Woman Injured on a CTA Bus

I boarded the #22, Clark Street bus this morning on my way to work. A woman with a large suitcase boarded right behind me. The bus took off, just as I was in the process of sitting down a few rows behind the handicapped section. As he accelerated, the driver made a sudden move to the left, to pull out into traffic.

I would not characterize the driving as particularly reckless. I was actually pretty typical. Of course, some people are more vulnerable and prone to injury than others. For that reason, it might have been better if he had not been in such a hurry.

Just as I had turned around to take my seat, I saw the woman collapse onto one of the sideways facing seats, and lose control of her suitcase, which was on wheels. Another passenger and I secured the suitcase, and moved it out of the way. Initially, the runaway suitcase appeared to be the most serious problem.

The driver stopped the bus momentarily, due to the commotion. But it looked like he was thinking about taking off again. I saw that the woman appeared to be in pain, and I told the driver, “We've got somebody hurt back here.”

The driver didn't bother to get out of his seat, and see what the problem was. Instead, he asked me what had happened. I told him the woman apparently got hit by her suitcase, after losing control of it while he was taking off.

Rather than get out of his seat to see if the woman needed help, he just sat there with a worried look on his face. It was obvious that he was concerned about getting blamed for what happened, instead of just getting this woman some help.

I heard another passenger say something about the woman having dislocated her knee. Also, the victim explained that she had twisted her leg after losing her footing. So apparently, the suitcase was incidental to the problem. I asked the victim, “Do you just need a moment, or do you need an ambulance?” She said she needed an ambulance, and I immediately relayed that to the driver.

The driver was keying something into a device that resembled an ipad. I assumed he was summoning help. After about 20 seconds, he appeared to be finished, and I asked him if he had an ambulance on the way. He replied, “I guess I could call one.”

So I whipped out my cell phone, and announced that I was calling 911 myself. Another passenger said, “You don't need to do that. The driver will call for help.” I ignored him, and proceeded to call 911, and gave the dispatcher all the necessary information.

After the driver had apparently finished with his own call, he walked back to chat with the victim. She explained to him that she had dislocated her knee several times in the past. The driver was very sympathetic, and seemed pleased that the conversation was turning in this direction. It occurred to me that this remark may have just reduced her settlement by several thousand dollars. But that was really none of my business. People do need to learn when to keep their mouths shut.

As for the driver, he had obviously not been trained to deal with emergencies. I'm sure someone told him what to do in such situations. But you need to train people, not tell them. There is a difference. In an emergency, people tend to forget everything they've been told.

As it became apparent that the bus would not be leaving anytime soon, everyone in the rear of the bus started heading for the front door. I was concerned that someone might aggravate the woman's injury, by inadvertently brushing up against her on the way out. So I blocked the isle, and told everyone to exit through the rear door. They all did, except for one woman who remained behind until everyone else was off, and then managed to slip past me and exit through the front door.

As I saw the fire truck pull up, I wrote my name and contact information on a notepad, and handed it to the woman. I'd have given it to the driver as well, had he thought to ask for it. Then I hopped aboard the next bus, which was just pulling up behind us, and texted my employer, to let him know I might be delayed. Actually, I managed to make it to work on time anyway.

Special Prosecutor

Since the grand jury refused to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown, a number of other cases have come to light. Rather than comment on each of them, let me say that I do see a few problems.

For starters, there is such a thing as white privilege. A white man who has had to struggle for what little he has might have a problem with the concept, but it is a valid one nonetheless. However difficult a man's life might be, there are challenges that are experienced uniquely by women. This is no different.

I think people sometimes get caught up in a competition to see who gets to be seen as life's greatest victims. A necessary part of this competition is to minimize the significance of all obstacles other than one's own. A black person who fails to recognize the victimization of white people is doing essentially the same thing.

In each of these cases, where a black person was killed by a white police officer, we might ask what actually happened, to what extent the deceased was to blame for what happened to him, to what extent race played a role, and whether the officer committed murder, displayed incompetence, of simply did what had to be done.

Though I do have my own opinion about each of these cases, I have concluded that expressing what I continue to be the correct viewpoint, with no aim other than to show everyone who sees things differently than I do that they are wrong, serves no legitimate purpose. I have my viewpoint, and you have yours. Let's leave it at that.

