Man's Law

Is man's law always right?  It can't be for a lot of reasons, one of them being that the laws of man constantly evolve and devolve, additionally man by definition is changing and fallible.  If, however, you believe that man's law is absolutely right, and should always be obeyed in any and all circumstances, than the crucifixion of our Lord on the flimsy evidence of Christ proclaiming himself a King and therefore in rebellion against Rome, in which Christ consequently suffered the penalty of this crime, which was death by crucifixion, then you would approve and commend his crucifixion.  That is man's law, not God's, and of the countless injustices here on earth, can we think of any less justified than the crucifixion of Christ.

I submit to you that man's law is ever changing and not always right, making it problematic and questionable to obey all laws, just because it is a law.  No doubt, this then does present a problem in regards to which law man must answer to.  You must as a matter of course, always answer to the Highest Law which is God's Moral law; doing so, however, will potentially bring you into conflict with man's law and therein lies a problem not easily resolved.

No man, given free will, must obey God's law or man's law for that matter, but failure to do so, will have consequences.  Obeying all of man's law is difficult because even the finest lawyers in the country don't know all the laws, or their application, or their history, or their contradictions, meaning that you as a citizen can at best, presume that you are obedient to all laws but that is merely a presumption.  But what about Moral law; how can we find it, know it, and obey it?  Moral law is something that is imprinted on our conscience.  The precepts of Moral law are the same precepts of the great prophets and messiahs of history which have in common such attributes as:  surrender (to God), sacrifice, diligence, fortitude, integrity, temperance, brotherhood, and love (of God and neighbor). Further to this point, Martin Luther King, Jr., in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, stated: “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” … “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.”

Man can has created many unjust and hateful laws and continues to do so until this day, because the history of man is so often the history of man's injustice and oppression of his fellow man.    Man's laws are necessary and needed in order to enforce upon mankind, proper and corrected behavior, to heal wounds, to right injustices, to protect the defenseless, to assure fair play, and as a touchstone for society at large.

True justice can only come from correct and constant application of True Law.  Man's law must be in accordance with Moral law, those laws that are not in harmony, are laws onto themselves and therefore are false laws with foundations of sand and untruth.

Integrity v. Honesty

I hear a lot about how people want you to be "honest" with them, and their request often comes across plaintively as if they are unable to ascertain whether your wordsare honest and therefore they essentially want you to self-consciously 'rat yourself out'.  I've always considered that sort of attitude to be rather lame.  You can expect that most people are "fair weather" honest folks, very few (if any) are completely honest, and some are very dishonest.  If it's in your self-interest to be honest, you're going to be honest, but you certainly don't merit any approval for that.  The line in the sand is drawn, when your self-interest or your self-image is in conflict with the honesty of a given situation, such as when you are accused of stealing something.  The answer is pretty darn clear, either you did or you didn't and the only truly honest answer is the correct answer as towards your actual actions, but for some people when the honest answer puts them in some sort of trouble, or an embarrassing situation, they give a dishonest answer.

From my viewpoint, an honest man, could in theory steal something, and not be caught nor be called account on it, and thereby justify to himself that he was still an honest man.  Whereas, a man of integrity would never contemplate the act in the first place, or, if he was placed in a position in which he did steal, he would own up to it as Jean Valjean did upon breaking a window pane and stealing a loaf of bread for his sister's children that were starving.   He paid the penalty of his crime and served his time.  Later in the novel, when the wrong man is arrested and misidentified as Jean Valjean and sentenced to death, the real Jean Valjean dramatically returns and is willing to face the music despite now being a respectable man, mayor, and successful factory owner with attendant responsibilities and duties.  Valjean cannot allow a man to be wrongly convicted of a crime that he didn't commit, no matter the consequences for himself.  These can only be the actions of a man of the utmost integrity.

If one wants to have good friends, you want friends of integrity.  For instance, an honestman might tell you that you look tired and worn out whereas a man of integrity would inquire as to whether you had been getting your proper rest, good sleep, or whether you were under any undue stress without invoking directly your looks.  An honest man, might say to his wife, when asked how she looks in a particular dress, "it makes you look really fat, honey," and not receive a smile or thanks in return.  Whereas a man of integrity would ask his wife to look at herself in the dress from different angles, demonstrating perhaps how a touch here or there might bring out her beauty more, and so forth.

Integrity is having the conviction, the courage, and the will to do the right thing even under the most trying circumstances.  Honesty is truthfulness and straightforwardness but often honestly lacks the requisite reflection, experience, and wisdom that makes up integrity. 

Free Speech

Freedom of Speech is one of our fundamental rights; in fact, it was given to us as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.  Any assault on our freedom to speak our mind is a quasi-assault on our freedom to think our own thoughts.  There are few people that believe that our thoughts should be controlled by the state, or by religion, or by other people, yet there are many people that believe that there should be necessary strict shackles and limits on our freedom of speech and that our speech should be monitored and/or controlled by the State.  In short, that our speech, is not a right, but a privilege granted by the Government.

It is interesting to note that in James Madison's Speech of 1789 on his Proposed Amendments to the Constitution he stated the following: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable."  He further added:  "No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press."  It should be noted also that he stated:
"First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration That all power is originally vested in, and consequently derived from the people."

Freedom of speech is an essential right and the cornerstone of our liberty in which so many of our other rights are dependent upon it.  Free expression of ideas, opinions, and philosophies are necessary and vibrant ingredients in order for our community at large to function at an advanced and liberated state.  It is not the government's responsibility or legal right to suppress our freedom of speech.  If our speech must meet with government or private approval, than our freedom of speech has been curtailed and therefore is a sham.  While there may be exceptional circumstances in which freedoms must be constrained, the powers to do so are covered by Constitutional law.  

It is especially troubling that so many of our leading universities and higher educational institutions have implemented policies to preclude freedom of speech and freedom of the press, mainly under the guise of protecting students from bias, prejudice, inflammatory and uncivil remarks, lawsuits and the like.  In order for ideas to grow, mature, and develop, it is absolutely mandatory to have freedom of speech.  Part of maturing as an individual is dealing with adversity, by right thinking, counterpoint, and careful & reasoned reflection. 

A society in which each person is instructed to think the same, do the same, act the same, and accomplish the same, is a society that has given up its freedom of expression, its freedom of speech, and its freedom in any real conception of the word.  Without freedom of speech, we have ceded control of our lives to the tyranny of the powerful and to the elite to our own demise.  The ability to think and to express ourselves is an inalienable right that is sacrosanct and is the very essence of free will, freedom, and what our Constitution represents.  Without freedom of speech, and its attendant powers, we have ceded essential control of who we are to the State.

