Voting 99.9% legitimate

When I wash my hands using the soap besides my kitchen sink, the label clearly states that it kills 99.9% of all germs (Reference).

Personally I find this comforting, unnecessary maybe, but comforting all the same.

When I hear the results for public elections in the United States, especially national elections, I understand that these results are 99.9% accurate.

• In 2008 more than 120 million people cast ballots for the November election (reference). Even with an aggressive agenda of stopping voter fraud, the Justice Department was unable to charge more than 200 people (reference).

Even if we were to subtract 10million votes from the 2008 election, we would still need to find 120,000 cases of voter fraud to equate to .1% of the total ballots cast. With all of that said, I feel pretty confident when I hear the final results, naturally barring exceptionally close races were recounts are warranted.

Now, on the subject of voters being required to provide a photo ID in order to cast a ballot, I feel that this is a completely unnecessary measure.

I believe that it would be a nearly impossible task to eliminate 100% of all voter fraud, much the same as it would be impossible to eliminate 100% of any such discrepancy (i.e. germs on hands).

There are some cases of ballot fraud, but requiring citizens to provide a government issued photo ID at the ballot box is not going to fix this problem. Remember, there are far more cases of false ID in the United States than there are of ballot fraud (reference).

For me it comes down to an issue of individual liberties and government control.

I agree that it is a relatively minor task, that I provide photo identification at the ballot box. Honestly, I already have two government furnished photo IDs.

However, it is an unnecessary request and equates to just another government requirement.

In reality this requirement, or anything of the sort, stands to accomplish two things:

1. Place an additional barrier between citizens and the ballot box
2. Add another item to an already long list of government requirements.

Again, if we are already looking at a statistically insignificant amount of wrongfully cast ballots, what good does this sort of requirement stand to accomplish?

Gasoline Prices

Now, before I present the bulk of this particular post for public viewing, I would like to clarify a few things:

1. I greatly appreciate nature and the ability to enjoy a wide variety of environments. I personally feel that the continued existence of the myriad ecosystems on this planet presents some quantifiable value [be it emotional, monetary or otherwise].
2. Although I still drive a car, fly in airplanes and ride on ships, all of which contribute to global pollution in some manner or another, I feel that we should be looking for long-term solutions to our current dependence on petroleum as the primary source of power.

Maybe the above makes me an environmentalist, I'm not quite sure, but that was never my intent.

Anyway, to the point.

I have often been confronted with the question: "Who is to blame for high gasoline prices?"

To which the general response is: "Liberal environmentalists."

Now, as a person who buys plenty of gasoline and might be considered some sort of an environmentalist, I take issue with this rapid assumption.

The following constitutes my response to the continued [and mistaken] belief that 'liberal environmental policy' has severely impacted gasoline prices through the theory of supply & demand:

The United States produces approximately 9.1million barrels of oil per day while it consumes approximately 18.7 million barrels per day. reference

The remaining 9.6 million barrels are imported from a variety of countries (chiefly Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela). reference

• In regards to domestic supply, we might be able to marginally increase our supply through relaxed regulation, but this figure would not significantly affect the sum-total of our supply. Proposed ANWR drilling would net approximately .7million barrels per day. reference

• In regards to foreign supply, we exercise a great deal of influence over our primary importers. We do this through acting as the largest single customer in some cases (reference reference reference) and through strong military ties in other cases (reference reference) -sometimes it's even both-

With the faulty argument being that, hash environmental policy reduces domestic supply, thus forcing the Untied States to procure imported oil. It is important to consider that domestic supply is relatively constant (regulations or not) and foreign supply is relatively secure.

Now, the question remaining:

If environmentalist regulations aren't causing the high gasoline prices, what is?

To that I say, rampant speculation along with enterprising oil executives.

In defense of this proposition I present the facts that in 2008 (a time of reduced demand) major petroleum companies produced less product while earning record profits (reference reference reference).

I'll be the first to acknowledge that, as a rule, corporate charters generally demand that companies do what is best for the shareholders. I'll also be the first to admit that petroleum companies often operate on very low profit margins.

However, I will point out recent dramatic consumer price increases were not correlated with any 'liberal policy' and had little to do with actually supply or demand (domestic, foreign or otherwise).