Regardless of how one might judge a particular case, I think most of us can agree that there is something very wrong with a police officer being prosecuted by a prosecutor who routinely works in partnership with the police. The well intentioned prosecutor can turn a case over to a special prosecutor, to avoid any appearance of impropriety. But that option does nothing to restrain a prosecutor from deliberately throwing a case. We needn't agree that this has ever happened. Let's address it, because it could happen.

I am of the opinion that electing prosecutors serves no legitimate purpose. Theoretically, this is supposed to enable a prosecutor to pursue politically divisive cases, without having to worry about the possibility of antagonizing his superiors. But because prosecutors routinely work in partnership with the police, they are understandably reluctant to antagonize them. I suspect the election of prosecutors also increases the incidence of wrongful convictions, due to the pressure prosecutors are under to get convictions.

While I believe most cases should be prosecuted by a prosecutor who has been appointed by the local executive, I favor the creation of an Office of the Special Prosecutor, who would be elected, and whose job it is to prosecute cases which, in his judgment, might otherwise constitute a conflict of interests. I would like to see this done in every jurisdiction, from the county to the federal level.

Will this result in justice in every case? Of course not. It is unlikely that we will ever agree, as to what justice would even look like. But I do believe it offers us a better way of pursuing cases than we have now.

The greatest objection I see might be raised by those who would point to the shameful impeachment of President Clinton, with the help of a special prosecutor. The practice of sicking a special prosecutor on someone gives too little consideration to the possibility that a given case ought not to be pursued. The special prosecutor I'm talking about is an elected official, who takes it upon himself to prosecute a case or not, as he sees fit.

The Ferguson Grand Jury Decision

Nearly every news story on the incident in Ferguson refers to the shooting death of “Unarmed Teenager, Michael Brown.” They don't just call him Michael Brown. They always make a point of calling him, “Unarmed Teenager, Michael Brown.”

Despite being unarmed, I believe his behavior was such, that Officer Darren Wilson's use of his weapon was entirely appropriate. Were there inconsistencies in Officer Wilson's testimony to the grand jury? Absolutely, but show me a case where there are no inconsistencies in a witness' testimony. If he was lying about the Cigarellos, so what? Based on the video of Unarmed Teenager Michael Brown assaulting a shop owner a few minutes before his death, I consider it more likely than not, that Unarmed Teenager Michael Brown assaulted Officer Wilson as well. I don't care if he was unarmed. He was not entitled to a fair fight.

I agree with the decision made by the Ferguson grand jury, but I also agree with Reverend Al Sharpton's contention that the system is broken. Alleged misconduct by a police officer should be addressed by a special prosecutor, with no ties to the police, every single time. Furthermore, I don't believe the decision to call in a special prosecutor should be made by the county prosecutor. The special prosecutor should take the case, over the county prosecutor's objections if necessary.

In most jurisdictions, the county prosecutor is an elected official. Theoretically, this is supposed to grant the prosecutor sufficient independence, to enable him to prosecute police officers, and other public officials, without fear of upsetting his superiors. But because prosecutors work in partnership with the local police, they are understandably reluctant to jeopardize that relationship, by prosecuting them. I believe the county prosecutor should be appointed, and should be limited to prosecuting crimes that are not politically touchy.

I propose to establish an Office of the Special Prosecutor for each jurisdiction. This person will be elected. The special prosecutor's sole purpose shall be to prosecute cases in which the prosecutor is perceived to have a conflict of interests. The special prosecutor may consider taking cases referred to him by the county prosecutor, but will have ultimate authority to take any case, at his own discretion. He also needs the authority to decline any case that is referred by the county prosecutor. This will prevent the county prosecutor from attempting to sabotage his office by creating an excessive caseload.

One might wonder why I am calling for change, given that I approve of the grand jury's decision. If a man has been convicted of murder, I might maintain that he did not receive a fair trial, despite my belief that he is guilty. We need to be concerned about procedures, due to the effects they might have on other cases.

Public Assistance

In an economy where everyone shares equally in all that is produced, we would all starve. Individual responsibility is the source of all wealth.

There is such a thing as luck. But luck tends to be transient, and relatively unimportant in the overall scheme of things. Even if that wasn't true, it might be best to ignore luck, precisely because it is something we cannot control. In order to have an impact, we need to focus on what we can control, even if factors beyond our control are more significant.

