From Preacher

I've been reading "The Greatest Graphic Novel Ever" called Preacher by Garth Ennis.

Here is a gem I found today, seems fitting considering the times:

"The Myth of America: That simple, honest men, born of her Great Plains and woods and skies have made a nation of her, and will prove worthy of her when the time is right...

Under a harsh light it is false. But a good myth to live up to, all the same."

An Arguement for Taxing the Wealthy

I was recently sent a mass email (I will paste the email into the comments) from a family member which outlined the plight of the small business owner. Basically, when you own a company and it makes a profit at the end of the year, this is what you have to put on your tax return. So, when one considers Obama's screw all the people who make over $250,000 shtick, one cannot help worry about the group that is responsible for something like 80% of all employment (I'm not sure about this number and didn't feel like looking it up, feel free to do so, it might be even higher). Personally, I think it would be dumb to do anything to hinder job growth right now. The email that I am referring to was told from the perspective of the president of a company who made $530,000 in profit from the company. He argued that with that $530,000 he has to re-invest in the company so it can grow, and that how can he do that when he is getting taxed so strongly. With these things in mind, I present An Argument for Taxing the Wealthy (including small business owners to make over $250,000).

1. While it is true that the profit of a small business gets recorded as income for the business owner, I'd like to point out that the taxable income (net) is after business expenses which includes re-investing in the company. So using the above example, if this guy were to invest $284,000 back into his company then his net would be $250,000- and he'd be under the threshold. And by the way, if someone were to net out more than $250,000 from their company- well then I'd argue that they do deserve to pay that extra 5%, as you will see below.

2. Furthermore, a small business is an asset, just like a home or a car is an asset. When you re-invest into an asset, you typically increase the value of the asset in the process. I mean what kind of a moron would invest money in their company without the hope of it increasing the revenue/profit/value of the company by doing so. So, the boo-hoo I have to re-invest into my own company line is bullshit, you are investing in an asset you posses just like you invest in your 401k, or your house- the hope is that you will be able to sell it later and cash out the money you put into it. Now granted, a small business is a LOT risker than a 401k, savings, or a home- but hey that's the perils of a small business owner.

3. People should pay in proportion to the services they use, right? If I use more electricity, I should pay more. If I drive a truck on the government funded highways, and I profit from these taxpayer funded roads, then I should pay more to help keep them up and running. This is also true for the wealthy. By definition, if you are wealthy then society has benefited you. Granted, you may have worked hard for you money, but regardless, the social system that we live in and is how it is structured has lead to you being able to accrue wealth in one form or another. If we had a chaotic society, or an anarchical society, then odds are, you wouldn't be doing as well, or benefiting so much (freedom of economy is typically the first thing to go in a totalitarian or fascist regime).

This disproportionate benefital relationship between the haves and the have nots rationally leads to the conclusion that the haves should pay a bit more to keep society functioning, so that their business will continue functioning, so that they will be able to continue with their way of life. It is actually a selfish view that I am taking here, even though the results are unselfish. Makes sense to me...

4. This guy is basically a proponent of the trickle down economic theory adopted by Regan in the 80s. All that I have to say is that after 20 years of growth, this latest downturn has reduced us to pre-1982 levels and erased all of the supposed gains that trickle down economics (which reigned over those 20 years) produced. This may be surprising, but trickle down economics do not work. It has been proven to not work over these past 20 years, over the past 8 years, the average income of Americans has fallen by approximately 5%. Meanwhile, the top 1% wealthiest managed to accumulate 99% of the wealth in the country, a first in the history of the US. Never before in the history of our country has so much wealth been accumulated into such a small percentage of people.

Really though, is it surprising that trickle down economics does not translate into wealth for the middle class? I mean basically what you are saying is, Once you are rich, you stop being greedy. That really is the fundamental tenet of trickle down economics. Being as skeptical as most conservative economist who believe this, you would think that they wouldn't believe so strongly in the philanthropic soul of the rich. They got rich by being cut throat and saving every dollar they can (which I have no problem with), but why would you expect that to change if you just give them more?

5. $250,000 for your net income is over 500% of what the average American makes. That's five times (5x) more than the average American makes. I mean if you make that much more than the average person, shouldn't you foot a greater percentage of the bill? I make more than my girlfriend does (right now) so I pay proportionately more rent and bills and stuff. I consider this just and fair, why wouldn't this same principle apply to the wealthy?

The Universal Villian

Here is an article on a blog that Liz likes called Jezebel about this ad from Dockers.

