tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-31294652239427548872024-02-08T00:25:14.257-05:00Quantum John"Quantum" (singular): The smallest quantity of radiant energy.<br>
"Quantum John": An assorted collection of various and sundry bloggie-type topics, all of which require only the smallest amount of interest for me to include here...Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.comBlogger125125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-33929837103507237412015-05-18T10:55:00.000-05:002015-05-18T10:55:39.056-05:00How much is Anavex Life Sciences (AVXL) worth?In my opinion, the value of Anavex stock depends on the upcoming results of the phase 2a clinical drug trial of Anavex 273 which is currently underway. The preliminary results are scheduled to be released in the 3rd quarter of 2015 (July-Sept.). If that news shows it is at least marginally effective against Alzheimer's (and by extension, against Mild Cognitive Impairment), then Anavex stock will be worth a lot. If that news shows it is ineffective, it will be worth very little.<br />
<br />
I have Mild Cognitive Impairment, which may be an early stage of Alzheimer's, and there are no effective drugs for MCI or Alzheimer's. I noticed I have not been posting on this blog, but on Facebook, but since I noticed that, I decided to also put this here so perhaps more people can see it. DISCLAIMER: I own a bunch of Anavex stock, although I hope Anavex 273 works well more for my brain than for my portfolio.<br />
<br />
Anavex Life Sciences is still in an initial research stage, meaning it has no products yet, and no revenue. That means a lot of traditional means of valuating a company won't work. For example, you can't apply a "times-earnings" formula, because they have no earnings. There are many ways to estimate a company's value, however, and here is what I came up for Anavex with a few years ago. This is based on Avavex 273 being effective, because if it is ineffective, it will be worth near zero.<br />
<br />
Estimate the number of patients who could benefit from Anavex 273 before its patents expire, estimate the lifetime retail value per patient, and multiply those to get an estimate of the total retail value of Anavex 273. Estimate a profit percentage to remove the costs of manufacturing, distribution, marketing, etc. and multiply it by the total retail value to estimate the company value. This value is based on Anavex 273 (and the Anavex 273 Plus variant) only, and does not include the other sigma receptor drug candidates the company has in development because they are not as far along in the development process. You can estimate the value per share simply by dividing the estimated company value by the number of shares, but the share should include exercisable options, warrants, and convertible debt, not just the current float or outstanding shares.<br /><br />Here are some estimates I came up with a long time ago:<br />
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse; width: 396px;">
<colgroup><col style="mso-width-alt: 9984; mso-width-source: userset; width: 211pt;" width="281"></col>
<col style="mso-width-alt: 4096; mso-width-source: userset; width: 86pt;" width="115"></col>
<tbody>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt; width: 211pt;" width="281"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Number
of U.S. Patients, Alzheimers only</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; width: 86pt;" width="115"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">14,000,000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Lifetime Value Per Patient,
retail, A-273 only</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">$10,000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Retail Value</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">$140,000,000,000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Profit Percentage</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl66" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">20%</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Company Value, A-273 for
Alzheimers only</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">$28,000,000,000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"></td>
<td class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Outstanding Shares (if all are exercised)</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">116,400,000</span></td>
</tr>
<tr height="18" style="height: 13.2pt;">
<td class="xl64" height="18" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext; height: 13.2pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">Value Per Outstanding Share,
A-273-Alz only</span></td>
<td align="right" class="xl65" style="background-color: transparent; border: 0px windowtext;"><span style="font-family: Arial; font-size: x-small;">$241</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody></colgroup></table>