Wealth can sometimes be seen as prima facie evidence of bad behavior, committed by either the wealthy individual, or by his ancestors. By allowing the wealthy to keep their ill gotten gains, we might be enabling the bad behavior that gave rise to it.

I believe that is a reasonable concern, more so in some countries than in others. Unfortunately, we don't always agree on what constitutes bad behavior. Even when we do agree, identifying the point where all accounts have been squared can be problematic. Though we might try to address past injustices to some extent, at some point, we need to accept the status quo, and grandfather in some past injustices, in order to move forward.

In a competitive environment, there are bound to be losers as well as winners. We might point to poor people, and show that their poverty is really their own fault, with some justification. But even if they were to develop the requisite virtues, rather than eliminate poverty, those formerly poor would merely displace someone else. There are arguments that might be raised against this line of reasoning. But there is at least a certain amount of truth to it. For my purposes here, I will simply accept it.

A man who has nothing might become more responsible, in order to get something to eat. But it is more likely that he will engage in some kind of criminal activity. If we put him in prison, we have to feed him while he is incarcerated. Why not feed him now?

What if we feed him, but now he thinks we ought to give him a car? What if he wants to have sex with your daughter, whether she likes it or not? At some point, putting him in prison might be cheaper than continuing to appease him. And even if we are talking about something that isn't going to break the bank, excessive generosity sometimes encourages further demands. But if you can prevent a man from breaking into your home by buying him a cheeseburger, you would be foolish not to give him that cheeseburger.

It is entirely possible that giving him some food that he has not earned will destroy any incentive he might have had to go out and look for a job. If we feed him, he'll just spend the rest of his life relying on those handouts. If a few people decide to spend their lives relying on meager handouts, simply allowing them to do so is probably better than any of the alternatives.

I do not believe making the government the employer of last resort, possibly by requiring people to work in order to receive benefits, is a good idea. That kind of employment is nothing like the employment one is likely to find on the outside, and any lessons learned would probably be counter productive more often than not.

I also do not believe welfare recipients should be required to take drug tests. The argument that I raised in favor of feeding people is more valid, rather than less so, if we are talking about drug addicts. If I allow another man to contract a contagious disease, because I am overly concerned that he might not deserve the medicine, I am foolishly endangering my own health. I believe accepting the fact that some people are going to get some help they didn't deserve is one of the prices we must pay for our own prosperity.

Up to this point, I have been explaining to conservatives, why they ought to support some kind of public assistance. But in no way am I advocating an increase in the minimum wage, which I consider to be little more than an infantile attack on employers.

Some people like to point out that many Walmart employees are receiving public assistance, and suggest that the taxpayers are thereby subsidizing Walmart, due to its failure to provide its employees with an adequate wage. While I would agree that society, as a whole, has a duty to provide a minimum level of sustenance to all its members, employers have no such obligation. I am not opposed to all labor legislation. But I do believe the minimum wage is something that we would be better off without.

While I support the concept of public assistance, I think the programs we have now are poorly designed, and often counter productive. Let's say a single mother works two jobs, and receives food stamps. She decides to squirrel away some money, so she will be prepared when her car quits running. Unfortunately, she will end up losing her benefits, once she has too much money saved up. She actually has to mismanage her affairs, in order to continue to receive benefits. Also, while she is free to use her benefits to purchase soft drinks, she may not use them to purchase tooth paste or toilette paper.

I think we should abolish the food stamp program, and instead give every U.S. citizen, who resides in the United States, a monthly check. We aren't worried about Social Security recipients taking their money out and buying booze with it. If that is what someone chooses to do with their money, that is their own business. Taking away that option discourages individual responsibility, instead of encouraging it.

Wouldn't the cost be prohibitive? Actually, it needn't cost any more than what we are doing now. If your taxes increase by $200 a month, and you receive a $200 check in the mail, it's a wash. That is money you were going to spend on food anyway. Some would pay more than they receive, while others would receive more than they pay. But I believe, compared to the system we have now, this program would benefit rich and poor alike. While tax revenues and public expenditures would increase, the overall cost to taxpayers would not.

Election Irregularities - Strange Phone Calls

I served as a Republican election judge, in the 43^rd ward, 13^th precinct of Chicago, for the general election that was held on Tuesday, November 4, 2014.

On Thursday, October 30, 2014, at 1:22pm, I received a recorded message from (224) 649-5636. I don't recall the exact contents, but it was political rambling that I found tiresome. I hung up after 33 seconds.

