A New Political System...

Q: Who is better at ridding the government of corruption,
Democrats or Republicans?
A: "No". (also accepted: "Neither", or side-splitting laughter.)

Here's an idea: let's re-examine the efficacy of a political system whereby multi-millionaire, career politicians are elected to create public policy.

These people never find any common sense solutions to problems because there is often no money to be made in doing so. From what I have seen, they instead run around chasing after billions of dollars with which they intend to further enrich themselves and their cronies, thereby bolstering their political power and allowing them to continue the cycle.

Citizens that wish to eliminate corruption will face
sophisticated resistance from special interests that
have nearly limitless resources!

A good candidate on the other hand, would be good at identifying wasteful programs and finding ways to eliminate them, and identifying needs of the people and coming up with viable and sensible ways to address those needs. Their focus would be on the correct targets: creating a fairer system and a government that is accountable to the people. The status quo politicians focus more on progressing their political agenda to increase their wealth and political power. That distinction--between a hypothetical non-partisan, solution-based politician and the status quo politicians--is far greater than the minimal differences between liberals and conservatives.

This candidate may be rough around the edges, s/he may not have Mitt Romney's tailor or John Edwards' image consultants but s/he would have a propensity for finding viable, common sense solutions. An approach such as that--focused on eliminating corruption and government waste--would allow us to reduce government spending while providing plenty of money for a sound safety net for the nation's truly needy people. The conservative citizens and the liberal citizens could both get what they want. Instead, we are told that the way to succeed politically is to fight each other to prevent the opposition from getting anything they want. Honestly, I don't see the wisdom in it. Do we really want lower taxes AND NO public assistance for veterans and military families? Do we really want public assistance programs for needy people WITH NO attention to the fiscal responsibility or sustainability of those programs?

Neither party has the right answer so the game has become to change the question from "What is the best policy?" to "What wins elections and generates campaign contributions?" Where are our interests represented in that? They are not. So, we either need to change the system or we will be destroyed by it.

I may be shouting this message to an empty coliseum, but I'm not going to go down without shouting. I don't care if the message of government effectiveness and efficiency over political idealism is never embraced by the Democratic or Republican leadership or by the pundits (who are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than to find common ground or solutions to problems). I think it would be difficult for anyone to argue against the logical soundness of the position. And I hope that the majority of the country will soon come to the same realization.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The truth About the "Takers"

Who is the real burden on society?

According to the right wing, the country is broke because there are too many "takers" in society. According to the right wing, these "takers" will vote for whichever candidate offers the most "free candy"--by which they mean welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance, etc. When in these conversations, I first concede that entitlement spending is out of control and is unsustainable. I also usually find it necessary to point out that the low income people in our country are not the only people after "free candy". For every hundred low wage workers who gets $120 a month in food stamps, there's a big corporation that gets billions of dollars in tax breaks, subsidies and other "free candy" from the government every year. Even politicians, are helping themselves to free taxpayer money.

Mitt Romney was one of the worst candidates that the Republican Party could have picked as their presidential nominee in the 2012 election because his company, Bain Capital, often made money by being one of the biggest takers in the country. They would see a company that employed hundreds of people, giving them capital to spend in the community, which created an environment where other businesses could thrive, and where a healthy community could exist. Bain bought some of those companies and took out huge loans on the companies' credit so that they could pay themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in "management fees". Often times the companies could not pay back the enormous loans and the companies went out of business, the workers were laid off and the entire community took a big hit. Even though the Bain people made out quite well, I'm sure some of the workers lost homes and had to resort to unemployment insurance, food stamps and other forms of government assistance to get by. So, who were the takers in this scenario? It seems to me that he laid-off workers had something taken from them and Bain did the taking.

What's worse is that we, the taxpayers, had to pay for Bain's greed/poor management by providing assistance to the workers that were laid off. As for Bain, they got sweetheart tax rates on their profits because--due to successful lobbying efforts--the government has apparently been convinced that their business model is somehow good for the country. It is the new American business model: collect the profits while leaving the taxpayers responsible for losses and the costs of collateral damages.

Of course, Bain is just one private equity (aka "vulture capital") operation. There are others. And there are banks that illegally foreclosed on peoples' homes, banks that invested peoples' life savings and retirement funds in schemes the banks knew were worthless. All so they could make enormous profits and pass on the bill for the damages to the taxpayers. Now, they call anyone who needs assistance as a result of their schemes a "taker" while they enjoy the title of "job creator". And they are appalled when anyone suggests that they pay back some of their ill-gotten gains by way of higher taxes.

I assume that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to figure out a way to fairly raise taxes on just the institutions that acted unethically. But I know that every thinking American would agree that carried interest profits should be taxed at the same rate as workers' wages. There is no stimulative effect to the economy from these special tax breaks and it rewards private equity firms for destroying jobs.

So, do you wonder why the pundits on TV who claim to have our best interests in mind don't scream about this issue and urge you daily to call your representatives to eliminate this subsidy for job loss? Could it be that they are paid millions of dollars to create controversy rather than find solutions to problems? Should we stop getting our information and talking points from them and assess for ourselves what issues deserve our immediate, focused attention? Only if we want to improve our country and economy, I suppose.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

The Definitive Answer On Climate Change (Sort of)

Is climate change real, a hoax or a distraction from the real issues?

The definitive answer on climate change is that it is irrelevant. Here's why...

The first thing everyone should realize about climate change (or any other politically-charged issue) is that whatever your position is, it is likely not based on facts but on your emotions. There are studies that show that people have strong biases on political issues and that when discussing such issues, the emotional areas of the brain engage far more than the reasoning sectors. Not only that, but the brains of conservatives differ in physical structure from those of liberals. This suggests that our political beliefs are virtually hard wired and the beliefs of hyper-partisan thinkers will not be affected by facts. When contemplating political issues, people often begin with their belief or what they desire to be true, then they search for evidence to support their position (confirmation bias). This is the opposite of the scientific process but it is emotionally comforting.