<br />Substitute your own estimates and see your own what-if analysis. My notes say my estimates are for U.S. Alzheimer's patients only because that was the only reliable numbers I could find. There are many millions more worldwide with Alzheimer's and others with Mild Cognitive Impairment, but those numbers are much harder to track down or estimate. My lifetime value per patient estimate is based on an initial therapy period followed by a permanent maintenance dose. I have a vague recollection that someone told me my profit percentage estimate may be quite low -- but I am not a stock analyst and I am not an expert in the pharmaceutical industry. My total for outstanding shares was calculated a long time ago, and in the most recent meeting-in-lieu-of-an-annual-shareholders-meeting, shareholders authorized Anavex to issue more shares, and I have not reexamined their SEC filings to update an accurate count.<br />
<br />
As of this writing, Avavex is still trading below half a dollar per share. Its price between now and the phase 2a trial results are anyone's guess, because the stock market is an auction, after all, so it is subject to issues of awareness, emotions, and estimates on the likelihood of success in the phase 2a trail. If the trial is successful, there should be lots of articles about it, which can dramatically increase awareness of the stock and increase positive emotions about it, leading fewer people to sell and more people to buy, which is the standard recipe for dramatic increases in stock prices. Based on my estimates above, there is a lot up upward potential.<br />
<br />
If my estimate of potential company value seems unrealistic when compared to profitable, long-established pharmaceutical companies, perhaps I have made gross errors in my estimates. An alternative is that the potential for Avavex is just that good because of the huge number of potential patients, the death-sentence severity of the disease, and the current lack of any drug competitors.<br /><br />I am very optimistic about the prospects for Anavex 273 being successful, but my notes on my study of that issue are incomplete. My expectations are irrelevant, however, because the results to be announced next quarter will supersede any analysis I performed in the past. Anavex Life Sciences is traded on OTC-QX, which is the relatively new high-requirement over-the-counter board. Anavex management and reporting is NASDAQ-ready, in my opinion, once they have a product on the market and have revenue that meets the threshold for NASDAQ. The last few months, liquidity of Anavex on OTC has not been an issue because it has become one of the more popular stocks on OTC. My biggest surprise is that with the recent increase in popularity, that so many people are still willing to sell shares. I guess if you bought at twenty cents and sell at forty, you're satisfied to have doubled your money, right? If the phase 2a results are bad, then I guess they made a good choice, but otherwise I don't think their satisfaction will last if the stock price goes into tens or hundreds of dollars per share.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-44152448583100513012015-01-21T09:39:00.001-05:002015-01-21T10:56:32.355-05:00A Ketogenic Diet is helping me overcome Mild Cognitive Impairment!<div abp="126">
<div abp="667">
Oops. I had forgotten that I had started a keto-diet diary here. Well, here's the latest...</div>
<div abp="668">
<br /></div>
<div abp="669">
I have had Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) for years, slowly getting worse, and then just over 2 years ago I had a bout of encephalitis that crashed my brain. I recovered a lot from the encephalitis, but it appeared some of that damage might be permanent. I started eating a ketogenic diet 4 weeks ago because it seemed to me it should be a hyped-up version of consuming occasional Medium-Chain-Tryglycerides, so I expected it to help my MCI some, and I blindly hoped it might help some of my remaining symptoms from the encephalitis.</div>
</div>
<div abp="129">
<div abp="671">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="129">
<div abp="673">
The picture below is a screen-shot of a self-assessment I have been doing, assisted by my family. I am scheduled for objective re-assessments by professionals in March, but this self-assessment is extremely good news and very promising.</div>
</div>
<div abp="130">
<div abp="675">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="130">
<div abp="677">
There have been multiple studies on adding Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCT) to a diet to boost blood ketones to alleviate some symptoms of Alzhiemer's, MCI, and other neurodegenerative disorders. I tried that. Occasionally eating or drinking MCT's gave me a spike that barely registered on a blood test, lasted for less than an hour, and the increase in brain function was noticeable, but less than useful, so I did not keep it up. </div>
</div>
<div abp="131">
<div abp="679">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="131">
<div abp="681">
Well, somehow (my notes don't cover this, and I don't remember) I started hearing about ketogenic diets and began to research it. The purpose of eating/drinking MCT's is to increase blood ketones a little bit. A ketogenic diet causes nutritional ketosis, which gives a much higher level of blood ketones (still far below dangerous levels that uncontrolled diabetics get with ketoacidosis), and it keeps them there every minute of every day! Why aren't lots of people with MCI and Alzheimer's using ketogenic diets? I haven't found anyone else who's done it, but it made sense to me, so I started reducing my carbohydrates dramatically as I continued to study.</div>