The only logical explanation for any price increase at at time of reduced demand (in a recession no-less) is that the large petroleum companies were capitalizing on the gullible American public in an attempt to look-out for their shareholders, which is also completely logical.

-end rant

Eight for 2012

Of late I have found myself engaged in several interesting debates.

Generally, when I start talking to someone [through which ever mode of communication] I spend time to carefully research my points and respond to any counter-points. Upon the conclusion of any such debate I am usually left with a bunch of information that goes as far as a folder on my desktop. Now, I don't have any particular complaints about this pattern, however I started thinking that I might be better served to catalogue these discussions someplace.

This being my blog, would seem to be the perfect place.

That said, I plan to enter any such debates [of note] into this here so that they may serve as one of my marginally sound theories.

Weekly

What happens in a week? I have come to the conclusion that it is often less productive and less enjoyable to base any long-term project on a weekly system. There are some notable exceptions to this thought including retail and emergency response, but I digress.

When a long-term set of goals is established (i.e. improving communication for a large organization), you must allow for an initial period of vigilant monitoring and oversight. However, after the critical jumping-off phase, changes must be allowed to happen without the constant oversight that may have been necessary during the first push. Beyond the first drastic changes that must occur, most long-term changes do not materialize in a week’s time, so the oversight of a weekly ‘meeting’ is usually unnecessary. The pressure of providing some tangible results for a long term project on a weekly basis is more likely to detract from any forward motion than it is to propel it.

I say this through my own experience and observations, however I think that this theory would prove true in a number of situations. I think that asking for short term and constant results on a long term project is akin to creating a bunch of busy work that has little relevance to the overall goal of any particular group.

not in my inbox

*********

I realize that you send chain e-mails from time to time and that is fine. Once in a while they are humorous or cute and I appreciate that. However, I found this particular e-mail completely offensive and unnecessary. In our home we often have three wonderful kids who also happen to use the computer quite frequently. As a rule I don't try to hide anything from them and as such it is completely possible that they should happen upon my e-mails from time to time. Their names are *******, *******and ********, and the author of the e-mail you sent me might refer to them as 'yellow.' 

The above being said, we try to be as honest with them as possible in an attempt to give them a healthy world perspective. I consider the chain e-mail aptly titled 'Proud to be white' to be not only dishonest, but also classless and racist. Racism thrives on attitudes like those expressed in this e-mail -- attitudes that ignore the privilege that white members of society enjoy.  Why is there no White Entertainment network?  Because EVERY network is a white entertainment network.  It's like saying "woman doctor" -- the assumption is that doctors are, by default, male.  

In keeping with showing our kids a healthy attitude I would appreciate them not seeing racist e-mails coming from people in my family. 

Beyond all of that, even if we didn't have children I still would not appreciate receiving racist e-mails. I realize that everyone is entitled to their own opinions in this world and that is fantastic, but when I receive messages based upon the assumption that I not only agree, but should also help spread the ideas I lose respect for the people that send such messages. 

Again, I'll grant that people are entitled to their opinions and you are no exception. I will never ask that you should change your opinions, especially on account of me, but I will ask that you refrain from sending e-mails concerning 'Proud to be white' style subject matter in the future. 

Thanks,

*****

The perpetual attempt at perpetuation

It is a completely logical aim for any society to seek both the perpetuation of itself and of the individuals that comprise its populace. To this end governing bodies  are put into place and laws are created to afford a means by which said government can attain this sought out self-perpetuating state. 

Mouth of the Bayou

So there I sat, hard upon the rocky soil under that solid tree. While the sun cast sleepy orange rays through the haze, I watched as that aging house slowly faded, panel by failing panel. 

Many years stretched out, before and behind me. I could remember a time when those panels shone brightly in the evening sun and the windows reflected a grassy lawn before the bustling mouth of the bayou. Funny -- just as I could readily remember these picturesque days, I could just as easily foresee the day when the decrepit timbers of this strong house would slump here upon the rocky soil in one lifeless heap. 

Honestly, it isn’t out of sadness nor some somnambulistic impulse that I recite these thoughts of mine. I feel no pity for those strong timbers, nor for those mourning souls who have long since deserted the site. It’s really more of a morbid curiosity that I have, and a wonderment at such forces as might have conspired to bring about such a strong house and, in due time, crumble it into such a pile of languid timber.