A final word...

on chips.
Not Doritos.
Microchips.

 What exactly is the endgame here?

Knowing what we know about these cybernetic implants, we understand that they can theoretically be used to help a doctor arrive at a correct psychiatric diagnosis. That is, if the person being subjected to the implant is unaware of its presence.

The most accurate readings you would receive from something like this would take place in the time slot between implantation and discovery of the implant's existence by the test subject.

By the way, in my case, a period of 6 or more months is plenty to gather someone's "baseline."
Why don't you ask to see those records (I'm kidding, it's none of your business anyway. But it would prove my point.)?
Those would be the most accurate results available.

After the "discovery," the results are totally tainted.
Except for those moments in which you forget it's there, which happens only minutes at a time.

So, since we know that these things only work properly when they are unbeknownst to the implantee, the only plausible uses are upon people who do not have the wherewithal to understand what is happening to them. In other words, people who can be taken advantage of.

Let's say we have a child with a severe form of Autism, and their parents worry about them wandering.
This implant company goads their parents into offering their child up for this type of implantation.
While the child is sleeping, the implant is inserted.

Sure, I'm sure much could be gleaned from studying that child and others like him.
Then what?

Eventually, data would have been mined from every nook and cranny about Autism.

What's the plan then? Would they keep creating and inventing "patients" to implant, and hire one person for every chipped person to "watch" over them to create jobs? They tout job creation as an excuse for this, you know.
Wouldn't there be much less invasive ways of monitoring your special needs child?

I say "invasive" because you need a brain surgeon to fix the problem of having 0 privacy whatsoever.
Would you be willing to be hooked up to a machine for an "accurate diagnosis" only to have brain surgery later?

Probably not.
Traditional methods still work.

Even with an Autistic wanderer, don't they have simple GPS units available which could be utilized in the incidence of a disappearance?

So, just who would be the "target" of these new implants?
I'm struggling to come up with answers for this.
Probably because there are no legitimate "targets."
Unless you want to release psychopaths from prison and monitor them with some kind of pre-crime division, or something crazy like that. (Please don't. Keep them behind bars.)

This isn't about creating jobs for the American people, it's about corporations convincing you that you somehow need to purchase their product. It's about making money and the omnipresent possibility of serial abuse of a powerful product.

What if a hostile foreign power got its hands on this and implanted our president or one of our high-ranking cabinet members? We have absolutely no idea what kind of havoc could be wreaked if something like that were to ever happen. I hope it doesn't ever, but stranger things have happened.

It's a flawed product peddled on a flawed premise.
They're trying to sell something that doesn't even work properly when used legally, only illicitly.

There is no market for this.
Tell them to peddle their snake oil elsewhere.

"Cheating."

Does it ever prosper?

;-)

College.

If you were to go around and ask most people what the purpose of college is, some would say "to make friends and party." Some would say "to play sports." Thankfully, most would answer with the usual "to prepare you for the career of your choice."

But what if this statement was at least partially incorrect?
What if it had a little more to do with money than we might suspect?

Everyone knows college is too expensive.
Part of the problem, in my opinion, is forcing people to take courses which have absolutely no relation or relevance to the jobs that they are seeking upon graduation.

Essentially bundling together needed goods and services with ones that they don't really need.

Why on earth should someone who is majoring in History or Psychology have to take courses on things like Algebra or English?

(If you've passed these courses in High School once before, isn't that enough to prove you can handle being a History teacher or Psychologist down the road?)

By narrowing the focus only upon courses and materials which pertain to your chosen field, school could be a bit cheaper if you ask me.

If you ask me again, it's not just about educating people.
It's about money.

"Hi, welcome to McDonald's. How may I help you?"
"Yes, I'd like a Big Mac, please."
"Okay, one Big Mac meal. What size fries and what to drink?"
"No, you see, I already have fries and a drink. I just need the burger."
"Sorry, we don't do that here. You must buy the whole meal."

One of my good friends always chimes in with his usual refrain that "College is a scam."
More and more these days, I am inclined to agree.

I have a challenge for my friends who have earned degrees.
Go back through all of your courses, tabulate which ones were totally irrelevant to your concentrations, and add up how much money you would have saved if you were to cut those courses out.

