at large.  Those avenues of power and advancement have historically been precluded from most blacks and therefore these actions have ramifications that continue presently.

Martin Luther King, Jr. stated in his seminal "I Have a Dream" speech of 1963 that: "When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir…. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check, a check which has come back marked 'insufficient funds.'"

And therein lies the crux of the problem.  The United States has plenty of monetary funds and plenty of land, all it takes is the courage to live up to its vaulted promised heritage.  General Sherman issued Special Field Orders No. 15 on January 16, 1865, to whichapproximately 400,000 acres of land previously held in Confederate states was to be used for the settlement of blacks in that area.  Unfortunately, after Lincoln's assassination, President Andrew Johnson rescinded Special Field Orders No. 15 in the fall of 1865 and another promise made to the black man was negated.

Yet, today, the United States has the land and the funds to make good on compensating the black man for his unpaid labor, his missed opportunities, his injustice served, and the like.  To put this in perspective, the Federal Government currently owns nearly 650 million acres of land.  Additionally a precedent was set when President Lincoln signed the The District of Columbia Emancipation Act on April 16, 1862, which emancipated all slaves within the District of Columbia while at the same time providing compensation for the slave owner.  This compensation to the slave owner has never been matched by appropriate compensation to the slave.

Now is the time to do so with a combination of land grants and a general bond issued and back by the full faith and credit of the United States Government. Subsequently, blacks will truly be able to fully collect on the Declaration of Independence promise that "all men are created equal," and that blacks are endowed by the same Creator and therefore have, "…certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The Value of Money

I love reading books, especially American historical books and inevitably within those books there will be a discussion of money.  The worst of these books will simply state that so-and-so was paid $10 for something and won't reference what that $10 was worth back in the day.  Then there are many books that will attempt to equate with minimal success what the equivalent of $10 was into today's dollars.  I find this to be the most irritating because I believe that this is the absolute wrong yardstick to use and the distortions thereof are huge.

It's difficult, really chimerical, to even attempt to compare a dollar from, let's say, 1870 to today's dollar.  Although their names may be the same their value and the way to value the dollar by using today's monetary amount, simply won't add up, for a lot of reasons; and certainly one of them is that it's hard to compare the life and value of someone in 1870 to someone and something of today.

A far more meaningful way to evaluate currency from previous epochs is to go back in time to that year and through research find out what the dollar really could buy.  You should then create a foreword with a list of various goods that we can relate to, such as a home, acreage, and material goods that serve as a touchstone with your best attempted effort on how much that probably cost back in that particular time period.

Too often, while reading, the uninitiated will get the misimpression that someone that was worth $100,000 back in 1908, was rich but wasn't all that rich.  That's plain wrong. According to thecostofliving.com the average house in 1908 would set you back $5,541.  Also, in 1908, Sears issued its first specialty catalog for houses, Book of Modern Homes and Building Plans, featuring 22 styles ranging in price from US $650–$2,500 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears_Catalog_Home#Sears_Modern_Homes_1908.E2.80.931940).  Information like this helps to give us a very good impression of the worth of a dollar back then and is invaluable.

Why is any of this important?  Because of inflation, in general, people will get the value of money from early historical periods wrong (they will underestimate its' true worth) and because their comparison is wrong, their conclusion will be wrong.  And well, that's wrong.

I mean, it's not life shattering, but I just love it when I see an old movie and the price of gasoline is under $.50/gallon or someone goes in to buy a soda and hands the man at the counter a nickel, or gets a newspaper for a dime.  Stuff like that brings a smile to my face, because you're watching it, but you do not really believe it. 

It was essentially after President Nixon took us off the gold standard that inflation reared its ugly head in America in 1971.  Since, that time the value of a dollar has really plummeted and consequently the ability to judge or ascertain the value of money compared to early historical periods has become much more problematic and troublesome.

Thanks Dick!

Time

There are 24 hours in a day, with each hour consisting of 60 minutes, and each minute consisting of 60 seconds.  Every school child knows this and this is simply taken for granted as if time has ever been measured at this particular pace, and alas, that has been the progression of time through the modern age.