Franklin, Jefferson, & Washington and Christianity

Historians would have us believe that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson weren't Christians, and that George Washington was a Deist.  These beliefs are wrong and they therefore send the wrong message to posterity.  Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were all good Christians in the most meaningful sense of the word.  A true Christian believes in a Higher Benevolent power and is therefore a brother to all men, as Christ said, "Love your neighbor as yourself," and these gentlemen embodied this sentiment to the utmost.

In 1790, Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter explaining his Creed the following: "I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe…  That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children."  These weren't just idle thoughts of Franklin, he practiced what he preached by accomplishing or helping to implement:

            Street cleaning, street paving, street lighting

            Fire insurance company

            Public library

            Petition for the abolition of slavery

            Mapping the gulfstream

            First volunteer fire department

            Inventor of the stove

            Bifocal glasses

            Printer and writer

            Public servant

            Entrepreneur

            Electric experiments

            First Hospital in America

            Proponent of frugality

            Diplomat

            Signed the Declaration of Independence, Treaty of Paris, and U.S. Constitution

Franklin's life was devoted to his fellow man; his pursuit of excellence, his integrity, and his industriousness were seldom matched by any other man.  Franklin is the quintessential American man, self-made, self-educated, universally respected and loved, and successful both here and abroad.

In 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote about the importance of each generation paying its own debts as follows: "What is true of generations succeeding one another at fixed epochs… The conclusion then, is, that neither the representatives of a nation, nor the whole nation itself assembled, can validly engage debts beyond what they may pay in their own time."  His wise words have been ignored by our present generation whose imprudent government passes onto future generation's deficits that they did not incur, which is an irresponsible and un-brotherly act of selfishness.  Jefferson was known for being:

            Author of the Declaration of Independence

            Public servant

            Founding the University of Virginia

            Inventor

            Architect

            Diplomat

            Author of Statue of Virginia for Religious Freedom

            Attorney

            Governor of Virginia

            President of the USA

Jefferson's authorship of the Declaration of Independence, is the most important founding document of this great nation, in which Jefferson states that our rights are unalienable and come from the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, and that all men are created equal, and therefore our rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness come from our Creator. 

George Washington wrote in 1790 the following: "For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens." Washington was:

            Surveyor         

            Farmer

            Commander of the Continental Army

            Defeated Cornwallis at Yorktown

            1st President of the United States

            Freed his slaves upon death

Washington was in a uniquely powerful position upon the completion of our successful revolutionary war against Britain, but after the signing of the Treaty of Paris, he resigned his commissioned and retired to Mount Vernon.  When his country called on him to become our first President, he completed two terms and once again retired to Mount Vernon.  Washington's actions of walking away from power were virtually unparalleled and unheard of.  This was indeed a man of real principle.

Each of these great men, Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington were not only our Founding Fathers but men of the utmost respect, accomplishments, courage, industriousness, and scruples. There are great Christians in the finest meaning of its designation and our country would not well exist without their accomplishments.

Tax Church Property

I am not a secularist and I do believe in and appreciate the great moral strength and values that good churches have provided to our Nation time and time again, to this, a God-fearing country endowed with unalienable rights by our Creator.    Having said this, I don't believe that church properties should continue to be tax exempt, especially given the trying circumstances of our present economy.  While there are a multitude of reasons why the Protestant Reformation came into being, certainly one of the more significant reasons (and not necessarily for noble reasons) was to wrest away and confiscate from the Catholic Church, their land and their properties.  Land is a form of wealth and that is why land and its attendant improvements are taxed.  It hardly seems fair that you and I must pay property taxes but churches and other tax exempt organizations aren't legally required to do so.

The best way of looking at taxing churches is simply to see it as the cost of "doing business" in this real material world.  Property tax rates do vary from community to community and state to state with estimated percentages of .18% to 1.89% annually paid, which is usually based on the present value of the property, but not always.  Additionally, some communities have caps on how much increase a given property will be assessed on a yearly basis, and there are deductions for ownership, your physical age, disabilities and the like, so the amount of property taxes due, varies given the circumstances involved.  If we were to use the ballpark percentage of 1% of the present value for church properties to be taxed, that amount seems like something that would be manageable by churches and wouldn't crush them or place churches under an overwhelming burden when it came to actually tendering payment of those taxes.

According to patheos.com, University of Tampa professor Ryan T. Cragun along with students Stephanie Yeager and Desmond Vega estimate: "that States bypass an estimated $26.2 billion per year by not requiring religious institutions to pay property taxes."  So the amount of money that could be collected in tax revenue in aggregate is a significant amount which would be welcomed by the taxing authorities.  While we should expect the usual "gnawing of teeth and complaining" about being taxed, this allows the churches to have "skin in the game" and a real voice about how our tax dollars are collected and spent.  Additionally, one could make a strong argument that the current tax structure in reference to churches, is in direct violation of our 1st Amendment which states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." By virtue of the fact  that Churches are tax-exempt from property taxes, this means that the Government subsidies Church property which is in contradistinction to "…shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."  However, the Supreme Court in its 1970 Walz decision upheld the tax exemption of churches.  Justice Douglas dissented in that opinion and he referenced James Madison (father of the constitution) in which Madison fought the Virginia Assessment Bill of 1794 which as Douglas writes: "That bill levied a tax for the support of Christian churches, leaving to each taxpayer the choice as to "what society of Christians" he wanted the tax paid, and, absent such designation, the tax was to go for education." Madison stated: "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us…As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions."

Because of James Madison, the Virginia Assessment Bill of 1794 was defeated.  Madison's reasoning is sound today and will form the well-reasoned foundation for the overturning of the property tax exemption for Churches in the future.

CEO Pay

First off, private corporations are not the same as publicly-owned companies which are traded on the stock exchange.  While there isn't any doubt that I have something also to say about private corporations and their compensation structure, I will leave that for another time and just concentrate on the elephant in the boardroom of our publicly held corporations.  Corporate executive pay and compensation packages are too high, have been too high for an unseemly extended period of time, and don't seem to be on any path except the insanely steep arc that they are currently on.