Think about it.
Student debt needn't be so outrageous because the school system is kind of corrupt.

Some food for thought.

Keeping in mind, this doc is from 1979.
Much has changed since then.

(Chips these days can administer ECT, track your whereabouts, as well as transmit your thoughts and the things you see to a supercomputer. The technology currently exists to handle hooking EVERYONE up to these things.)

Even just the fact that you could be implanted while awake without ever feeling a thing ought to trouble you.

Certain subsets of people could be persecuted if you were permitted access to their private thoughts.

Job creation is no logical excuse to proliferate nuclear weapons.
It doesn't pass the smell test.

This is much, much bigger than jobs.
Maybe you will agree.

This needs to stop.

Because more ideas can never hurt...

I figured I'd share this idea that I came across in the paper the other day.
I am sure you can find flaws with it somewhere if you poke at it enough, but the reasoning behind it seems to be sound.

Remortgage America.

It's kind of like a G.I. Bill for everyone who meets certain minimum standards.

I wonder if the super committee is listening.

Today's Featured Presentation...

A 1996 documentary titled "The Money Masters: How International Bankers Gained Control of America."

It touches on the history of money, as well as provides a blueprint for fixing our country's debt crisis, called the "Monetary Reform Act".

The documentarian, Bill Still, deserves a Nobel Prize.

You can be cooler than all your friends by watching this first, before everyone else gets around to it.


The Story.

The Plan.

Dam It!

As predicted by many, Rick Perry has quickly shot toward the top of the polls in the competition for the Republican nomination for the Presidency.

Rick Perry is a choice for voters who admire some of Michele Bachmann's traits, but want someone with executive experience. Maybe even an economic record to run on.

Or, he is for those who admire some of Bachmann's traits, but are reluctant to vote for a woman.

You take your pick.
I'm not even trying to be funny.

Switching gears, I saw in the news the other day that there is a proposed dam to be built in Pakistan, set to cost upwards of $12 billion dollars.

Meanwhile, the border with Mexico remains as porous as Swiss cheese.
Our bridges are collapsing and our roads are crumbling due to neglect.
Tunnels are not up to code.
It's actually a public safety issue.

While I agree that the pie really needs to shrink overall, it would be great if infrastructure spending took up a little more of that shrinking pie. Let's also make it abundantly clear that you don't need a stimulus to allocate funds for infrastructure.

One thing that irks many Americans is when we spend money elsewhere when we could really use it here at home. Closing down hospitals and schools in the US and building them in Afghanistan. Stationing large numbers of troops in Europe, giving many European governments the ability to skimp on their defense budgets while they provide cradle-to-grave entitlements and lavish pensions for their citizens that we could never afford for ourselves, even if we were ever so inclined.

My main idea?
Take things away from other people before you do so to Americans.

Going back to that proposed Pakistani dam project, that money being spent right there would almost be enough to build a high-tech border barrier with Mexico.

It almost makes you feel like politicians have been playing politics with seriously attempting to close down illegal immigration and drug smuggling. After glancing here, you might be kind of irked that nothing has been done about the problem yet.
It's relatively inexpensive. It's a drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things.

The problem, of course, is politics.
Some on one side want cheap labor, and some on the other side pander for votes.
Any other hypotheses on why nothing has truly been done yet?

If 100 people running around in caves in Afghanistan are a threat to national security, why isn't a porous 2,000-mile border with Mexico also a threat to national security?

We don't take it seriously enough.

Remember last year during the oil spill when the frustrated President said "Plug the damn leak!"?

That's how many Americans feel about the border situation.

On a final aside, I'm interested in hearing the President's speech on jobs this coming Thursday.

Maybe he's realized that the only way he is going to get any additional revenues is through comprehensive tax reform, and I hope he chooses to take advantage of that opportunity for bipartisan compromise to enact pro-growth policies that would benefit the country as a whole.

Something else to note: many Right-leaning Independents and Republicans are stimulus-ed out. People in general have little faith in their governments to do anything right. Look at the first stimulus. Not even 10% of that money went into roads and bridges. We were once bit, but we're twice shy.
What am I saying?

The "S"-word just might be a non-starter, especially with a debt-to-GDP ratio eclipsing 100%.
It just might be.

And it's not our fault that it's gotten to that point.