That said, In America, we are use to a base-10/decimal system, and consequently, while looking at time from that angle it appears that time is out of sync with our decimal system and perhaps in need of a fresh look.  I'm not the first to question this; the French did this back in 1793, during their bloody Revolution in which their new time system created a 10-hour day, with 100 minutes per hour, and 100 seconds per minute.  Brilliant!  Well, probably not, as it only lasted 17 months and was a resounding failure.   While one can easily say that the French attempt at decimal time was "ahead-of-its-time", it doesn't appear that any new attempt will be made anytime soon, even though, with today's technology it would be relatively easy thing to accomplish.  Why is that?

Mainly because there is an awful lot of logic behind the way time is measured on earth.  The ancient Babylonians are given credit for our 24-hour day, which they created by studying the sky and its stars.  In many respects, because of modernity and our modern lights, we are unable to see the stars in the sky as the Babylonians did.  Additionally, of course, ancient cultures had far more interest in the night sky than our jaded interests of today.  So when the Babylonians studied the stars, they really studied the stars.

They noticed and noted the consistency of the sky, in particular, that the sun will rise and set each evening, as did the moon, and as so do certain major stars that are visible to our unaided eyes.  By studying those stars from a fixed location and over an extended period of time, the Babylonians were able to discover that the stars moved in an orderly and predictable pattern and that this pattern would repeat itself after approximately 12 lunar cycles. The Babylonians then took the nighttime and divided it too into 12 cycles and matched that with the daytime to create a grand total of 24 cycles which we eventually know today as hours.  Additionally, the Babylonians noticed that the sun itself moved a small fixed amount each day and that this cycle completed in 360 days which is also divisible by 12.

Although there were now 24 hours in a day, minutes had yet to be created.   Fortunately, the Babylonians used a sexagesimal (base-60) numeral system and the number 60 works out to be the perfect number.   It is the product of the 3-4-5 right triangle (considered to be the most perfect triangle), certainly known by the Babylonians, and 60 is also the smallest number with 12 different divisors, including, of course, the number 12.   Additionally, the circle which is made up of 360 degrees is also divisible by 60 into a whole number so it all really does make a lot of sense.

The Exception that Proves the Rule

There are certain axioms and proverbs that amuse and/or fascinate me.  The above is one of them.  It seems on the surface to be either nonsensical or paradoxical or perhaps both.  This then becomes a great reason to take this axiom and actually ponder and contemplate upon it.  What does this really mean?

Not too surprisingly we get a variety of interpretations.  But in all fairness, we want to hold onto the interpretation(s) that appears to be the most correct and most in keeping with this proverb.  For instance, you could break the saying down a little further to understand it to mean, that if something is postulated as being an exception, than, by definition, there must be a rule.  In other words, you can't have an exception, without a rule.  This doesn't yet prove the rule but it does demonstrate that the rule exists.

Additionally, let us take, for instance, the traffic example of "no right turns on a red light between the hours of 7AM-9AM and 5PM-7PM, Monday thru Friday."  This would be the exception.  The rule would be that right turns on a red light are therefore permitted at all other times.  So that this would be the exception that would indeed prove the rule and would make this proverb both sensible and correct.

Sometimes when a rule is made there are exceptions put into it as a matter of course.  For instance, in Major League Baseball, the pitcher has to take his turn at bat, but this was later replaced by the Designated Hitter in 1973 but only in the American League.  Then when interleague play began, the rule was further modified so that the DH is only used at American League stadiums in which it is utilized by both teams, whereas in National League stadiums the use of the DH is prohibited by both teams.  So once again these are exceptions that uphold the rule.

Do we need exceptions to prove the rule?  Of course not.  For instance, as Descartes stated: "I think therefore I am," cannot logically be refuted, because if you can think that thought you must exist.  To take this a little bit further, you will by definition never be able to say to yourself, that you are dead, you may be able to say that you are dying, but the fact that you can still think, that you can still contemplate, justifies that you exist on some plane or on some level, perhaps in a yet undiscovered country and that you are indeed alive.

Yet, despite this straightforward maxim, there have been serious doubters such as Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche.  Russell stated"…Here the word ‘I’ is really illegitimate; He ought to state his ultimate premises in the form ‘there are thoughts’", and Nietzsche stated:  ” …a thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “thinks.”

It seems like spurious philosophy. But perhaps, this is yet again the exception that proves the rule, because I definitely exist.

