I decided not to join because…

I was afraid that the actual effect might have been “No Default User… and this affects me how?” I mean, for most no Google is serious but no Default User would be just another day.

:/

PS:
Indeed Phi was ahead of the game, first posting in November, 2011)

I had originally considered some kind of review of the past year or a big list of predictions for the next one. Instead, I will just express my gratitude to those who have read and those who have commented. I suppose this blog is to my readers what 2011 was for me: certainly not the greatest, but neither the very worst. Sometimes “just ok” is just ok.

While I cannot promise any major improvements for this blog, I do hope that 2012 is, for you, more than just ok. I hope this year is one of the greats.

I wish you all a happy, peaceful, and prosperous 2012. Thanks for reading.

For all the adults you normally give gifts to, declare that you will not be giving nor expect to receive any gifts. While you can claim economic reasons, I see the real benefits of stress (and waste) reduction. Besides the financial strain, the real hassle with gift buying is figuring out what to give. Christmas often seems a time when people receive gifts they don’t really like or need and give gifts that the recipient does not really appreciate. You avoid the bother of shopping and no longer have to fake excitement over another trinket that you have no idea what to do with (in the garage with last year’s I guess).

I, and my family, have done this for a few years now and barely miss the gift swapping ritual. To those who claim such an idea Scrooge like, I would suggest that if the only joy you get from meeting family or friends over Christmas is swapping useless gifts then, perhaps, gifts or their lack, are not the problem

My family excludes children from such truce. It may be a sign of materialism, but receiving gifts is a large part of the excitement for the younger ones, it seems cruel to foist on them something they may not understand. You can include older children in the truce, or perhaps, limit them to one most desired gift. The older children (e.g., teens) should be capable of understanding the aim of such a gift truce.

Whether you call a truce or engage in an all-out gift war, I wish you all a wonderful Christmas.

Notes:

Wow, it hardly seems like a year ago since I put my last Christmas message post.

I guess it is time to dig the decorations out of the closet.

            #
           ###
          #####
         #######
        #########
       ###########
           ##
           ##

because ASCII art never goes out of style.

Rarely mentioned is just how amazing such a thing is.

Taken at its description, the placebo effect implies that a person willed themselves better. That is they were able, via the power of belief, to create a cure as good as expensively developed treatments.

Critics will claim that the original complaint was “all in their head,” but that leaves us the question of how the patient was able to will himself to sickness (and subsequent health). Presuming no person wants to be ill and feel poorly, the question is why would he “create” an illness in the first place.

The mere fact that we can create, and extinguish, illnesses through though alone, is, to me, a remarkable thing. While I understand that you cannot placebo fix a broken leg, the ability of thought to achieve any repair is worthy of more than dismissal as just an effect.

Perhaps it is the medical version of “inner game.”

I do not intend this as deep analysis, but more an off-the-top-of-my-head style ramble. Such analysis is probably as deep as most primary voters will give the question, so maybe lack of deep analysis does not matter.

Mitt Romney

Mr. Establishment. A steady-as-she-goes type. He may not be deeply conservative politically but his conservative temperament probably means he would not do too much damage. While he appears to have shifted positions according to the electorate he faced, I am willing to believe he would govern as per his more conservative recent promises. He is the perfect establishment candidate who would not rock the boat. If he fails to win the presidency he can always make a living playing one on TV, as he looks exactly like the casting office idea a president.

Newt Gingrich

If Romney is the candidate who never had an original idea his advisors did not give him, then Gingrich is the candidate full of ideas his advisors would wish he did not express. He is like one-man think tank, and that is where he should stay. Perhaps the eventual president could appoint him as efficiency czar where he can implement his latest gee-whiz idea on six sigma for government.

Jon Huntsman

He sounds more conservative than I expected given his diplomatic corps background and his “I believe in evolution and global warming, call me crazy” tweet (that tweet seemed like a NY Times approval seeking cheap shot to prove he was not one of those awful Tea Party types). He is another steady-as-she-goes, safe pair of hands type.

Rick Perry

With his verbal gaffes and Texas background, it is too easy to resurrect the nightmare that was George W. Bush. Perry is definitely conservative, but probably too much in thrall to the Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party. He is probably better than his debate performances would imply (I heard an extended interview where he sounded ok) but that is setting the bar a bit too low. I had another point but …er… I cannot remember it. Oops! {You just knew I was going to use that tired old joke didn’t you?}

Rick Santorum

He is what your mother would call a nice young man. He seems earnest and pleasant enough. It is hard to dislike him; it is harder to imagine him as president.

