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.