On Friday, October 31, 2014, at 8:49pm, I got another recorded message, this one from (224) 649-5601, which went to voice mail. The man, who identified himself as an election coordinator, advised me to vote early, because election judges are required to vote, and I might not have an opportunity to do so on election day. I found it odd that I had not been informed of such a requirement prior to this. But it didn't really concern me, as I had already voted.

He also stated that, as a Republican election judge, I was expected to vote for, and otherwise support, Republican candidates. My understanding was that this was considered a moral duty, rather than a legal requirement. I thought to myself, “This is bullshit. I'll support who I want to support.” I was perfectly upfront about my independent leanings when I was interviewed for the position.

He then said that additional training would be offered Saturday afternoon at a couple of south side locations. I had already attended training downtown that was provided by the Board of Election Commissioners, as well as a banquet event by the Republican Party, where we were encouraged to watch for improprieties. It didn't sound to me like this latest training was an actual requirement, but I was receptive to it nonetheless. Unfortunately, I already had other plans, and decided that I would have to pass on it.

On Saturday, November 1, 2014, at 10:11am, I received another recorded message from (224) 649-5601, also on voice mail, reminding me of the training that afternoon.

Because the potential criminal nature of these calls had not yet occurred to me, I deleted both recordings from my voice mail. However, I still had the information on my caller ID. I called the numbers, and got a recorded message from what appears to be a telemarketing company.

On election day, I learned that one of the other election judges, another Republican, had also received these calls, and still had them on her voice mail. Whether any Democrats got similar calls, I do not know.

Who made the calls? I do not know. It could have been Democrats who wanted to keep Republican judges from showing up. Or it could have been Republicans who wanted to keep the polls closed, thereby reducing voter turnout in heavily democratic regions. I consider both explanations plausible, but the second one somewhat more so.

I would guess that the people with the telemarketing company don't even know who they were dealing with. But as far as I'm concerned, they have an obligation to know, and they should be held accountable.

The Problem with Iron Dome

The Iron Dome missile defense system has served Israel very well. But it does have a vulnerability that they might want to consider. It is expensive to operate. I believe the best counter measure would be to exhaust it, by overwhelming it with decoys.

1. A sufficient number of decoys will degrade Iron Dome's response, possibly enabling actual warheads to penetrate Israeli defenses.

2. Decoys are less costly to deploy than rockets carrying actual warheads. But they are just as costly to shoot down.

3. The money that the enemy saves can be used to produce more accurate guidance systems for the actual warheads. The increased cost of these devices can be justified by the increased likelihood of them actually striking their targets, thereby necessitating a smaller number of warheads.

4. Decoys can be smaller than other rockets, making them easier to store.

5. Decoys are lighter, making them easier to transport.

A corner reflector is a device, consisting of three reflectors, at right angles to one another, that reflects electromagnetic energy, such as light or a radar signal, back in the direction from which it came. Normally, when a radar beam strikes a target, most of the energy is scattered, while a very small portion is reflected back to the source. A corner reflector reflects a larger portion of the energy back to the source, making it look, on radar, like a much larger object than it really is.

A rocket that is little more than a toy, but equipped with a corner reflector, can appear to be a much larger object, such as one that might level a city block. If the Israelis see such a device being fired at them, they will go to a great deal of trouble to shoot it down.

You might think a corner reflector could be carried within a rocket, as long as the rocket is made of a material that the radar can penetrate. If radar energy can penetrate a substance, that does not mean the substance is transparent to the radar. As an analogy, light can penetrate frosted glass. But frosted glass is not transparent, because the light is scattered in the process. This scattering would render a corner reflector inoperable. In order to work effectively, the corner reflector must be visible.

However, a corner reflector has very poor aerodynamic properties, and would probably need to be covered for that reason, for it to be incorporated into a rocket. I believe the best approach would be to design the corner reflector in a shape that is suitable to be placed within a rocket, and then to cover it with a thin transparent material. I believe rigid polyethylene, approximately 1/8 inch thick, would be about right.

The shape I would recommend is a 5” diameter five pointed star, which presents interior right angles. This star would be approximately 5” high, and sandwiched between two DVD's, with the mirrored surfaces facing inward. The exterior surfaces of the star would also have to be mirror surfaces. A surface that is smooth, but which does not have an actual mirror surface, is basically a wasted effort. The star could be a piece of sheet metal that is bent into shape, or it could be made of aluminum foil. But it must be perfectly smooth. Aluminum foil that is glued to a piece of cardboard would not work, because it is likely to contain a lot of dimples, which would reflect the energy in the wrong direction.