I thought the article was rather funny, especially the sarcastic remark to Dockers. I mean seriously, do you really think that wearing a pair of Dockers will make you manly? Thinking that manliness is somehow a function of what you look like on the outside is a serious misrepresentation of all that is man. But, I may ask what is manly?

From what I can tell from Jezebel and other female writers, it is something dark and evil. Manliness seems to wreak of patriarchy and misogyny according to these writers. Personally, I really don't see how opening a door for a person (note not woman) is somehow degrading. You don't open the door because you think the person is weak, you do it to be polite. A little bit of social grace in an otherwise rude world.

The bigger question I have right now, at this instant in time, what is equal? I mean that's what we are all striving for with the whole gender/minority inequity thing right? We are trying to make things equal and fair. Well what does that look like?

Is it that women need to be in overarching power, the kind of power that men have had for eons? Control of all systems of society from the economy, education, and government for a long period of time to balance out the past wrongdoers?

Or is equity when we have it 50/50? Equal numbers of female CEOs and judges and senators and a female president from time to time? Split nicely down the middle across the board, everywhere? In this case men have to lose some pay, and women need to gain some. Men need to give up many many seats in the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of government. BUT, we would need some quotas for men's admission to universities and some balancing of the workforce for men as well. Sounds kinda wacky right?

Or could it be that maybe men are ahead in certain regions, and women are ahead in certain regions? How large of inequities in a given region are acceptable? To me this seems to be the inevitability. There is no way that we will ever have a statistically perfect 50/50 split of power between men, women, minorities, you name it. It will always ebb and flow.

Now I'm NOT suggesting that things are anywhere near equal right now. Women need to be paid the same as men, and need to have a hell of a lot more positions of power in business, education, and the government. Period. The thing that I am questioning, is when is enough enough?

Furthermore, when can men stop being punished for being men?

When can we be released from the role of Universal Villian?

Update: After I wrote this, I went to lunch and read this section of my favorite graphic novel, Preacher. Just too fitting to not add it to the end.

Down with the Trolls

Looks like shit hit the fan tonight with the Trolls. There were four or so cop cars sirens blasting chasing down people streaming from the undersides of the bridges. I could hear on the nearby cop radio people yelling and excited voices. So often do cops remind me of teenagers jacked up on adrenaline. None-the-less, I am glad that the police officers were there as there was a female victim of violence, and boy did they act fast. The witness to the crime was a tall scruffy looking man who was walking in orange crocs.

As soon as the first cop called it in, BAM, there was at least four cops patrolling (trolling ha) the local neighborhood. The firefighters showed up and started treating the girl who was directly across the street. She seemed shook up, but otherwise in good form. The interesting part is that every five to ten minutes another cop car zooms by at top speed, lights, sirens, the works.

As the incident wears down, the police take their statements from the witness. The SFFD ambulance takes the victim away to the local somewhere, and the street quiets back to it's normal grumble.

The Mark of the Beast

Today at work, I was chatting with one of my coworkers about her cat's new found outdoor adventuring. I suggested that she get her cat microchipped, in case she gets lost especially w/o a collar and tags, the pound will know who to call. She quickly shook her head in a peculiar way and said quitely, "I don't believe in that." Immediately, I said, "Why?" Her response- "It's against my religion."

Woah, wait a second, backup here. The last time I heard this mumbo-jumbo was back when I was living in Michigan, and thought it was shit back then. First of all, we are talking about cats and dogs, and cows here, not people. Though some nutter parents are considering microchipping their kids, creepy if you ask me (control freak much?) How does this all relate to religion? Well those microchips are the mark of the beast. Yup you got it, the Devil works through silicon! Who knew...?

Here's the two relevant passages, forgive me for using two different Bible versions, but since it's all the word of God, I suppose it doesn't matter of they were edited by King James or not.

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

-Rev. 13:17-18 (KJB)

He also forced everyone, small and great, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on his right hand or on his forehead, so that no one could buy or sell unless he had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of his name.

– Rev. 13:16-17 (NIV)

Left hand everyone, that's the key. You can do whatever you want to your left hand, bar code it, microchip it, tatoo 666 all over it, and it doesn't matter. Right hand only, oh and watch the forehead too...these passages just go to show how bonkers this whole line of reasoning really is. Now it may be that this whole thing is metaphorical, as religion really should be received. Perhaps it is some kind of a spiritual marking that it is referring to, and the whole forehead/righthand/lefthand thing is just some made up bullshit passed on over the years.