For those that believe that that is just the way it is and therefore just to deal with it, I must beg to differ.  These are corporations that are publicly traded, usually of massive size, and consequently must be held to a higher standard that is in turn consistent with American values and historical precedent.  CEO pay is a sick sideshow that is wholly antithetical to America, which encourages and encompasses quid pro quo approvals by lackey Board of Directors who seem to serve no other purpose than to sell the illusion that they have a real interest in prudent corporate governance.  While there are exceptions to all of the above, there are far more that follow this present formula down to the 'T'.

The biggest boosts to CEO salaries are cash bonuses, stock options, and restricted stock issues, not to mention lucrative compensation packages that include second homes, country club memberships, private air travel, exclusive vacation packages, limousines, executive office perks with benefits, tax consultants, and just about anything that you could possibly imagine of which very little has to do with the actual requirements that the job entails.  While it is argued, that corporate packages have to be competitive in order to attract and maintain talent, that is in itself a slippery slope and doesn't on its own justify the top-heavy compensation packages that benefit an elite few while under compensating others and short-changing stockholders as a whole.

The most egregious forms of overcompensation are stock options and restricted stock, while there has been out-and-out fraud with backdating of options, and falsely augmented earnings, I want to just concentrate on the options themselves.  Greed is an incredibly motivating force and when corporate executives know what their stock option exercise price is, many of them will essentially do whatever it takes to goose their stock to affect that higher stock price.  Buybacks of stock by the company are ostensibly justified as good value, but often the real reason is to reduce the amount of shares outstanding so as to boost earnings and thereby the stock price.  Additionally, a study by P. Raghavendra Rau, Michael J. Cooper, andHuseyin Gulen as reported by qz.com found to their surprise: "…that those that were most generous with stock-based incentives saw stock-market returns lag those of similar-sized companies in the same industries, by about 8% over three years."

Recently, restricted stock compensation has become more prevalent in more corporations.  Basically, restricted stock is common stock in which the CEO will become vested and thereby can "earn" those shares over an agreed upon period of time.  CEOs like this form of compensation because unlike options they don't need to worry as to whether their shares will be "in the money" as their restricted stock is pretty much a sure thing for their overall compensation package, subject only to the vicissitudes of the market and their continued employment.

According to toomuchonline.org, "Three decades ago, in 1982, American CEOs averaged 42 times more than average U.S. workers. Two decades ago, in 1992, the gap stood at 201 times. A decade ago: 281 times. The latest ratio: the 354 times." CEO pay increases can possibly be curtailed or stymied by an active and concerned mutual fund industry, common stockholders united in purpose, media that continues to expose this inherent inequality, and a Board of Directors that takes its stewardship of its corporate responsibilities seriously with true fiduciary duty.

Underage Drinking

Very few countries have a legal drinking age of 21, with the USA being one of them.  It hasn't always been that way, the legal age to drink in America use to be 18, but that was overturned in 1984.  Changing the minimum drinking age from 18 to 21 was a travesty of justice for several reasons which I expand upon below.

In 1971 the 26th Amendment to the Constitution was pass, which enabled the voting age to drop from 21 to 18 throughout our nation.  This was an important step in enfranchising those that did not have a vote in a time in which they were subject to a draft at the age of 18.  This also confirmed that for the vast majority of states, the legal age in which you essentially moved from being treated as juvenile to an adult was now at 18.  Consequently, we can conclude that at age 18, decisions that you made, were no longer mitigated by being a juvenile, yet this appears directly contradicted by the drinking age moving from 18 to 21 in 1984.

Either you are an adult at age 18 or you are not.  As an adult, you should be able to engage in all activities that other adults have the right to participate in.  By taking adults of the ages 18-20, and arbitrarily deciding that they cannot consume alcohol base on nothing more than capricious whim, you have created a 2nd class of citizenry in which these particular citizens are having their 14th Amendment Rights violated.  The 14th Amendment states:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges…. …nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Additionally, there is a misperception which you often see in laws, that by virtue of passing a particular law, that you will modify or change behavior so as to not violate that new law.  In fact, what happens when you pass a bad and unjust law is that you take what use to be normal law-abiding citizens and make them law-breaking citizens by virtue of a bogus law.  This gives the police and courts more power over citizens since they can apply the law at virtually any time against citizens as a form of arbitrary punitive punishment.

It is not for me and you, to decide whether a young adult of ages 18-20, should or should not consume alcoholic beverages.  If alcohol consumption is pure evil, than why is it tolerated for those that are 21 and above.  There are several countries that do not permit alcohol consumption whatsoever; why not try to pass a Constitutional Amendment to that effect and thereby make the law equally fair.

If the United States wants to keep the age to legally consume alcohol at 21, then why not change the law to define all those that are under the age of 21 as juveniles, and subsequently change all laws to reflect that fact. 

If not, it seems clear to me, that if you are old enough to be drafted or to serve your country at age 18, you should also be old enough to legally take a drink.

Tax Porn

The USA taxes the hell out of cigarettes and alcohol.  In fact, In FY11, with a federal excise tax on cigarettes at $1.01 per pack, $15.1 billion dollars in tax revenue for the federal government was collected in 2011. In FY 2011, states collected an additional $17.7 billion in tax revenues from cigarette companies.  These above taxes for cigarettes do not take into account that in most states sales taxes are added which produced even more tax revenue from cigarette sales.  According to RJ Reynolds the "government per-pack profit from cigarettes in 2011 was $3.68 (or 66 percent of the cost of a pack of cigarettes)".

Alcohol taxation is divided into the three basic categories of: wine, beer, and spirits.  For FY11 over $6.24 billion dollars in tax revenue was generated from alcohol sales for state and local taxes according to the taxpolicycenter.org.  There is also a federal excise tax on alcohol depending on whether it is beer, wine, or spirits in which in FY07 a total of $9.35 billion dollars in revenue was collected.  Additionally, most states have a sales tax for alcohol which too brings in additional revenue.

Sin taxes for alcohol and cigarettes are pretty much accepted by the general public and are undoubtedly here to stay as they have generated massive revenues for engaging in something that is a personal choice and which has some nasty health issues.  It is somewhat surprising though that porn, adult entertainment, and the like have somehow skated their way through without having to pay the piper some sin taxes.  This should rightly change and it should change immediately. 

The sin tax for porn should consist of a special tax on all media, all adult novelty stores, and all men's clubs and should be divided between a federal tax and a state and local tax.  The tax percentage should be huge, as in a double-digit percentage, and it should simply be looked upon by entrepreneurs as the cost of doing business.  With the exception of a few localities, there aren't all that many municipalities that encourage this type of business or desire it so for those that insist upon entering the adult world of porn, the price for that admission should be a sin tax.