SUPER SPEEDER

While I suppose that each state has its own idiosyncratic traffic laws that are meant to confuse, irritate, and essentially tax uninformed or ill-informed drivers, I must say one of the most annoying is Georgia's 'super speeder' law which was enacted on January 10, 2010.  Upon hearing of the name, one would assume that this referred to someone hitting triple digits on the highway.  Right?  Wrong.  No, the GA super speeder is defined as going 85 MPH or more on a freeway, or 75 MPH or more on a 2-lane highway.  That's it.

To get a proper impression of how unjust this law is, the maximum speed permitted on some GA freeways (typically away from the city center) is 70 MPH.  So 85 MPH is a mere 15 miles above that limit.  According to GA law driving 15 MPH above the speed limit is a 2 point penalty.  But driving 19 MPH above the speed limit is 3 points, 24 MPH above the speed limit is 4 points, and 34 MPH or above the speed limit is 6 points.  So why wouldn't a super speeder ticket be 34MPH above the posted speed limit since this has the highest point penalty and would more properly be related to the term 'super'?  Why indeed.

The answer is straightforward and simple.  GA wants the additional revenue.  Their attitude is as plain as, "well, we've gone through the trouble of pulling the vehicle over, let's see if we can stick them with asuper premium fine!"  How much is the fine?  $200.  For going 85 MPH in a 70 MPH speed limit zone?  Yep.   And that's in addition to the regular speeding ticket fine.  Yes, this is an extra penalty accessed to the driver. 

Additionally, now check this out, there is no additional points charged against the driver for being a 'super speeder'!    Doesn't that really say, it's all a sham?  I mean, shouldn't there be a category on the points chart for being a 'super speeder'?  For a $200 compulsory fine there really should but, but there isn't.  This smells like a sneaky add-on and a sick workaround to stick it to the driver. 

So what is this really all about?  It's about the money.  It sure the heck isn't about anything else.  Why bother putting to the vote the potential raising of city, county, or state taxes when you can just nab ignorant drivers that are simply trying to get from point A to point B in an expeditious manner.

And the fines are arbitrary, are they not?  Speeding ticket fines vary widely from state to state and the fines can increase dramatically for almost any reason.  Does that make sense?   For instance, if a speeding ticket was $100 ten years ago, shouldn't it be $100 today or perhaps $100 + inflation.  Wouldn't that be fairer?  It certainly seems fairer, but the dramatic increase price of traffic ticket fines and the angles that the government uses are just getting worst and worst. 

Quite simply, it's a money grab, soak the little man, shake him down.

Performance-Enhancing Drugs

When it comes to sports, Performance-Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) have been and will continue to be front page news for the foreseeable future.  The reason that this is so is because it would appear that in any major sport PEDs are used.  There are two obvious reasons: PEDs work and big-time sports is a huge business in America, with athletes commanding salaries that are stunning.   The lure of that money and the prestige that comes with being a valued player is a supersized incentive for these competitors to do whatever it takes to get there.

But first, how can we be certain that PEDs work?  Fortunately, there was a study published in 1996 in the New England Journal of Medicine which utilized 50 men, broken down into the categories of:  placebo-no exercise, testosterone--no-exercise, placebo-plus-exercise, and testosterone-plus-exercise groups.  40 men completed this 10-week study and the results were astonishing.

The testing was done over a period of 10 weeks in which the testosterone dosage was 600mg per week for those not receiving the placebo.  After 10 weeks the fat-free mass was measured.  For the group taking the placebo with no exercise, there was no change noted.  "The men treated with testosterone but no exercise had an increase of 3.2 kg in fat-free mass, and those in the placebo-plus-exercise group had an increase of 1.9 kg. The increase in the testosterone-plus-exercise group was substantially greater (averaging 6.1 kg)."

So the results looked like this:

Placebo-no exercise:                      0 increase in fat-free mass

Testosterone-no-exercise:          3.2kg increase in fat-free mass

Placebo- exercise:                           1.9kg increase in fat-free mass

Testosterone--exercise:                               6.1kg increase in fat-free mass

They stated: "Our results show that supraphysiologic doses of testosterone, especially when combined with strength training, increase fat-free mass, muscle size, and strength in normal men."  It sure did, but note also that just by taking testosterone and not even bothering to exercise, you would have built more fat-free mass than a man legitimately working out to increase his fat-free mass but taking no PEDs.  In other words, by not using PEDs, you are at a substantial disadvantage when it comes to increasing your fat-free mass.