Furthermore, the kind of nutters that believe this crap are the same nutters who think that kitties have no soul, and are simply beasts put on earth for us humans. In that case, she should feel free to microchip her kitty anyway, who cares if it is a minion of the devil?

A Nice Chart

Via Boing Boing via International Federation of Health Plans.

Time- Human Invention, or Part of Reality?

I was listening to another perspective on KQED today. A rather artsy hippy type talking about time, and specifically how it is a human construct built upon an agreement of the concept of time. This lead me to wondering, is time a purely human construct?

This wouldn't be too suprising, as so many things are human constructs (in my humble opinion). For example, color distinction (there's really a spectrum, discrete colors are human), God and religion, money and economy (sorta- interesting work has been done on primates, but hey they are like our retarded cousins), and fashion. Some of these things extend into the animal world, but typically they don't go very far (like I've never seen a croc with a hat, or banana slug accounting). Even our political system is a hierarchy that extends from the same alpha/beta/gamma/delta system you see in social species like the great apes troops, prides of lions, etc- but clearly the political construct is a reflection of our humanity.

So, why not time?

In some ways I agree with the lady. Take the international date line. Is it really a different day on one side of the line vs the other? No. Obviously you can't have half of your body in one time/space point, and the other half one day later but same time/space point...it just doesn't make sense. That line is a human construct that helps to mesh the human perspective (living on a rotating sphere with a big bright sun in the center of our solar system) with the very non-human ticking of the atoms that make us up. Hell, I'd go so far as to say that the second is a purely human construct. Think about it, a second is 1/3600th of an hour, and an hour is 1/24 of a day, and a day is 1/365th of a revolution around our sun...OUR SUN. That's the human bit. A space invader from alpha-centuri isn't going to know what the hell a second is, they'll know what a falkinboo is- that's 1/4598th of a bookinva, which is 1/45 of a revolution around alpha-centuri. Or it's how many times their baby farts in an hour, whatever. The point is that clearly there are some things wrt time that really are human.

But that about time?

Personally, as a scientist, I think that time is one of the few things that is not simply human. We have a time t=0 - um the Big Bang; and we have an absolute metronome- the cesium atom. There was a gun that started the race 13.7 billion years ago, and every time an electron zips around a cesium atom, there is a steady ticking to count off the time between the bang of the gun and where we are now. This is pretty much all that you need to account for time.

It all gets screwed when you throw in the beautiful wrench that is Relativity. Basically time is not constant and depends on the frame of reference. If the frame of reference is moving or is in a gravitational field (eg Earth/Sun), then atomic clocks will tick differently. This has been proven with GPS satellites. They cruise around in an orbit around the Earth, in a smaller gravitational field than we do down here on Earth's surface, and their on board clocks slowly go out of sync with the ones on Earth. Now consider the Big Bang itself. Imagine the crazy gravity fields and energies and velocities and crazy shit that must have happened in those first few thousand ticks. Who knows what time was doing in those quantum moments.

Perhaps 13.7 billion years isn't so black and white. Perhaps that atomic clock isn't so tick-tock.

More Women Employed Than Men

In the next year or so women's employment numbers should surpass men's for the first time in US history.

That's big news.

On KQED they have a program called "Perspectives". It showcases different essays from people in the Bay Area. Yesterday, they had a labor guy on called Dick Meister who commented on some new statistics to come out of the Recession. Here's an article he wrote and some quotes from it.

"The number of women workers has been growing steadily for decades, but the number has boomed during the recession. That's partly because the greatest job losses have been in male-dominated fields such as construction and manufacturing. Men have lost more than three million jobs in those areas alone since the recession began in late 2007. Three-quarters of all jobs lost - a total of 4.75 million - were held by men. Women lost three million fewer jobs."

This translates into the fact that women have or are about to become the dominate gender in the workforce. One sad part is that some of this is due to the fact that women make less, and so were hired in greater numbers during the recession. That still needs to change because the quality of your work doesn't really depend on having a vagina or a penis (unless you are talking about certain heavy lifting jobs like fireman- I mean watch Rescue Me for a couple of seasons if you really want to debate this subject, in which case an over abundance of testosterone is an asset). Here is how Dick Meister put it.

"The figures are downright spectacular. Local governments, for instance, have laid off 86,000 men during the recession, but they have hired 167,000 women. That's largely because women generally are paid less than men and are hired mainly for office jobs, which typically are better funded than other government positions."