The resulting structure would be a cylinder, which could be encased within a polyethylene tube. There would also be sufficient room in the center for a 1” diameter pipe, which would provide the rocket with structural integrity. I lack the expertise to design a rocket. But I believe a good rocket scientist could take my idea, and build on it.

There are counter measures Israel might employ. I won't go into them. But I will say that they would be very expensive. They would also take time. And you don't have a lot of time when you have a missile coming at you. Basically, I believe the technology favors those who fire rockets, rather than those who would defend against them.

The Assault on Gaza, and the Palestinian Question

As Israel continues its assault on Gaza, the Israelis say they are merely defending themselves, against people who insist on firing rockets into their territory. Why are the Palestinians firing rockets into Israel? Supposedly, because they are intent on destroying Israel. Is that not what Hamas' charter calls for?

Actually, the Hamas charter calls for the dissolution of the Jewish state, a reform that even some Jews might support. It says nothing about killing Jews, or even expelling them from the land, which is how it is often interpreted by Israel's supporters.

Why are the Jews in Israel to begin with? Some Jews had lived in the area since ancient times. But the modern state of Israel was created by Jews from other parts of the world, who got the idea that they were entitled to the land, because their ancestors lived there 2000 years ago, ignoring the fact that it was conquered territory even then.

In demanding that Israel's enemies acknowledge Israel's right to exist, Israel seeks not merely an assurance that they are not about to be attacked, but an acknowledgement that God gave that land to the Jews. “Accept my religious beliefs, or I will kill you.”

Israelis are fond of pointing out that, if the Arabs disarm, there will be peace. But if the Jews disarm, they will be annihilated. That is probably true. But what bandit couldn't make the same claim, once he has the money in his possession?

I can appreciate that no country can tolerate rockets being fired into its territory. But the conditions imposed on the people of Gaza are so onerous that their determination to fire rockets into Israel is perfectly understandable. Given the blockade that Israel has imposed on Gaza, if I was living there, I would be firing rockets into Israel.

I would no more advocate the expulsion of all Jews from Israel, than I would return all of North America to the descendants of its original inhabitants. But in Israel, the conquest was more recent, and Palestinians continue to suffer the effects. Returning to the Palestinians, everything that they lost, is not realistic. But I believe they would be happy to settle for much less than that. When a Palestinian child has the same opportunities as a Jewish child, I am sure most Palestinians will be happy to relegate their displacement to the history books.

I, along with Hamas, advocate the dissolution of the Jewish state. I further advocate its replacement with a secular state, which makes no legal distinction between Jews and Arabs. I ask Jews, both within Israel, and outside of it, to support that proposal. And I ask the United States Congress to hasten an end to the bloodshed, by cutting off all military aid to Israel. Until it does so, the United States is funding genocide.

To the people of Israel, if you really want a lasting peace, treat the people of Gaza as you would treat Jewish refugees who had just arrived in your country.

Ban Electronic Calculators in Elementary School

If you can't multiply 25 by 32 in your head, you don't need a calculator. You need to work on your math skills. I think it's outrageous that people who are unable to do simple arithmetic are often employed as cashiers.

I am not against technology. I use a spell checker with my word processor. But I have the auto correct turned off. If I misspell a word, and it wasn't just a typo, in addition to correcting the word, I insert it into my smartphone app that generates spelling tests that I will sometimes use to practice while waiting on a bus.

Rather than rely on technology as an excuse for stupidity, we can use it to make us smarter. And my approach to using a spell checker also prevents silly mistakes from being made by the spell checker itself, as it tries to guess what I meant to say.

As far as I am concerned, there is no legitimate place for an electronic calculator in an elementary school, unless of course we are talking about a child prodigy who is ready to tackle logarithms at the age of eight. I'm not saying we should bring back mechanical slide rules, and log and trig tables. But a calculator will cripple a child who is trying to learn arithmetic.

In its place, I would recommend the Japanese abacus. The citizens of many Asian countries tend to excel at math. And I believe that is largely due to the continued popularity of the abacus.