As for the patrons that solicit these types of establishments, it will end up costing you a few more dollars to get your entertainment or your x-rated media or your adult novelties and the businesses that you frequent will continue to stay open and even perhaps innovate to adjust to the new economics.

I'm not sure how porn and the adult entertainment business have survived so long without facing a sin tax but certainly it is their turn to step up and face the music.  While I suspect there will be a hue and cry from everybody, in the end, businesses will adjust, patrons will adjust, entertainers will adjust, and somehow it will be business as usual, but with the government getting a much bigger piece of the action in return for allowing these sinful businesses to continue to operate.

Seems fair enough.

Superbowl PPV

Boxing was once shown for free on commercial TV but now all the big events are on Pay-per-view or on a premium channel such as HBO or Showtime.  Mixed martial arts started off on PPV and that hasn't changed for the big events.  For better or for worst, PPV is here to stay.  Additionally, the NFL is a sophisticated money-making machine and there isn't any doubt that they have thought about PPV.  Let's run the numbers.

For Superbowl XLVII nearly 114 million Americans tuned into the game.  To get a perspective, the biggest PPV event to date is the De La Hoya-Mayweather fight in 2007 which generated 2.48 million buys.  However, the Mayweather-Canelo fight of 2013 exceeded 2 million and may have been greater than 2.48 million buys once the final tabulations are in.  The pricing for the Mayweather-Canelo fight was $65 for standard definition and $75 for hi-definition.

First, let's start with the pricing.  The average cell phone bill is somewhere around $70/month and I think it's pretty easy to equate this special Superbowl PPV event as just a one-time extra cell phone payment or alternatively the average NFL ticket price for a regular season game is approximately $80 so that works as well. I really don't believe that you can start off with a Superbowl PPV at triple digits (e.g. $100), so pricing of $75 for standard definition and $85 for hi-definition seems to be something that would be considered fair and would be acceptable to the general public. 

How many buys would be generated?  The Superbowl is almost an all-day event to begin with but you could maybe add further to it by coming up with exclusive access to pregame activities involving the preparation of the big game and also the postgame activities, which would truly provide you with one-of-a-kind,  full, complete and comprehensive coverage.  Consequently, nothing of substance would be programmed against this once-in-a-year event.   

Another thing to take into consideration is much like a boxing event, the Superbowl is an experience in which the typical audience is made up of friends, family, fellow workers, etc., and so with each person contributing their fair share the PPV price doesn't appear prohibitive at all.  This would probably equate to a very high buy rate, perhaps as large as 25 million peoples and using a $80 average buy rate, the overall initial gross would be $2 billion and that estimate is truly conservative; additionally this hasn't taken into consideration the PPV at movie theatres showing the Superbowl, or PPV at bars, overseas revenues, or revenues generated from commercials.

Obviously the biggest supporters of the PPV event would be the owners in the NFL, the players, and the bars which should see their business revenues jump.  The biggest loser would be the general public but with the NFL being the most popular sport and this being a once-in-a-year event, that public would probably suck it up and get use to it.  There is little doubt that this Superbowl PPV is coming, it is inevitable.

Peak oil

I believe in peak oil as written and described by M. King Hubbert, Ph.D., the esteemed geologist in 1956.  According to his 2nd scenario Hubbert believed that the USA would achieve its peak oil production in 1970, which it in fact did.  In 1970 according to eia.gov the United States produced an average of 9,637,000 barrels per day.  Subsequently, this production amount has never been matched or bettered by the United States and realistically probably never will be.

Still, even forty years after peak oil, the USA and world at large somehow manages to find and extract enough oil globally to keep the world economy going.  The primary reason that this is so is the massive increase in the price of oil since 1956, the year, that Hubbert published his paper.  In 1956, according to ioga.com the average price of a barrel of oil in the USA was $2.90.  In 2013, the average price of a barrel of oil in the USA is $87.67.  If you add inflation onto the $2.90 you would get a price in present-day dollars of approximately $24.16 that leaves us with a massive dollar increase of over 350% in a barrel of oil over the ensuing years--inflation adjusted.  While one can contribute this increase to several factors, the largest factor by far would be that the monetary cost of extracting a barrel of oil has gone up considerably.  This would indicate that it is technology, ingenuity, and scientific breakthroughs that have allowed us and other countries to produce the amount of oil that we need over the ensuing years as opposed to any mistaken viewpoint that oil is plentiful and abundant.

In his book, Twilight in the Desert, Matthew R. Simmons states: "From 1930 onward, the United States had so much oil that state agencies in Texas and Oklahoma prorated output among all producers allowing each to produce oil for only a limited number of days each month.  These proration policies were established to prevent oil prices from dropping so low that the US oil industry would disintegrate.  Proration remained in place until the end of the 1960s."

Not only are those days, long gone, they will never in our lifetimes come back.  We need only go back one hundred years to recognize that oil has its definite peaks, as shown in Leviathan: the History of Whaling in America, author Eric Jay Dolan stated: "During 1847, its most productive year for oil production, the American whaling industry processed just over 430,000 barrels of sperm and whale oil combined."  Whale oil was supplanted by crude oil and the history of whale oil has been mainly forgotten by mankind.

Hubbert believed that the bell curve was applicable to USA oil production and the United States has followed the downward slope of that curve, although it must be said in the last couple of years, production of oil in the United States has gone up.  Again, that is mainly a function of price and also most definitely a function of necessity.

While our country uses many resources to keep its economy going, oil, in particular the access, the availability, and the extraction of oil is not only mandatory, but it is fundamental and absolutely critical to our livelihoods.  Globally, six out of the top seven companies in revenue, are in fact, oil and gas companies.     

Officer Krupke

I recently returned home from a flight at 12:20AM.  Upon entering my vehicle I had a clear goal to get to my home promptly.  As you might imagine, traffic was very light and as I cruised down the last main stretch towards my home, I tried to maintain a speed of approximately 12-13 MPH above the posted speed limit. As a reference, in my community, it's a two-point violation for speeding 15 MPH  above the speed limit and it appears per GA code that in order for a radar device to be used against you in a court of law you need to be exceeding the posted speed limit by more than 10 MPH.  Therefore, all things being equal, you're probably pretty safe doing 8-9 MPH above the stated speed limit, and if you want to push your luck a little bit, as long as you're doing less than 15MPH above the speed limit, it won't count against you on your driving record, so that is the mindset that I have while driving.