I am encouraged and frightened by all of this, which I think anyone in the position of "majority" going to "minority" might feel. I am encouraged to see that minorities status groups are capable of gaining equality. I suppose surprised wouldn't be the right word, as I've been mentioning the higher graduation rates of women for a few years now, but I am excited to see what will happen. I am frightened by what they may decide to do with that majority. So often in history the oppressed become the oppressors, and I just hope that this time will history will not repeat itself. Personally, I don't see how women could possibly fuck things up as bad as their male counterparts. Not to mention that most (if not all) matriarchal societies that I have read about are much more peaceful and prosperous than many patriarchal societies. I figure we've had our chance, time to move over and see what the ladies can do.

So I for one welcome our new overlords, and hope they are kind to their new minions.

PS

Sorry for the recent drought. I've got a couple things on deck, but work has been busy, and these blogs get wearing. Photoblog is still going!

Michael Pollan's Take on The Healthcare Debate

Read this from NYTimes contributor, Michael Pollan.

We have known about the link between diet and health for such a long time, it amazes me that nothing is being done to address this side of the puzzle. Even with a perfect healthcare system, can we really hope to expect to take care of every fat ass? At least the cost of healthcare is an incentive against unhealthy life choices, all be it a poor incentive. Can we really hope to keep people healthy if they get out of bed, eat breakfast, get in a car, go to work, sit in their office chair, get in their car, sit and eat lunch, get in their car, sit in the office, get in the car, go home, eat dinner while watching TV, and goes to bed- oh wait, was that a question?

"But so far, food system reform has not figured in the national conversation about health care reform. And so the government is poised to go on encouraging America’s fast-food diet with its farm policies even as it takes on added responsibilities for covering the medical costs of that diet. To put it more bluntly, the government is putting itself in the uncomfortable position of subsidizing both the costs of treating Type 2 diabetes and the consumption of high-fructose corn syrup."

Personally, I don't see how it is possible to attack one issue (the system and its problems) while not addressing the lifestyle issues as well. We as a culture are over fed, over worked, under rested, and we exercise far too little. Add on to this the issues that Pollan has consistently raised regarding farm subsidization and the Big Agro which runs our sad food supply.

What really strikes me as depressing is how you immediately see the same logical chain as any other societal problem, only inversed. Normally, you have a group that has its corporate model tied to a piece of legislation that will typically harm the industry by creating restrictions on a part of their corporate model. They lobby the government by lining the coffers of the government officials in charge of making these decisions. This derails the legislation, and voila nothing is accomplished.

Trying to take a notch out of Big Agro means government deregulation of their industry. This means taking out legislation in order to remove the restrictions on the industry. These incentives are things like farm subsides encouraging the growth of #2 Monsanto Corn. Here we are back at the corporate/government interface; Monsanto and Cargil lobby the department of agriculture and the Congressional committee that is responsible for the Farm Bill each year, and voila you get no changes in policy.

The light that Pollan sees at the end of the tunnel is something like this; we have the insurance companies fight the agro companies because when the insurance companies cannot just boot out chronic illness like type 2 diabetes anymore, then they have to deal with the root of the problem- the food system:

"But these rules may well be about to change — and, when it comes to reforming the American diet and food system, that step alone could be a game changer. Even under the weaker versions of health care reform now on offer, health insurers would be required to take everyone at the same rates, provide a standard level of coverage and keep people on their rolls regardless of their health. Terms like “pre-existing conditions” and “underwriting” would vanish from the health insurance rulebook — and, when they do, the relationship between the health insurance industry and the food industry will undergo a sea change."

New Favorite Camera - What I've been doing

Is actually a microscope, and it doesn't use light but uses electrons.

This is a sample of CIGS (CdInGaSe) which is the newish cheap way to make solar cells.

This is an attached x-ray spectrometer which looks at the energies of the x-rays that spew off of the sample b/c of the electrons that are bombarding it. It can be used to determine what materials are being looked at because each element gives off a special spectrum which is like a fingerprint of that element.

Here is what is inside an LED. There is a gold (Au) ball bond (it's squished) on the top colored in yellow. Red is gallium (Ga), and blue is arscenide (As) which is what makes up the material that actually shines light and you can see there is a bunch of Ga at the top, and a mixture (purple) towards the bottom. The teal is silver (Ag) that electrically and thermally connects the whole thing to the lead at the bottom in red which is made of iron (Fe).

Kinda awesome!