</div>
<div abp="132">
<div abp="683">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="132">
<div abp="685">
I attempted to induce ketosis with a high-protein, medium-fat, low-carb diet and did that for 8 days, but my blood ketones were barely registering. Still, I thought I noticed some subtle improvements in brain function. Then I learned that high-protein prevented nutritional ketosis because the liver makes glucose out of all the excess protein. I had gone high-protein instead of high-fat out of a fear of dietary fat ingrained over the decades by "experts." Then I learned a *lot* about ketogenic diets and how high-fat is not only not a problem, it's actually far superior to low-fat, high-carb diets for most people. So, I switched to a high-fat, adequate-protein, very-low-carb diet and my ketones shot up into the nutritional ketosis range and have stayed there.</div>
</div>
<div abp="133">
<div abp="687">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="133">
<div abp="689">
It takes weeks for the body to fully adjust to ketosis, and I have been seeing steady improvements in my brain function. Most of our body's cells can use fatty acids for energy in addition to glucose, but not the brain cells. The brain cells, however, can make use of ketones for energy. Since people with MCI, Alzheimer's, etc. have brain cells which can no longer use glucose as efficiently as they used to, ketones can fill in the energy gap in the brain. When staring ketosis, though, first there are a number of systemic changes that take weeks to accomplish. Like at first, the muscles may take most of the blood ketones. Later, after various adjustments, more ketones become available to the brain cells. That partly explains why my improvements have been gradual.</div>
</div>
<div abp="134">
<div abp="691">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="134">
<div abp="693">
In the last week or two, I have also learned a lot about proper levels of sodium, potassium, and magnesium, and have just begun a careful diet supplementation to get those minerals in adequate amounts and in correct proportions. Sodium and potassium control cell membranes, which affects what is allowed into and out of each cell. MCI and other patients have brain cells that have accumulated garbage they have not correctly gotten rid of, so there is a possibility that my new regimen of minerals could help in that regard.</div>
</div>
<div abp="135">
<div abp="695">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="135">
<div abp="697">
I still have a lot to learn and a lot to do, but it is extremely exciting for me that for the first time since I first noticed symptoms of MCI, I have *improved* rather than continue to slowly decline.</div>
</div>
<div abp="136">
<div abp="699">
<br /></div>
<div abp="700">
<strong abp="701"><u abp="702">Timeline</u></strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="138">
<div abp="704">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="138">
<div abp="706">
<strong abp="707">7/23/2014,</strong> Began comprehensive calorie-counting to lose weight.</div>
</div>
<div abp="139">
<div abp="709">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="139">
<div abp="711">
<strong abp="712">Nov. 2014,</strong> Average self-assessment scores during November after 5 months of reduced calories, losing ~15 pounds, mostly off my waist.</div>
</div>
<div abp="140">
<div abp="714">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="140">
<div abp="716">
<strong abp="717">12/15/2014,</strong> Began a high-protein, medium-fat, low-carb diet in an effort to produce blood ketones to help my brain, not realizing that excess protein would be converted to glucose, suppressing ketone production. I was still under the influence of "dietary fat is always bad" myth.</div>
</div>
<div abp="141">
<div abp="719">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="141">
<div abp="721">
<strong abp="722">12/22/2014,</strong> Switched to a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carb diet that is necessary for full nutritional ketosis diet half through the day after 8 days on high-protein diet that produced only .1 to .7 millimolars of serum beta-hydroxybutyrate.</div>
</div>
<div abp="142">
<div abp="724">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="142">
<div abp="726">
<strong abp="727">12/23/2014,</strong> First full day on a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carb diet, and the ketones shot up into the nutritional ketosis range of .5 to 5 and stayed there.</div>
</div>
<div abp="143">
<div abp="729">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="143">
<div abp="731">
<strong abp="732">12/25/2014,</strong> Some brain improvements noticed after only 3 days on ketogenic diet (plus 8 days on low-carb diet).</div>
</div>
<div abp="144">
<div abp="734">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="144">