I always found it odd that people would speak about political matters with such certainty when there is so much misinformation and contradictory information out there. The aforementioned psychological phenomenon explains why this occurs but issues like climate science is especially disturbing because the science is far beyond the understanding of the vast majority of us. That is where the misinformation campaigns are so brilliantly utilized. There are a lot of people that have a great deal to gain or lose from the consequences of this political issue. Nearly all politicians and pundits are likely to be personally invested in fossil fuel companies or green technology companies. Politicians get political contributions from these companies and pundits receive millions of dollars of ad revenues from them. So, anything you hear from either politicians or pundits should be thrown straight out the window.

How does salinity affect the
freezing point of water?

For instance, those who deny climate change [for the sake of brevity, when I mention "climate change" in this article, I will be referring to the human impact on the changing climate as opposed to the natural climate cycles of the Earth], will dismiss all of the science with a simple explanation that the lay person can understand. They may point out that the amount of ocean ice at the poles is increasing. But, when glaciers (fresh water) melt, they decrease the saline content of the oceans which allows it to re-freeze at higher temperatures. Any of us can test this at home by mixing table salt into some water and checking its freezing point, compared to water with less or no salt. Climate change deniers will also point out that increased snowfall is proof that the Earth is not warming. However, when temperatures rise, more moisture evaporates into the atmosphere and will eventually come down as precipitation (rain, snow, hail). These are third grade scientific facts but they don't keep politicians and pundits from using such faulty logic as arguments against climate change.

On the opposite side, people in support of climate change theories

Where is the scientific proof?

will point to hurricanes like Katrina and Sandy and claim that they are a result of climate change. This makes sense because hurricanes are caused by warm water temperatures. If the temperature of the oceans are rising, then hurricanes are going to be more numerous and powerful. But any connection between human activity and the super storms has never been proven by the science. And some climate scientists did not publicize data and communications that were not consistent with their findings that human activity is partly responsible for the current changes in the climate. Being secretive with the data has cast doubts on their credibility and on the credibility of the research and findings.

The simple truth is though, that the disaster of hurricane Katrina was caused by human activity related to fossil fuel consumption. The Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) is a canal that was carved into Louisiana so that the oil ships would have a more direct route to the refineries, as opposed to using the winding Mississippi River. MRGO brought a surge of water, driven by the hurricane, from the Gulf directly into the city of New Orleans, causing much of the flooding and levee breaks. On top of that, the Louisiana shore line is receding at a rate of about a half mile per year, bringing the hurricane waters ever closer to the metropolises. The industry's own study determined that fossil fuel extraction activity is responsible for one third of the land loss.

There it is, the smoking gun at the feet of the fossil fuel industry and it has NOTHING to do with greenhouse gasses or the changing climate. About 1,800 people died as a result of Katrina and we the taxpayers footed most of the bill for the cleanup and reconstruction of New Orleans, subsidizing the profits of oil companies yet again. What issues were the left and the right fighting about at the time all that was going on?

Katrina is just one costly and deadly incident. Air pollution has been linked to numerous health problems, oil spills destroy fishing and tourism jobs, coal mining and natural gas fracturing poison peoples' drinking water and the U.S. military (the largest consumer of fossil fuels) commits atrocities and costs trillions of dollars attempting to secure our access to sources of oil around the world. Is that not enough proof that we should be looking for other sources of energy for our long-term energy needs?

But oh, there's more: we pay tax on a gallon of gas and the oil companies get subsidies for every gallon of gas they produce. Isn't that a redistribution of our wealth to the oil companies? Why is it that Republicans don't ever get upset about that? Or Democrats for that matter? They always seem to be fighting about something wholly inconsequential, of which evidence is scant and there are few trustworthy voices on either side of the debate.

We need to stop asking whether we want to side with Al Gore, green energy industries, and Solyndra subsidies or if we want to side with Exxon/Mobile, BP and OPEC, but rather whether we want to side with your fellow citizens instead of those other groups. That is where the division line lies and the climate change debate blurs the lines. If we looked at the issue with that frame of reference: what's actually good for us, and we stopped arguing about the issues that are good for them, the answers would be more clear.

~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

1.     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drew_Westen#Political_bias_study
2.     http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/health/2012/09/03/conservatives-and-liberals-have-different-brains-studies-show/
3.     http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/02/brain-difference-democrats-republicans
4.     http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-political-brain/
5.     http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2003954/Nancy-Pelosis-wealth-grows-62--lawmakers-annual-form-release-reveals.html
6.     http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36783.html
7.     http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/totals.php?ind=E01++
8.     http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/obama-fundraisers-ties-green-firms-federal-cash/story?id=14592626
9.     http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/us/politics/fossil-fuel-industry-opens-wallet-to-defeat-obama.html?_r=1&
10.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
11.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seawater
12.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8QauSPK3Es
13.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Content_of_the_documents
14.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_River_%E2%80%93_Gulf_Outlet_Canal#Role_in_Hurricane_Katrina_disaster
15.   http://www.rense.com/general67/drown.htm
16.   http://www.epa.gov/region7/air/quality/health.htm
17.   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrJlUVCe4VA
18.   http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/1/13/coal-pollution-miningwestvirginiamassey.html
19.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing#Water
20.   http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/study-iraq-afghan-war-costs-to-top-4-trillion/2013/03/28/b82a5dce-97ed-11e2-814b-063623d80a60_story.html
21.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_and_diesel_usage_and_pricing#Countries_with_subsidised_gasoline