And therein lies the problem for athletes that workout diligently and do not take any illegal substances to increase fat-free body mass, you are at a significant disadvantage to those that do take those substances.  It's an unfair advantage, an illegal advantage, but it is an advantage which can take away your potential scholarship, and your well-paid athletic career.  Although there are penalties for those that are caught using PEDs the testing doesn't come close to catching all of the athletes that are "gaming" the system.  The reason that this is so is because the testing devices are always behind the game, and are unable or have not been effective in catching these hard-to-trace designer drugs.  

It could also be the case in which the professional sports organizations like to sell the illusion that they are doing everything possible to stop/slow down/or eliminate illegal PED use, but in actuality, they don't want to catch everyone, because if they did, it might really shake their sport down to its very foundations and lose them sponsorship, viewership, and marketing monies.

For what they are, PEDs work, and they are that siren song that calls to so many who cannot resist its enticing lures.

Nuclear Energy

No country uses more nuclear energy than the United States in aggregate.  This, despite the fact, that since 1977 no new nuclear reactor has come online in America.  As of 2013, there are four nuclear reactors in which construction has been approved but these are all at existing nuclear plants.  This is a small step in the right direction.  Why do we need more nuclear energy?

The USA uses an incredible amount of energy per capita, in 2010 according to the EIA we consumed a staggering 98 quadrillion Btu or nearly 19% of all world consumption.  Almost 80% of this is from non-renewal fossil fuels.     Non-renewal means exactly what it states, once consumed it cannot be used again.  For a country that consumes as much as we do, it is the height of folly not to explore other viable means to get our energy efficiently.

Because of our great power consumption, there is only one real source that can scale up to the needs of the United States in a reasonable period of time, it is proven, and that is nuclear.  Nuclear is safe, it releases no carbon dioxide, it releases very few pollutants in total, and its toxic waste is very small and containable.

There is a misconception that the Three Mile Island disaster of 1978 caused or killed hundreds of civilians but that isn't the case.  Most major media outlets have reported, such as MSNBC that at Three Mile Island and its vicinity there were" no deaths or long-term health effects connected to the accident.”   However, the Radiation and Public Health Project claims that this is false and has stated the following:

Infants and children living in Dauphin County, where Three Mile Island is located, have high rates of disease and death, specifically:

• Cancer death rate age 0-9, 1980-2002, 45% above U.S. (35 deaths)
• Cancer incidence rate age 0-14, 1993-2002, 17% above U.S. (86 cases)
• Infant death rate, age 0-27 days, 1979-2002, 23% above U.S. (600 deaths)
• Child death rate, age 1-14, 1979-2002, 13% above U.S. (187 deaths)
• Rate of births under 5 ½ lbs, 2000-2002, 37% above U.S. (994 births)

While these above numbers certainly imply that there were some ill effects from the Three Mile Island partial nuclear meltdown, the numbers in aggregate are unfortunate, but hardly catastrophic.  For instance, to get a more proper perspective, the NY Times states: "Burning fossil fuels costs the United States about $120 billion a year in health costs, mostly because of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution."

The Three Mile Island incident, however, has been the main reason why the development of nuclear energy has come to a virtual halt in the United States.  Further to that point, the United States has access or the funds to obtain its energy from fossil fuels in lieu of nuclear and has continued to develop and use fossil fuels as our primary source of energy.  However, historically fossil fuels are far more dangerous, environmentally damaging, and politically unstable.

Wars are fought over the access to cheap or readily available energy.  The USA became a net oil importer in 1970, and it is no surprise since then that the Middle East has attracted arms, munitions, and plenty of blood.

France does not have the luxury of an abundance of fossil fuels, in fact they have very little, and consequently France has made a concerted national effort to provide its electrical energy from nuclear power with a great deal of success.    France's electricity cost to household consumers is the 7th lowest of the 27-member European Union, and this without any of the ill effects of carbon dioxide.  France has been successful with nuclear energy because they understand the importance, the necessity, and the utility of nuclear.