<div abp="736">
<strong abp="737">1/7/2015,</strong> 15th day of nutritional ketosis</div>
</div>
<div abp="145">
<div abp="739">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="145">
<div abp="741">
<strong abp="742">1/13/2015,</strong> 21st day of ketosis</div>
</div>
<div abp="146">
<div abp="744">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="146">
<div abp="746">
<strong abp="747">1/20/2015,</strong> Tuesday, 28th day of ketosis</div>
</div>
<div abp="147">
<div abp="749">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="147">
<div abp="751">
<strong abp="752">1/23/2015,</strong> Friday, 31st day of ketosis, comprehensive fasting blood tests</div>
</div>
<div abp="148">
<div abp="754">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="148">
<div abp="756">
<strong abp="757">1/24/2015,</strong> 20 tests of blood glucose, blood ketones, blood pressure, and pulse over 24 hour period.</div>
</div>
<div abp="149">
<div abp="759">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="149">
<div abp="761">
<strong abp="762">3/11/2015,</strong> Memory re-assessment with neuropsychologist</div>
</div>
<div abp="150">
<div abp="764">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="150">
<div abp="766">
??? Get results of objective assessment of memory status from neuropsychologist</div>
</div>
<div abp="151">
<div abp="768">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="151">
<div abp="770">
??? Neurologist and general practitioner to discuss all improvements and possible return to work</div>
</div>
<div abp="152">
<div abp="772">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="300" class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a abp="301" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Ooke4otCExt-_gNANrszUr8rHB6ufvip1cYDTzmMdNQcbLuRI3o38kNMD3dtUyTcjef9iKaPcWt4GqkQLelnKWG1Vuxdv38SSP2-t36mxYFzvz5lRCENaZ8JWi9hlPQyLw6C4N6eOn9H/s1600/Progress+after+4+weeks+of+ketosis.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img abp="302" border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1Ooke4otCExt-_gNANrszUr8rHB6ufvip1cYDTzmMdNQcbLuRI3o38kNMD3dtUyTcjef9iKaPcWt4GqkQLelnKWG1Vuxdv38SSP2-t36mxYFzvz5lRCENaZ8JWi9hlPQyLw6C4N6eOn9H/s1600/Progress+after+4+weeks+of+ketosis.png" height="279" width="320" /></a></div>
<div abp="153">
<div abp="777">
</div>
</div>
<div abp="156">
<div abp="779">
<strong abp="780">Severity Scale</strong></div>
</div>
<div abp="157">
<div abp="782">
1 = much better than average</div>
</div>
<div abp="158">
<div abp="784">
2 = slightly better than average</div>
</div>
<div abp="159">
<div abp="786">
3 = normal</div>
</div>
<div abp="160">
<div abp="788">
4 = annoying</div>
</div>
<div abp="161">
<div abp="790">
5 = interferes with work</div>
</div>
<div abp="162">
<div abp="792">
6 = too bad to work as a Premier Field Engineer</div>
</div>
<div abp="163">
<div abp="794">
7 = too bad for any job</div>
</div>
<div abp="164">
<div abp="796">
8 = too bad to take care of self</div>
</div>
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-31001735141775814382014-12-16T09:23:00.001-05:002014-12-22T09:44:04.331-05:00Ketogenic Diet Diary, Days 1-6Glucose metabolism is well understood.<br />
Ketone metabolism is not well understood.<br />
<br />
Established: Alzheimers patients have reduced glucose metabolism in their brain, even before symptoms show up.<br />
Hypothesized: Increasing ketones in the brain to complement glucose metabolism with ketone metabolism may help MCI/AD patients.<br />
<br />
A hypothesis... has yet to be rigorously tested. A theory... has undergone extensive testing.<br />
Ketone metabolism for fueling brain cells for MCI and AD has some positive tests, but not yet extensive.<br />
<br />
Research topics:<br />
Ketogenic Diet<br />
Ketogenesis, the process by which ketone bodies are produced as a result of fatty acid breakdown.<br />
Ketone bodies, there are many<br />
Beta-Hydroxybutyric acid, the main ketone that may help brain function but can also fuel most other human cells other than the liver.<br />
<br />
<strong>Started on 16 December 2014<br /><span style="font-size: large;">Day 1</span> </strong><br />
Goal is percent of diet from carbohydrates less than 5% per day. Purpose is long-term ketone fuel instead of glucose fuel. Reason is to see if it will help the problems I have from Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) and a encephalitis in my brain.<br />
<br />
Yesterday turned out to be a good pre-diet start at 15.4% of calories from carbohydrates. I had four slices of whole grain bread, two around breakfast and two around lunch. After that I had very low carbs.<br />
<br />
I have been tracking every calorie since 23 July 2014 to try to lose weight slowly. Losing weight slowly has been working. I have lost about ten pounds. I went from my fat pants being too tight in the waist to fitting to being loose to skinny pants being tight to skinny pants being loose.<br />
<br />