As I finished that stretch and pulled up to the stoplight I then saw the strangest thing.  A cop on the opposite side of the street had turned right and then stopped his patrol car almost parallel to my car.  He didn't have his flashing lights on, he wasn't moving, and it was just plain weird.  I didn't see that as a good sign but he did drive off and so after the light turned green, I was really eager to get on home, lest this madness catch me.  As I drove down the street I noticed that there was a car trailing behind me, not on me, but I could catch him in my rear mirror, I turned right and sure enough there he was again.  I was still speeding but I was keeping it under 10MPH above the limit, finally I turned down my street to my house and this car was still on me and although it was dark out and I could not see the outlines of the vehicle I was pretty much convinced that this had to be 5-0.  Sure enough, he turned his blue lights on, about 50 feet from my driveway.  I pulled into my driveway, press the button to open up the garage door and put my vehicle in park.  I slowly reached over to my wallet and pulled out my driver's license and rolled my window down.

The cop approached my car and before he could even say anything I just handed him my license.  "You live here," he said.  "I sure do," I answered.  Then he wanted to talk for a second, saying that his radar gun had me going 100 MPH on the original main stretch that I had been cruising down on.  The fact that he would even say that was beyond absurd.  It was just not the type of road that you could open it up to 100 MPH, even if you were intent on doing so as that road had too many dips, too many curves, and occasionally too many deer.  I answered him by looking him straight in the eye, and stating, "I definitely wasn't going 100 MPH."  He admitted that he thought he had a false positive but he never did show me the radar gun, or perhaps it was all a pathetic ploy to get me to incriminate myself.  "You been drinking?" he asked.  "No," I responded, and he didn't take that thought any further.  "Where you coming from?"  "The airport, I just got back from Las Vegas."  "Is your bag in the trunk?"  "Nope, it's right here by me, in this backpack."  He didn't seem to believe that and so I proceeded to tell him that I pack light, which in fact, I do.  He then told me that he had me going 50 MPH in a 40 MPH zone which I didn't respond to and a couple times he excused himself to check on whatever.

I had several factors in my favor.  I was the same race as the officer.  I was approximately the same age as the officer. I hadn't been drinking, there was no traffic on the road, and the weather was clear. Also, I drive a really nice car and live in a really nice neighborhood and despite his trying to pin some bogus 100 MPH claim, he didn't have me for excessive speeding, even the so-called 10 MPH above the limit, was probably not supported by the radar gun.  So all is well that ends well.  But how if I was: a different race, lived in a worst neighborhood, drove a beat-up car, or my record wasn't clean, or had a drink or two.  How then would it have played out?

Immigration

Immigration is a complicated subject but it's best to remember this fundamental truth that we are truly a nation of immigrants that founded this great nation and developed it.  The United States has had many periods of heavy immigration from Europe in which some of these periods have been quite controversial.  There was blowback against the Irish, Germans, Italians, Russians, Chinese and the creeds of Catholicism and Jewish peoples.   Yet, through it all we have adapted and grown stronger.  With the symbolic walls of America having grown tall and impregnable for legal immigration which has trickled down to a bare few, we have on the other hand have had gaping gaps in our wall which has allowed a huge influx of illegal immigration into our country during the last half century or so.

Although America is bordered by two countries, the vast majority of the illegal immigration has come from Mexico and not from Canada.  Canada is a huge country, lightly populated, with a standard of living which is comparable to the USA and which also has a vibrant middle class.  Whereas in Mexico, which is a relatively poor country, made poorer by the widely unequal division of income, so consequently most of the peoples are impoverished with little hope or room for improvement.  It is this lack of opportunity that impresses upon Mexicans a desire to improve their lives for themselves and their families by immigrating to the USA.

It is estimated that we are a nation of over 11 million illegal immigrants and although we have a long border with Mexico which is patrolled, has fences, and security, this border appears to be relatively easy to breach.  Not only that, but it's only fair to admit that, virtually all government agencies and employers that need cheap labor are complicit in the success of the illegal immigrants inro this country.  Quite frankly, there simply is no way that 11 million illegal immigrants could be within our borders without the powers-to-be looking either the other way or actively encouraging their immigration.  If this nation truly wanted to do something about illegal immigration it could but it has chosen not to.

Still it is short-sighted for the USA to have such a restricted level of legal immigration, while admitting in through the backdoor scores upon scores of illegal immigrants.  This is not only a violation of our laws, it also has unintended consequences, in which illegal aliens can be exploited by not only the "coyotes" who provide passage into the United States but also by the companies or agencies that knowingly employ them.

Currently, the numbers of illegal immigrants are so large that the only fair solution is an Amnesty program so that these immigrants can be normalized within the United States.  There should be a broad support for legal residency with stricter qualifications being needed for citizenship.  Those that do not meet these requirements can apply for "guest worker" status, and those that are unqualified for any of the above should be deported to their country of origin. 

Current United States policies discriminate against those that follow the rules for immigration, while knowingly allowing others to circumvent our policies.  It is high time to adjust to the realities of our present situation, to make much needed changes, and to update our immigration policies.

Euthanasia and Dying

I don’t support euthanasia for human beings in any of its guises or any other its myriad forms.  I don’t support assisted suicide and I don’t support future government agencies that will possibly be forms of quasi-euthanasia.  Having said this, I must admit that our current policies to those that are dying need to be addressed since this is a stage that all of us must exit from.

The people that should have the biggest say in regards to their life are the patient himself, his loved ones, medical doctors, and clergy.  The government should have little or no say and little or no power to end or recommend the end of someone's life.  If you cede the power to the government to determine whether your life is of value to it, you have broken the very foundations that this country was founded on to your own demise.  Additionally, there is no place for agencies, be they public or private that advocate assisted suicide, euthanasia, or their ilk.  The purpose of life is to live and to find our way back to God, the giver of all life; further it is not our place to negate our own life or to provide "assistance" to someone to prematurely end their life. 

