Memorial Day Screed

The flag of the United States of America flying in the Financial District of San Francisco, CA

If ever there was a sin to behold, it is seeing one of those faded and tattered Chinese-made nylon American flags. If ever there was proof that we've sold our soul, that would be it. I of course do not mean any offense to the Chinese people. It is We the American People that have demanded impossibly low prices and increasingly greater profits so now we can buy a flag for next to nothing. I can take some solace in knowing that the inexpensive flags may have made it possible for some people to buy one where they otherwise could not. But if anybody has bought a cheap flag just because it was the cheapest flag they could find and then allowed it to become a tattered disgrace just because they are too lazy or too cheap to replace it, then I would be a little offended by that.
Here's some legislation that I might get behind:
1. No foreign company may sell American flags or any American states' flags inside the United States. Print as many as you like outside our country and sell them to whomever you like. In fact, if your country has a reputation of treating our flag respectfully, we could perhaps grant additional foreign aid money whereas if you treat our flag disrespectfully, your foreign aid money may be reduced. These funds would be to provide incentives for companies to make and people to buy better quality productions of our flag.
2. Any citizen our visitor to our country can get a well-made American flag, made in the United States, for free if they can correctly answer a series of questions about our flag, knows how to properly fold the flag and they have never been known to have treated the flag disrespectfully. If a person understands what the colors mean, what the stars and stripes represent, who designed our flag, under what circumstances and what it meant as a symbol to our forefathers, then they are a person who will inevitably love our flag and treat it respectfully. They will repay the cost of the flag tenfold by displaying it proudly, inspiring love for our country and not allowing it to become a disgraceful eyesore.
I'm sorry but I am just one of those people that gets moved at that scene in The Patriot where Heath Ledger's Character, Gabriel Edward Martin, is clinging to the only flag that he has. It is literally stained with blood and dirt and sweat and tears but it was his symbol of hope in dark times. It was a flag that if he was discovered with it, would mean he would be executed. He was sewing a new piece of cloth to patch a hole caused by a bayonet strike, a musket blast, who knows? And he fought and died to make sure that the flag could be passed on, along with this great country, to be respected and cherished. Every American should have that much respect and honor for our flag!
Having said all of that, I am on the fence about flag burning. Although I am offended by it, I don't know that I have the right to declare that someone else doesn't have the right to offend me. I can't say that another person's condition isn't so bad or their moral sensibilities so slighted that they feel they need to get attention any way they can. Or that I may not at some point get so disgusted with the government that I wouldn't want to have that as an available option. I don't like interfering with people's freedom of expression but there is also the sticky issue of what constitutes any legal definition of "flag burning"? I vaguely recall getting a hold of some rolling papers as a kid and rolling a cigarette with my dad's pipe tobacco and smoking it. As I recall, the papers may have had the American flag printed on them. Could that mean that I would be guilty of the act? We're in the digital age, if you burn the flag in a CGI animation, would it be in violation of any law?
Many of our politicians have stained our flag and our country far worse than simply burning it. And they did it, and are still doing it, wearing the American flag on their lapels.
~R. Charan Pagan
information systems technologist, musician, writer, filmmaker
Los Angeles, CA 90017
http://www.reclaimingourbirthright.blogspot.com/

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

Some Health Care Issues Examined and Observed In Greater Poltical Context

Who Are the Winners? Who Are the Losers?

Some people claim that eliminating "frivolous" medical malpractice law suits would drastically reduce health care costs. But tort reform is not the game-changer it is claimed to be because the numbers are derived from the assumption that ALL litigation is frivolous and therefore all judgments would be capped at $200,000--or some other arbitrary figure--regardless of the severity of the injury. If you had an operation and the hospital, through their negligence, paralyzed you or removed your healthy kidney instead of your failing one, would $200,000 be adequate compensation? It is not a solution that should be considered. What would give doctors relief from overly burdensome medical malpractice insurance costs would be to force them to pay more in relation to their incidents of negligence. Right now, doctors that never have a claim, pay roughly the same as those that are often negligent and have many claims against them.

The ability to buy and sell insurance across state lines would likely be a good measure for keeping health insurance costs down but it won’t ensure coverage for children who are dying of _________ (fill in the blank) today. The emphasis should be placed on health care first and profits and political ideology second. All of the people controlling the system and the debate would prefer not to have it that way.

But this whole health care issue is a struggle between Republicans, who want to protect the profits of their big campaign donors (insurance companies) and Obama who wants to protect his presidential “legacy” and signature law. Why do we bother fighting to win one of those inconsequential outcomes? We could have far more honest and constructive discussions about health care and all of the partisan sticking points if we first addressed eliminating corruption and creating a fair and honest election system. The reason the misinformation is abound is because politicians want us to vote against our interests and for theirs. So you won’t ever be asked to focus on the corruption and election schemes that both parties engage in. Focusing on those issues doesn’t really help either party and all the politicians are doing just fine with the system as it is. It is only we citizens that suffer. That is the new American Way.

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

Are You Feeling Like Chinese Finger Cuffs?

For those of you that are Kevin Smith fans, this will make perfect sense: The  government is treating us like Chinese finger cuffs. One party has us from the front and one party has us from the rear and we haven't gotten wise enough to simply object to the treatment. Instead we just keep arguing about how bad the other party tastes or feels.