Free Will

I've heard many complaints in my life crying about the injustice of God.  When something bad happens, and typically this is on a very personal level, there is a cry that "life isn't fair", or in especially distressing times, that "there is no God", or how could God allowed this certain negative something to happen!  Really?!

Human beings can only be looked at in one of two possible ways.  Either we are beings with "free will" or we are some sort of "puppet". If we are indeed puppets than this world is therefore an elaborate and cruel hoax.  There really isn't any inbetween between these two positions.  It has to be all one or all the other.  As President Lincoln stated (while referring to our civil war): "A house divided cannot stand….  It will all become one thing or all the other."

So those that complain about an uncaring God, an unjust God, and a truculent God are missing the very point.  We are agents of free will. How do we know this?  The story of Adam and Eve is an allegory.

 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. And the eyes of them both were opened…

            Genesis 3:5-7

That decision was the decision of mankind to break free from God's divine plan and to instead create their own, as if they were gods, and therefore we are left to suffer the consequences and the vagaries of that free will decision.

The world that we live in today is a world of duality, of good and evil, of pleasure and pain, of light and dark.  If this world brings us trouble, that trouble comes from us, not from a capricious God.  God did not create this duality, we did it to ourselves.

To escape from this duality we must find our way back to God.  It is not, and never will be effective, to believe that our demands or petulant wishes will be implemented by God.  This is egotism speaking which will be answered not.  As President Lincoln said at his 2nd Inauguration, "Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other."

It isn't possible for God to fight or to be divided against Himself. You cannot bend God's will to your desires.  We are God's fallen children and not the other way around.  But like a Parent, God listens to you, hears you, cares about you, and loves you unconditionally.  However, it is the height of arrogance to believe that our perspective, or that our wisdom could ever possibly supersede our Creator.

Every day we make choices, because we have free will.  When the prodigal son demanded his inheritance, his father acceded to his wish, and although his father greatly missed that son, he did not force or compel his son to come back to him.  But come back he did, of his own free will, for his own reasons, and his father was well pleased.

 And he arose, and came to his father. But when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him…  For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found…

                Luke 15: 20, 24

It is our free will to make that same choice or not.

Flat earth

All the pictures and evidence points to our earth as being round, or more properly put, a sphere.  Yet, I am confused about one fact, if this is true, how come from our perspective; people in Australia aren't upside-down?  Not only that, the way I see it just looking at my globe, people in Columbia have to be sideways! I don't care how many times I think about it I can never put my hands around these conflicting facts.  I mean they have to be upside-down or sideways!  It has to be, I've got the entire globe in my hand.  But they're not.

It all has to do with gravity.  Yes, I knew that but that only explains why those folks in Australia and Columbia aren't spinning out into space.  How is it that every human being on earth, is right side up?  It just doesn't seem possible!

This has to do with our concept of "up" and "down" more than anything else.   To most people, up and down is something that is sacrosanct, but so then is "right" and "left" but explaining the paradox of right and left is much easier.  If you are standing behind, me and I say "point to your right", we will be in agreement 100% of the time.  But if you stand in front of me, facing me, and I say "point to your right" and you also request me to "point to myright" we will be in 100% disagreement in regards to "my right" being diametrically different from "your right" but in every case we would both be right!    

So let's get back to "up" and "down".  What keeps our feet firmly planted down on earth is gravity.  Gravity pulls us down or more importantly toward the center of the earth and it is a constant force.  Therefore, our concept of up and down is a local perspective based on gravitational pull.  Our perception of up and down is always seen and taken from our perspective which can fool us.  It is this perspective that allows us to know that we are upright and to assume that other people in other areas of the planet are upside-down.  Yet, from their perspective they will feel the same about us!  That is to say, in other words, that our mates in Australia, far from believing that they are upside-down, believe that we in America are in fact, upside-down.  Neither is correct

The force of gravity always pulls everything on earth towards the center of earth.   Because we experience this as a "downward" force, from this we get our perception of up and down.  This same downward force applies equally to everyone and everything on earth.  Gravity gives each one of us our perception of up and down and it is just our perception, because if we over-think it, we will be back at the beginning in which we wonder how is it that Australians aren't upside-down, and why their buildings aren't upside-down; especially considering if I was to take the God-view from outer space I would clearly see that they were indeed, from my perspective, upside-down!

Yet, they and their buildings are standing upright! 

Gravity and perspective.