A skilled operator can add a large column of numbers more quickly with an abacus, than with an electronic calculator. And unlike the electronic calculator, regular use of an abacus can actually enhance your ability to do math in your head.

Cliven Bundy

The United States Bureau of Land Management claims that Cliven Bundy owes roughly one million dollars in unpaid fees for allowing his cattle to graze on federal land.

Mr Bundy, on the other hand, maintains that it is his land, and that the federal government has no legitimate claim to it, and that he therefore owes them nothing.

In the early nineteenth century, disputes over land ownership were quite common, even in New England. One man might claim to own a piece of land because the King of England gave it to his grandfather. Another man bought it from the Indians. And yet another found it unoccupied, and started growing crops on it.

It is impossible for anyone to obtain a mortgage under such circumstances, because no one holds clear title. Over time, ownership was worked out through the courts. What was primarily a nation of squatters then became one of the most prosperous countries in the world, partly because homes could now be mortgaged, to provide capital for starting businesses.

In a dispute between two farmers, the winner would take the land, while the loser moved on, and eventually forgot about it. If a farmer was instead told that he was free to continue to farm the land, but without obtaining a title, that would likely result in a dispute that is never resolved.

That is essentially what has happened with these ranchers. Instead of owning the land, they have become tenants on land owned by a government that they see as little more than a parasite.

Allowing this situation to develop was reckless to begin with. This is land that should have been privatised a long time ago. I'm not saying we can't have national parks and nature preserves. But there is no justification for maintaining federal control over land that is to be used for grazing cattle.

Some might argue that, whatever Mr. Bundy's claims, he ought to press them in court. It might be further argued that anyone who defies governmental authority ought to be put down by force, lest the country be overrun by hooligans who feel entitled to disregard any laws they don't like.

The federal government could simply exterminate the ranchers, Waco style. Then we will likely see another Timothy McVeigh, followed by more abuses committed by the TSA, as they become increasingly paranoid. Maybe some guy will shoot some of them, and end up being seen as a national hero, on a par with Edward Snowden.

I'm not saying force should never be used. But I believe this is one of those situations where it is more likely to perpetuate the conflict than to resolve it.

One doesn't necessarily have to condone every Cliven Bundy has done, to recognize that a large scale divestiture of land currently managed by BLM might be the most pragmatic approach.

Longitude with no Chronometer

Measuring the latitude of your current location is fairly straightforward. Just subtract the sun's elevation from the elevation that would be expected at the equator, given the current date.

To measure longitude, determine the current time, using a sundial and a clock. Every 15° of longitude will introduce a discrepancy of one hour.

Prior to the invention of the marine chronometer by John Harrison in 1737, mariners estimated longitude, based on how long it took to make the trip. As you might imagine, this was not terribly accurate.

Actually, a chronometer is unnecessary. All you really need is a sundial, and a water clock. The ancient Greeks were already making very good ones. They were able to tell, for instance, when exactly twelve hours had elapsed.

Using a sundial, start your 12 hour water clock running at noon. At midnight, record the orientation of the stars. Henceforth, given the date, you can tell time at night, by observing the stars.

Now, we have two different methods for determining when midnight has arrived. We can use the sundial/water clock, or we can look at the stars. They should return the same answer, assuming we remain at the same location.

You can't use a water clock on a ship. But you can transport it, and set it up on another continent.

Determining when midnight has arrived, using the two methods already described, will now give us two different answers, with a discrepancy of one hour for every 15° of longitude.

Why are there white people?

White skin is better at producing vitamin D, with limited exposure to the sun  than black skin. White people also have a lower bone density than black people. So white people's bodies are better at producing vitamin D, while needing less of it.

I suspect the first people to migrate north out of Africa, and start covering their skin, suffered a lot of medical problems, caused by a vitamin D deficiency. The women preferred the men who had lighter complexions, because they were healthier. Over time, that's how you end up with a white race.

Currently, African Americans suffer disproportionately from hypertension. I suspect that is due to a vitamin D deficiency. The problem is compounded by the prevalence of lactose intolerance among African Americans, which prevents them from benefitting from vitamin D fortified milk.

Gelatin is almost pure calcium, and might be extremely valuable as a health food, if it was fortified with vitamin D. Unfortunately, it is also a pork product, which makes in unacceptable to Muslims.

Agar, a gelatin substitute, is made from algae. I believe the health of African Americans could be greatly improved, if a vitamin D fortified Agar desert, similar to Jello, was produced and marketed to African Americans.