Michele Bachmann

She appears to be solidly conservative. Even more than the standard Republican she seems sycophantically pro Israel and eager (at least very willing) go to war with Iran. When questioning the ability of women as leaders we can point to Margaret Thatcher; Bachman is no Thatcher.

Ron Paul

Last but surely not least. Much of the establishment hates him, the neo-cons hate him, the Republican Jewish Coalition did not want to debate him. If you can be judged by the friends you keep, you can also be judged by the enemies you acquire. On that basis alone Paul is worth a look. The problem is that while his support is strong, it is not necessarily deep. For candidates to win they must inspire support beyond their most enthusiastic base. Ron Paul supporters are probably the most eager and enthusiastic but Republicans still love the beat of the war drum. Paul supporters probably do not have a second choice and Ron Paul is probably not the second choice of many Republicans. I would love to see him win the nomination (I do not expect it) and love having him around if only for the angst he causes people like Sean Hannity and Mark Levin.

Summary

I know there are other candidates but I had (and expect you have too) only so much patience for these ponderings. I mean Gary Johnson should just endorse Ron Paul and save some time and money. It looks like Herman Cain needs to save his marriage not the country (anyway, as the German’s would say nein, nein, nein!). Tim Pawlenty dropped out; this was a pity, as few knew he had entered.

For those waiting for my endorsement (and I know you are) it is, of course, Ron Paul. I do not really expect him to garner the nomination or win the general election if nominated. While he is on the stage, we at least have some debate over ideas, compared to the more of the same-old-same-old with the other candidates.

Sadly, if the Republicans run Ron Paul as the candidate and lose they will learn the lesson to never run such a candidate again. If they run an establishment candidate and lose they will, naturally, ignore that lesson and instead concentrate on minority or Hispanic outreach.

Many believe Obama will be easy to defeat in 2012. I am not so sure. It is true that the economy is bad, but both parties can take the blame for that. A Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney would not excite either the Republican base or undecided voters. While the glow is off Saint Obama, many might decide to stick with what they know.

A Ron Paul versus Obama debate would offer a stark contrast of visions. While that would frighten the establishment, it might frighten the voters even more. A Romney/Obama match up would probably be most comfortable for all.

Like most of the polls, I can state with 95 percent confidence, plus or minus two percent that I expect one of the candidates to win. With 100 percent confidence, I can state it will make little difference. Still, listening to the debates while I do other things can pass the time.

In an earlier post, I suggested a tax on wealth instead of a tax on high income. However, that may not be politically palatable, as too many it smacks of socialism. Buffet’s lower tax rate is due to dividends suffering a lower rate of tax than other forms of income. The logic (and yes, I realize the logic is convenient for the wealthier political donors) is that the corporate income is already taxed, before becoming dividends.

What I suggest is that we cut the corporate income tax rate to, say, 5 percent, but charge dividend income as regular income. This would allow Buffet and friends to pay tax at rates they deem fairer and might encourage capital formation or the repatriation of overseas profits. Such rate changes are likely easier to implement than more complex “reform.”

I am sure such changes could be set to achieve the magical “revenue neutral” effect on the budget. It might even allow Warren to pay as much tax as his secretary.

Notes:

I suggest a low corporate tax rate rather than a zero rate because I hope to slyly capture some pass through income from corporations flying flags of convenience. At current rates US companies may headquarter or declare profits overseas to avoid high rates. I would hope that a low rate would convince overseas companies to do the same in the US.

Regarding the tax on wealth and “socialism”: I see true socialism as about ownership, control, and a punitive attitude to wealth. While punitive is, to some degree, in the eye of the beholder, I feel that a low enough tax on wealth is no more punitive than a tax on income, sales, or any of the other myriad of existing taxes. Capitalistic societies provide strong protection for property. It does not seem unfair that such property bears a charge for that protection. Of course, such a tax is not without its own problems (e.g., the cash poor but asset rich) and opens another channel of potential abuse.

While few of us have death wishes, the thought of living forever can cause some queasiness. I suspect this is due to how they consider the question.