The main issue with dying is artificial life support that is now provided for in so many cases.  We have the means to keep patients alive for extended periods of time in which the patients are non-responsive, terminally ill, functionally disabled, and the like.  This person remains alive because of artificial life support and their life would thereby end shortly if that life support was removed.  In cases in which there is a living will, the pathway is fairly clear as to what to do or not to do and that is a fair and moral process because the choice has already been made by the patient.  However, not everyone has a living will and therein lays a dilemma.  The dilemma, however, arises from the patient, and not from anyone else.  That is to say, each one of us is responsible for the decisions that we actively make or don't make, consequently, in cases in which there is no living will or health care directive, you have sacrificed some sort of autonomy, and society's obligation to you at that point is to be a good steward.

Prolonging physical life is not always the prudent, fair, or ethical thing to do.  In absence of the patient not being capable of making that choice given their current physical and/or mental condition, health decisions made must be carefully and considerately contemplated and monitored.   Those decisions made will not always be correct, that is why is best to err on the side of extending life support and to avail ourselves of all reasonable options until such time as the most reasonable option is the removal of the artificial life support. 

We owe that obligation both to the living and to the dying.

Education

Our primary and secondary educational institutions are in complete disarray.   According to oecd.org out of 62 countries the United States ranks no higher than 17th in any of the three categories of Reading, Mathematics, and Science, whereas our neighbors to the north: Canada, rank in the top ten of all three of those categories.  The United States is essentially no better than average in which we as a country spend in aggregate $591 billion on education or an average of $11,810 for each student.

One of the biggest problems is the amount of money spent on teachers and its accompanying bureaucracy.    A full-time teacher school year consists of 155-180 workdays, with days spent at work that average under eight hours a day; whereas in the private sector you can expect to work 225-250 workdays with a mandatory eight hours a day.   However, the biggest boondoggle for public teachers is their very lucrative pension fund.  While this amount varies from state-to-state, in Pennsylvania, for example, the pension per year is the equivalent to the average of the teacher's three highest years in salary, multiplied by 2.5% and further multiplied by the number of years worked.  So, if your average three highest years in salary were $55,000 and you retired after thirty years as a teacher, your yearly pension would be $41,250, a figure that cannot and will not be matched by the private sector.  Obviously, it behooves a teacher to do everything possible to boost their highest salary before retiring and the $55,000 yearly salary which is the median salary of a Philadelphia elementary school teacher is quite conservative.

This pension deal is a very good deal for teachers and a very poor one for the public at large.  If, our public teachers were the best teachers in the world as shown by our test scores in which we ranked at the very top, there would be real justification in their salaries and pensions being so generous but in fact, that isn't the case at all.  Clearly our teachers are overcompensated for performing their duties at a far less than optimal rate and producing students that are no better than average despite the massive sums of money expended.  But at least our teachers are teaching, whereas you cannot say the same thing about the out-of-control bureaucracy that helps run our educational system.  We have bureaucrats at the city, county, state, and federal level, with the most egregious of them all being the Department of Education which has a budget of $71 billion dollars and appears to have no direct beneficial success with student test scores or graduation rates.

We would be wise, also, to remember that Public schools were created in America to wrest control away from churches and our Protestant heritage.  It was not until 1917 that every state in the Union had compulsory educational laws; until that time, children were mainly homeschooled, apprenticed to a trade, or schooled within a church.  Since the start of compulsory public education the State has made an active and conscious decision to take control of a child's education from its parents in order to more properly indoctrinate that child in the ways and beliefs of the State. 

The State and its agents have failed our children, while weakening the foundations and the aspirations of this country and what it properly stands for: the freedom of thought and the freedom and ability to do the right thing.

Big Brother

It is incredible, remarkable, and eerie, that George Orwell’s 1948 dystopian novel, 1984, has gotten the future, fundamentally right.  We are being watched, by our own government, every day in every possible and conceivable way.  Not just being watched in public, not just being tracked as we drive our cars, but we are watched through our activities on the internet, the channels we watch on TV, through our cell phones, our shopping, our friends, our associates, our activities, in everything except our thoughts.

Like sheep, only too willing or too obedient or too stupid to know any better, we readily in our everyday activities and behaviors want to be shorn.  It shouldn’t be that way, but we the people are only too willing to trade some illusion of safety for giving up our fundamental rights without any real personal battle vs. the State at all.  The government is effective in their propaganda, their semantics, and their activities that are well coordinated and well organized.

Big Brother already knows everything that he needs to know about me and you.   The telescreen doesn’t need to be on in our house, watching us, seeing, us, recording us, because we aren’t a threat to the State in our homes; the State doesn’t need to know our thoughts as our thoughts don’t provide any real peril.  It is our actions and not our thoughts that the state worries about and our actions are tracked through our activities and our movements and our keystrokes.  All the pieces of the puzzle are already there for the government and they have already put those pieces together.  In a way they know us better than we do ourselves and they understand that we are predictable, traceable, and compliant.  Yes, there are a few protests here and there, a few voices that cry out into the wilderness, but that is expected and desired by the State.  The protests are simply no more than a smokescreen that gives an illusion that there is an ongoing debate between our rights to privacy and the state’s right to protect our homeland and security.   In America, it is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a country in which the people serve the government in which they in turn place all their trust and faith.

The only other major difference between our Big Brother and Orwell’s Big Brother is that our Government’s face isn’t one that projects any fear or intimidation or omniscience.  Our Big Brother is here to help you, to protect you, and to serve you.  The State sites statistics of how many attacks have been prevented, how many times that we have been saved, and how many threats that have been thwarted.  The State reminds us to go about our business as we always have, but now we can take comfort in knowing that we have no fear to fear about.

Big Brother is our friend, our protector, our perfect big brother, looking out for us, guarding us, fighting for us and fighting beside us.  Our big brother never loses, because like our imaginary big brother he is perfect in every way.  Big Brother never sleeps, never rests, never quits, never ages, and keeps on getting stronger, more knowledgeable, and more powerful. 

He is here, He will never leave, He is watching.

Balance Budget

A balance budget is critical to the future of America.  It's good that most cities, counties, and states have Balance Budget Amendments that constricts government from making imprudent decisions, overspending, and unnecessary expenditures.  Further to this point, all governments should be transparent in their spending and in their revenue receipts.  The population has an absolute right to know how much money is being collected and where that money is going.  Without this critical information, an informed decision by the public is not possible.  While we do count on our representatives to provide for our best interests, a crosscheck to the activities and expenditures of government agencies is our right as taxpaying citizens.