Universal Healthcare

Given the alternative of allowing uninsured accident victims to bleed to death, support for universal healthcare is nearly unanimous.

The only real issues concern what gets covered and how to pay for it.

Some believe it is wrong to deny any treatment, based on the patient's inability to pay.

There are advantages to having money. Rich people live in the best houses, drive the best cars, wear the best clothes. If they also get the best healthcare, I see no injustice in that.

We, as a society, must decide what we are willing to pay for. Perhaps we will pay for certain life saving procedures, while refusing to pay for others, because the prognosis isn't good enough, or because it is simply too expensive. Yes, that does mean pulling the plug on Grandma.

What about breast augmentation? What if the person who wants it is a man? What about hair weaves? What if a convicted sex offender requests treatment for erectile disfunction? What if a psychiatrist determines it to be essential to the person's self esteem? What if we're talking about reconstructive surgery for an accident victim?

I am very much opposed to characterizing healthcare as a right, because that means everything must be covered. I would like to see a compassionate system, but one that allows us to say no.

What should we cover? Without getting into specifics, let's start out with a minimal system that doesn't cover anything that is the least bit controversial. Let's err in favor of covering too little, rather than too much.

To those conservatives who consider even that to be a dangerous precedent, I would point out that we had universal healthcare, well before President Obama came along. Hospitals could not legally turn away indigent patients. But if you had insurance, they might tack $100 onto your bill every time a nurse gave you an aspirin.

Rather than proposing a new entitlement, I am merely suggesting that there might be a better way of paying for the one we already had. I just think funding it out of the general revenue is more equitable than a tax on sick people, which is essentially what we had before.

Whatever is provided to those who are unable to pay should also be provided, free of charge, to those who do not wish to pay. The healthcare that is provided to the poor free of charge might wipe out your savings and launch you into bankruptcy if you have a decent income, even if you are insured. Let's put an end to that, and adopt the approach that has already been applied to the public libraries.

I think the first thing we ought to do is repeal the Affordable Care Act. Public libraries are one thing. But this legislation is tantamount to allowing the government to take over all the bookstores.

I see no legitimate role for insurance companies to play in providing universal healthcare. If you want something beyond the basic healthcare that is provided to everyone, you pay for it, possibly with the help of an insurance policy. Rather than a necessity, insurance ought to be a luxury, for those who can afford it.

Minimum Wage

Many people advocate an increase in the minimum wage, on the grounds that the current rate does not enable employees to adequately support their families.

Some employers have found that, by paying above average wages, they can actually come out ahead, by reducing turnover, and by hiring better people than their competitors are able to attract.

I love to see it work out that way. But this is an entrepreneurial decision. If people are unable to focus on their jobs, because they are showing up hungry, that would also be a legitimate concern for the employer.

However, depending on the business you are in, and the niche you occupy in the marketplace, paying people as little as you can get away with paying might be the most profitable course of action. So employers who choose to go that route are not necessarily guilty of mismanagement.

There is also the feeling that some are impoverished, because others have way too much, and that increasing the minimum wage is one way to redistribute the wealth.

I do not believe the minimum wage even reduces inequality. Some people make more when the minimum wage is increased. Others see their hours reduced, or lose their jobs altogether.

I have heard people say they wouldn't mind paying a few cents more per hamburger, to allow McDonalds to pay it's employees a decent wage. But a given McDonalds that sees a 10% reduction in sales might be forced to close, even if most of its customers do continue to patronize it as before.

There are reportedly studies indicating that increases in the minimum wage generally do not significantly affect unemployment rates. That is probably true, given that these increases rarely go well beyond where the market has already set wages. Let's try doubling the minimum wage, and see how that works.

But even when the effects on general employment rates are negligible, certain hard to employ groups, such as the handicapped and convicted felons, are likely to be disproportionately affected.

Studies that focus solely on unemployment data also fail to reflect income that is lost due to employees' hours being cut, or the higher prices we all end up paying whenever the cost of production is increased.

What we are left with, is the argument that people simply need more money. If people need more money, let's give it to them. But let's do that in a way that does not punish employers for hiring people. How can we do that? I'll leave that topic for another post.

So where should we set the minimum wage? Given that it does not appear to serve a legitimate purpose, I believe the best idea is to simply abolish it.