The recent government shutdown was a perfect example of the two parties acting toward their own political goals with no regard for the citizens of the country. Obama and the Democrats are widely considered to be the winners of the shutdown fiasco, along with Ted Cruz, who increased his popularity with some TEA Party constituents by proving that he is willing to destroy the country in order to pursue their narrow objectives.

As for the rest of us, we were handed the bill. $24 billion, the charge for getting a front row seat to the grotesque spectacle of grandstanding and political posturing. Do you feel you got your money's worth?

You would think that, as a society, we would attack the corruption in government that causes politicians to serve the special interest groups rather than work for the benefit of the country. But, we don't. We mostly cheer on one party and condemn the other, which keeps us in our same position: treated like Chinese finger cuffs.

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

A Winning Strategy for Defeating Obamacare

Is there a problem with this picture?

Defeating/repealing Obamacare is not going to be easy. It is certainly not going to be as easy as pressuring your representatives in Congress to repeal the law. The futile act of doing so costs an estimated $1.4 million every time the Republicans bring it up for a vote in the House, meaning that Republican politicians in Congress have already wasted more than $54 million of your tax dollars. Does this sound like the actions of a fiscally conservative party? Most thinking voters would prefer an approach that would be (a) less costly (repealing Obamacare would actually add more than $109 billion to the national deficit, according to the Congressional Budget Office) and (b) actually be effective. The following is a strategy that would accomplish both of those goals...

Step 1: Stop trying to convince citizens that Obamacare is going to be a disaster. Our system before Obamacare was a disaster so everyone should save their breath instead of warning of the woes of implementing the Affordable Care Act and put their efforts into Step 2 (see below). Anyone--such as I--would prefer to try an alternative to the health care system we had before the ACA if they--such as I--were confronted with a situation of being denied care because it would be more profitable for the insurance companies and doctors if they pretend that you did not have a problem or that the problem could not be treated. Being in that situation has personally cost me over $20,000 in medical expenses; at least several thousand dollars of wasted insurance premiums, co-payments and related expenses; and an inestimable amount of money in lost productivity and failed potential. A price cannot be placed on the anger and frustration of being denied health care so that others could profit while you struggle financially as well as medically. Imagine yourself in that situation. Would it be acceptable to you?

Republican politicians like to paint support for Obamacare as a desire to get something for nothing. This characterization may satisfy some, but many of us recognize it a as an opportunity to ensure getting what you pay for from an industry that would prefer to stiff their customers after taking their money.

The other reason some citizens will never accept the arguments that Obamacare will be a disaster and lead to the financial ruin of the country and/or ruin our health care system is because the people who are making those claims also claimed that George W. Bush's Medicare Part D program would cost $400 billion over ten years, under-estimating the actual cost* by more than half. (By the way, Medicare Part D is responsible for much of the national debt which Obama is currently being blamed for. Yeah, I dislike Obama as President but I am just trying to be honest here. I don't dislike him so much that I would be dishonest in an attempt to discredit the man or his job performance. There are enough honest arguments about him to do that sufficiently.)

The same people that drastically underestimated Medicare Part D also underestimated the cost and efficacy of the Iraq War and other predictions that seriously call their credibility into question.

[For anyone that hasn't figured it out: like any other political issue, there are two sets of liars, one on each side. Each will say whatever will help achieve their political objective and we are left to sort out all of the BS. We cannot have an honest debate about health care, or any other issue, until we eliminate corruption from government. Then the politicians will have no reason to be dishonest and shady. Since we haven't figured that out and we haven't made eliminating corruption our top priority, we deal with the consequences.]

Step 2: Demand a better law than Obamacare. Many people find going back to the US healthcare system before Obamacare untenable. The reason is that--as I stated before--the system was broken and left many people vulnerable and/or victimized. Even prominent Republcians such as Clint Murphy now support Obamacare. Why? Because he has cancer and has never been able to get health insurance coverage due to that pre-existing condition. Obamacare changed that and now he has affordable health care.

Could Obamacare still be a disaster? Of course it could. Although, I know nothing in the law that leads me to believe that that will be the case. But someone with cancer who can finally get affordable health care to treat it will likely prefer to take the small risk of some negative outcome in exchange for the very likely positive outcome that they would stand to receive, personally. And, I feel that any compassionate person would support that.

The only viable avenue for repealing Obamacare is to replace it with a plan that addresses the same concerns in a smarter way. I imagine that few people are married  to Obamacare and they would embrace any health care reform that would address all of the issues that Obamacare does. If Republicans came up with an alternative plan that was smarter and could be implemented more easily, I suspect that many Obamacare supporters would embrace it. I would. Unfortunately, Republicans do not want that. I suspect that they are far more concerned that Obamacare may be successful than they are that it might be a disaster. For them, Obamacare being successful would be a disaster for their party. That is what the fight is really about. As with all issues, politicians seek political victory, not a solution to a social problem. It is another distinction that we are unfortunately not often intelligent enough to recognize.

Afterward: All of the facts, figures and information above create a solid case for demanding an alternative plan before accepting the repeal of Obamacare. Is it all lies and BS from the "liberal media"? Perhaps. although not likely, considering I got the information from various sources which have been corroborated by many other sources that I have found to be incredibly accurate and trustworthy over the years. If it is all lies and BS, then where are the real numbers? Do you have them? Please share them if you do. Otherwise, to say that this is all lies and BS makes you political operative. It is lazy, unfounded activism and it is 'phoning it in'.

*The Forbes article linked to admittedly contains some spin but the dollar figures in it and facts concerning the legislation are completely accurate, according to my recollection.

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