At any particular time a city, county, or state may have a shortfall or surplus to their budget.  While a surplus sounds like a good thing, that isn't always true if it encourages indiscriminate spending for current or future projects in which the need has not yet been demonstrated.  Saving surplus funds for a "rainy day" or investing at least a portion of these funds is a prudent thing to do.  In regards to deficits, an immediate trimming of government expenditures must be affected or the problem(s) can easily compound on itself.  Contingency plans are wise as shortfalls in regards to revenues are often foreseen throughout the year through projections based on historic norms.

Unfortunately, the above mainly addresses our cities, counties, and state governments and not our Federal government.  According to treasurydirect.gov our Federal Government deficit first crossed over the one trillion dollar mark on 9/30/1982.  Thirty years later it crossed over the sixteen trillion dollar mark which is an astonishing amount of federal debt created in an incredibly short period of time in which we the citizens of the United States are responsible for paying it.  None of this could have occurred if we had a Balance Budget Amendment to our Constitution.

Our Federal Government has demonstrated that it is incapable of even attempting to balance our budget, so without a Balance Budget Amendment, our deficits will continue to widen and to increase.  A candid look at our present situation suggests that we are in all probability beyond the point of return but we owe to ourselves, and just as importantly we owe to future generations, yet unborn, to right this ship, so that at least we can say that we stood up and fought the good fight.

Massive deficits have tipping points, we can see that in countries such as Argentina (bankrupt 2002), Iceland (bankrupt 2008, Greece, and Ireland, to name just a few.   The United States is distinctly on the path for bankruptcy, despite its enormous economic size, its massive wealth, its highly educated peoples, and its overall desirable work ethic and work rate. 

The way to get off this pathway towards economic Armageddon is to have the courage, the vision, and the passion to do the right thing and to live within our means.   The USA cannot be everything to everyone and our ambitions must be checked and circumscribed by a Balance Budget Amendment.

Texting

When texting first came out I didn't understand it.  I mean, why text somebody when you can simply call them?  It just seemed to me that if you had something of substance to say and you didn't want to talk you could always send an email, so between texting and phoning someone, I didn't see texting as being even pertinent.  How wrong I was!

Texting most definitely was cumbersome when I began texting because I had a keyboard for texting that matched the old phone dialing system.  So ABC was one option on one key and you therefore had to scroll through each letter until you arrived at the desired one and so on and so forth, so a text took a great deal of time and seemed to defeat the purpose, but texting got more and more prevalent and phones got a lot more text friendly.  For instance, my next phone had a slide out keyboard and since I type fast I loved that keyboard and so I got into texting some more.  My present phone is even better, it's fairly smart and does a real good job of giving you appropriate suggestions to finish the word you are typing, but even better than that, the speech-to-text option is amazingly good.  I'm definitely in the minority by using speech-to-text but when it's working right it's very very good.  Also, it doesn't bother me when the phone gets the transcription wrong, I simply try it again and again.  Usually after the third time with the interpretation being misheard, I just type it in, but honestly sometimes the phone transcribes something that is better than what I spoke and I just keep it.

All of the above is to the good when it comes to texting but there are some fundamental issues with texting that includes the lack of just plain good common sense.   When I am at home, or out and about, I text and receive texts but I don't do it in a movie theatre, but it's pretty common to see people text at movie theatres.  While texting isn't as annoying as somebody talking to a friend at the movies, or someone kicking the back of your seat, it's annoying because of the screen brightness in a darkened theatre and I just don't understand the urgency of having to immediately respond to a text.  I also don't understand people that are on a date and in lieu of talking to each other, or getting to know one another, they'll be texting someone else.  If that's the case, why not date the person you're texting?

While there are issues with people texting and not paying attention to where they are walking, by far the biggest issue with texting is while doing so while driving.  I am not particularly a supporter of additional laws against texting while driving although we do already have that law on the books in my state, I am more of a supporter of private enterprise addressing the issue in a comprehensive manner and they have done so with new features/apps that preclude texting while driving or if you are so inclined you can have text messages read aloud to you and you can also respond by voicing your text. 

The main issue is we live in a perpetual world of "now".  Everybody seems to want everything right now.  The other issue is temptation.  You just have to read that text, or you just have to text that person and so forth.  The problem is that texting while driving means extended periods of time with your eyes off of the road which is incredibly dangerous.  It's one thing to glance down at your GPS, or over at your child, or to tune into a radio station, but it's entirely different thing to spend a continuous amount of time reading your text messages or even worst, typing in your own text message. 

I mean, to me, if it's really all that urgent, why not call or make the call, or text them later.

The Military-Industrial Complex

As President Eisenhower left office on January, 1961, he warned us about the Military-Industrial Complex.  This was a man to pay certain attention to as he reached the pinnacle of power not only as our countries' two-term president, but also previously as our Supreme Allied Commander and 5-star General in World War II.  President Eisenhower had a unique and truly inside knowledge about the power and dangers of our Military-Industrial complex and warned us presciently.  Here are a few choice remarks taken from his speech:

"Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry."

"We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations."

"The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

"We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted."

Since his speech in 1961, things have gotten much worst, and the Military-Industrial complex has never been stronger.  Upon the changing of the guard in 2008, with the election of President Obama, virtually all the protests over our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan came to a standstill, but since that time has the Military-Industrial complex been weaken?  Unfortunately, not at all.  The NY Times reports:

"Mr. Obama decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership. He overthrew the Libyan dictator. He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan. He became the first president to authorize the assassination of a United States citizen."

Now, President Obama is trying to make the case to attack Syria.  None of this makes a lot of sense considering that you're talking about the man who previously won the Nobel Peace Prize, but it does make plenty of sense if the Military-Industrial complex is in fact the de facto arbiter of what does and does not happen in regards to our military activities.  Not only that, the Military-Industrial complex now recognizes for acertainty that business with a Democratic President is even better than under a Republican because with Obama in office, virtually all the protests have evaporated.  This is an example of partisan politics at its worst and total hypocrisy.  If a war is considered wrong or unjust, shouldn't that be decided on the actual merits for said war as compared to the political label of our President?

The Military-Industrial complex is unelected, unsupervisedand undemocratic, yet they control billions upon billions of dollars and have their tentacles into virtually every facet of American life of consequence.  But their influence spans far beyond our borders and affects the world at large for better or for worst.  Our so-called Defense expenditures are excessively high and place obligations and debts onto future generations not yet born to face enemies that do not exist.  Spending money on armaments for a proper defense of one's sovereign nation has its place, but there is no place for unnecessary aggrandizement for selfish reasons under the guise of a false moral superiority.