It will likely come on the installment plan

Most people consider the prospect of eternal life as something offered right now as a one-shot deal. Eternal, or massively extended life span, will happen by smaller extensions or postponing of the various debilitating elements of aging or illness. You may feel uneasy when considering living forever, but will probably never refuse another five years. I suspect that this gradual postponement (forever on the never-never) is how some may live forever.

You will not be alone

When considering living forever many assume they will be like the character in Highlander. They assume that they will forever watch those they care about grow old and die. In the movie, only the hero (and a few other immortals) could live forever. If medical and scientific advance does offer us eternal (or greatly extended) life, it will offer it to most of us. It will not be a case of a few immortals watching their loved ones grow old and die; it will be a case of not growing old together. It will not just be extra years for yourself, but extra years for your friends and loved ones.

So, Who wants to live forever

I am not entirely convinced on the likelihood of a transhuman/singularity future. However, I cannot see anyone turning down the chance at a “few more years.” I am not even sure it is a good thing for us all to live forever. Of course, I do not worry about me, or my loved ones; it is all those other people clogging up the earth by living forever that worry me.

I still have not answered the youthful philosophical question of living forever, have you? Would you want to live forever? How would the world cope with an ever growing population (no, or few, deaths to balance out even falling birth rates). Would anyone have children if they already had achieved immortality by not dying? What would a world of increasingly old (even if very healthy) persons look like? Is the prospect of death an important part of living?

I know, too many questions for a Monday, but at least it offers a break from “Cyber Monday” bargain hunting.

If accused of racism explain that “I don’t give a damn.” When accused of sexism reply: “My dear, I don’t give a damn.” To the charge of misogyny reply: “My dear, I don’t give a damn.” To claims of your selfishness let them know that you “don’t give a damn.” To charges of nativism or isolationism, just explain that you “don’t give a damn.”

I think you get the picture. And if you don’t like this post, just be aware, that I don’t give a damn.

It looks like the “Super Committee” setup by congress to propose deficit reduction policies will fail. This means automatic across the board cuts. These cuts would include cuts to military expenditures. While Republicans express disdain for the welfare state, they still seem beholden to the warfare state. Conservative think tanks such as The American Enterprise Institute decry the “gutting” of military that such cuts would entail. Indeed some Republicans are looking at ways to get around the process they set up.

Republicans love to lecture us about “difficult choices.” Well they now face a difficult choice. It is blood or treasure. Republicans face a choice to give up their beloved tax cuts, or cut back on the warfare state.

Even a fifty percent cut in military expenditure would still leave the US outspending every other nation. If congress (and the Republicans) will ask ordinary citizens to cut back (on Social Security and medical benefits), then it seems only fair to ask those getting fat on military contracts to do their bit. We could call it the war on deficits. Perhaps that would be a war actually worth fighting.

Notes:

While military expenditures are the largest item of discretionary expenditure, they are dwarfed by the mandatory expenditures of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. I think we should consider all expenditure as “discretionary.” However, given the constitutional role of national defense, it seems absurd to consider the military discretionary but the welfare programs of Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid mandatory.

Rather than attempt to fight an unwinnable battle, I want to consider the ways in which what science knows is similar to what religion preaches.

Creation

The so-called Big Bang sounds much like a moment of creation to me. Even the sequence sounds like a detailed version of the allegorical Biblical description (from light, to matter, to planets, to life). Even if you do not want to consider God, you still might like to know what the Universe expanded into (and if it has an end, what is beyond it), and why that pinpoint of matter or energy existed in the first place.

The Hand of God

Scientists ascribe some unexplained phenomenon to things such as “dark matter” and “dark energy”. The religiously inclined could see the “dark” stuff described here the invisible hand of God keeping our world running (“dark” referencing unseen and not the work of the dark master – the Devil).

Heaven

Black holes are a place where spacetime becomes so distorted that time has no meaning. Upon entering a black hole future, past, and present would become one (at least compared to outside the black hole). Such a place sounds much like the eternity of the afterlife described by many religions.

Really?

Am I really trying to prove the existence of God? Of course not. Many minds smarter than mine have fought that hill; this is more a light (very light) philosophical discussion for a Sunday (perhaps showing the bias of my Christian heritage) afternoon. I am sure that sharper intellects could build on (or tear down) these musings.

I wonder if religion and creation stories have something to do with the development of consciousness. Could the Adam and Eve story derive from folk history of that first moment of conscious (direct awareness of self and others) of early humans?

PS
When I considered this post, it seemed so much smarter than it does as I read the final version.