Home depot pricing

Some people love to shop in stores and some people love to shop online.  In fact, some people love to shop wherever and whenever they can, online, in stores, anywhere, it doesn't really matter and then there are people like me who don't like shopping all that much and prefer the convenience and comfort of shopping online.

Anyway, I had to buy a floor lamp the other day to match the table lamp that I had purchased.  My friend had told me that the floor lamp should cost a little under $50 but when I went searching and found a couple Hampton Bay floor lamps in which one was a perfect match and the other was a nice alternative I couldn't find that pricing range at all.  My price online through Home Depot was $89.97 for the one that matched perfectly and $94.97 for the other one that looked perhaps a little better and would be suitable as a match.

As I said, I like shopping online and I certainly like getting a deal so I did a bit more research by typing in the description of the floor lamps that I was looking for and using my Google search engine to check things out but I still wasn't able to come up with any improved pricing from anybody. 

I then got an email from Home Depot indicating that they were having a special with up to 50% off on overstock lighting which I check into but again came up empty handed.  Now all of this was becoming a real problem because I hate to pay extra money if I don't really need to and I really did need to purchase that floor lamp.  So I went back to the Home Depot website on a different day and I didn't see any change in pricing on either lamp but since I knew that I didn't want the lamp shipped to me and that I was going to pick it up at the Home Depot most convenient to me, I selected one of the lamps and then selected "pick up in store FREE", changed the location of my default Home Depot store to one most convenient to me, andsuddenly within a blink of an eye the price changed from $89.97 to $49.97.  Wow.  I then selected the more expensive lamp and did the same thing and it too changed from $94.97 to $49.97.  Incredible.

Now to understand the facts correctly, during my search with Home Depot they had defaulted me to a store location that I typically don't go to, the reason that Home Depot selects that particular stored is based on my internet connection location.  Had I been logged into my Home Depot account they would have defaulted me to my preferred location but I wasn't logged in. However, once I logged into my Home Depot account, walla!, the price dropped down to $49.97 each.  That makes sense, because logged in they now had the correct Home Depot store for my account and at that store the price for each of the floor lamps really was $49.97.  But I had to take one step further, so I logged out, and then found the same lamps at the $89.97 and $94.97 and this time I didn't log into my Home Depot account, didn't change the default store, and then checked out with the merchandise as a "guest".  I got all the way to the payment page with no changes so I find it safe to conclude that I would have paid those higher prices had I completed the purchase.

So what can we conclude from this?  That Home Depot most definitely has more than one price, depending on how you are purchasing a given item and that it is up to you, the consumer, to ascertain this.  In this real-world example, the in-store price was the lower price by a considerable margin, but that price would be honored if bought online through the steps that I ultimately took.

Do I have a problem with what transpired and the discrepancy in pricing?  No, not at all.  There isn't any doubt in my mind that online prices need not be the same as store prices and in fact it would be difficult to accomplish this goal for stores like Home Depot, even if that was the desired policy. 

So buyer beware.

Hold Em Poker

I enjoy playing poker both online and at a real-world casino and while I'm knowledgeable in virtually all poker games that are played for money I spend the vast majority of my time playing Hold Em, not so much because it's the best game, but mainly because it is the game that is most popular and readily available.  Having said this, there is room for improvement of the experience and I here submit some of my better ideas.

4 Color Deck:

The 4-color deck is my default for playing online poker because there are 4 suits in a deck of cards and each suit should have its own color for ease of reading your hand and the board.  This is not only sensible but right.  I'm just at a cost of words as to why in real-world casinos they are still using 2-color decks.  I know that there are selfish players that want to keep a 2-color deck specifically in the hopes that a player will misplay his hand by assuming he has a flush when he doesn't have one but that is at best, unsporting and a negative reason to keep the 2-color deck in play.

In order to get the 4-color deck back into consideration, one of both of these things should happen.  For final tables on televised events, why not have a card-deck manufacturer pay a small fee for sponsorship of their 4-color alternative decks.  In regards to real-world casinos, why don't they take their slowest night of the week and specifically sponsor a 4-color deck day to see if that might attract some new players into the casino.  The risk would be minimal, the cost would be minimal, and it mirrors the experience players already have online.

Tournament Blinds Increase:

Virtually all real-world tournaments have a clock in which after a certain expended period of time the blinds are increased and this continues throughout the tournament until it is concluded.  On-line tournaments are setup the same way, although there are a few exceptions on minor tournaments online in which the blinds are increased over a set period of hands which I find to be the superior method.  Here's why.

The problem with using a set period of time for the raising of blinds as opposed to a finite amount of hands is that not every player takes the same amount of time per hand.  So that if you are at a table in which the play is extra slow, the amount of hands dealt per hour will decrease, leading to an increase in the luck factor to the detriment of skill.  Low blinds in reference to your chip stack allows for more "play" in a tournament, so that the more hands that you have to play the more "play" or skill is involved. Structuring tournaments around the amount of hands dealt is a fairer structure.

I recognize that to make this change in a tournament structure would be difficult, even problematic, and is probably best suited for online tournaments as opposed to the real-world.  I would like to see this structure become the default online.

Poker Clock:

The online world uses a poker clock and rightly so.  I love the clock because it is efficient, effective, and fair.  Real-world casinos do not use a poker clock and that needs to change.  To be clear, I am not referring to calling a 'clock' on an opponent that then gives the player one minute to decide, I am talking about a tournament game clock.   The easiest implementation of the Poker Clock would be at the final table in which the seats and players are fixed.  Each player is given the same amount of time, perhaps 30 minutes, and the clock for each player can be handled by the Tournament Clock Director.  Each player

will be given an initial 10 seconds to act, before the clock is started, after that period of time your player clock will begin to countdown, should that clock ever expire, you will now be given 10 seconds to act for the duration of the tournament and failure to do so will result in an automatic fold.

The only issue that will come up, is how about when a player asks a legitimate question, such as how many chips that his opponent has; I believe the best answer to that is the Tournament Clock Director, he will decide as to whether the given question(s) is superfluous, a deliberate time-waster, or legitimate, because there isn't any doubt that some players would use this tactic to gain time so not to have to use their clock.

This poker clock is far superior to calling a "clock" on an opponent, because, in theory, there are hands in which you really do need to spend more than a minute before making your decision and if you have not previously run down your poker clock, you should be accommodated on this action because those type of tough decisions are what brings the drama of poker alive.