I total from midnight to midnight. Last night I woke up and had a protein drink about ten pm. We did not have eggs or bacon so Carla went to the store early this morning and I waited so I did not have breakfast until about 8:30 and I had 2 scrambled eggs and 2 turkey bacon and a glass of water. I also took my morning supplements and medicine which diet is only affected mostly by the fish oil pills that help with cholesterol. So far my carb intake since midnight is 1.45%! I tried some exercises and I could not do quite as many pushups, pullups, or chin-ups as I had been doing recently. Maybe my excitement is why.<br />
<br />
My diet plan is very low carb, around average fat, very high protein. The main source of calories is Premiere Protein chocolate shakes, eggs, and turkey bacon. I add Dasani flavor drops to my water to add flavor and electrolytes.<br />
<br />
8:20 pm. I have not noted anything in my notes about anything unusual today except my calorie intake is unusually low at only 945 calories consumed so far today. I plan to have a protein shake and go to bed.<br />
<br />
<strong>Summary of the first day, posted on the 2nd day:</strong><br />
5 large eggs<br />
5 turkey bacon<br />
4 fish oil pills<br />
2 gummy fiber pills<br />
3 Premiere protien chocolate shakes<br />
.25 oz raw almonds<br />
3 pints of water<br />
<br />
1,105 total calories<br />
129 grams of protein<br />
46 grams of fat<br />
35 calories of carbs w/o fiber<br />
<strong>3.18 carb calorie %</strong><br />
<br />
The first day was no miracle cure for MCI or my encephalitis damage.<br />
<br />
I am using the nutrition facts from package labels when available otherwise from a nutrition web site and I am using the rule-of-thumb of 4 calories per gram of carbohydrate so I think you should not blame me if the grams to calorie or calorie to grams conversions do not equal.<br />
My starting weight was about 147. ("about" because exact weight varies throughout the day like if you guzzle a pint of water (16 oz) then you are immediately 1 pound heavier)<br />
<br />
--------------------------<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Day 2</span></strong><br />
Many years ago I went on a vegan diet for a whole year to see if it helped my health. This was long before doctors finally figured out my thyroid problem. The only change noticed was improved cholesterol. A ketogenic diet is like the opposite of a vegan diet in some ways. If I stay on this diet for at least a month I will get my blood cholesterol levels checked. They were all in normal range the last I was tested at my annual physical a month ago I know because I have a print of all the lab work. I forgot to order ketone test strips until this morning. They will be here by tomorrow night.<br />
<br />
Here is some information about high protein diet:<br />
"The effects of protein are very subtle. It's hard to answer if high protein diets are unsafe," says Heymsfield.<br />
"If you take in too little protein, you lose body protein. If you take in too much, you just burn it as calories." Heymsfield is a professor of medicine at Columbia University in New York City and at the Obesity Research Center at St. Luke's-Roosevelt Hospital.<br />
"In addition to not providing any benefit to general health, eating a high protein diet may have adverse effects, some research has suggested. The authors cite several studies that have found associations between excess protein in the diet and kidney disease. Another study suggests a relationship between high protein intake and prostate cancer."<br />
"Due to the lack of data, conclude the researchers, a maximum intake level for protein cannot be determined for a healthy adult population."<br />
"Taking in excess protein means you'll just be excreting it," Pagenkemper says. "Basically, high protein is just an expensive way to feed yourself."<br />
[adequate water consumption may reduce risks to kidney problems]<br />
<br />
I woke up hungry and ate 225 calories at 4:30 and went back to sleep.<br />
I woke up hungry and ate 289 calories at 9:30 and stayed awake.<br />
10:21 am: BP 119/76, pulse 67<br />
Got hungry and ate 259 calories at 12:15.<br />
Took afternoon nap.<br />
Got up slightly hungry and ate 259 calories at 3:45.<br />
Slightly hungry and had snack of 7 almonds 40 calories at 5:00.<br />
Not hungry but ate 259 calories at 8:45 so I would not wake up hungry.<br />
Go to bed at 9:00.<br />
<br />
Diet summary from following day<br />
4 large eggs<br />
5 turkey bacon<br />
4 fish oil pills<br />
1 gummy fiber pills<br />
5 Premiere protien chocolate shakes<br />
.5 oz raw almonds<br />
3.5 pints of water<br />
<br />
1,326 total calories<br />
183 grams of protein<br />
49 grams of fat<br />
52 calories of carbs w/o fiber<br />
<strong>3.93 carb calorie %</strong><br />
<br />
--------------------------<br />
<strong><span style="font-size: large;">Day 3</span></strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>Woke up at 12:15 a little hungry and drank a protein shake of 160 calories and went back to sleep.<br />
Got up about 8:30 and ate an egg and bacon at 99 calories.<br />
Took a long, hot bath.<br />
Carla took me to a doctor in another city. It was a very tiring trip. We took a cold bag with hard boiled eggs, bacon, and protein drinks in it for me and Carla ate at fast food restaurants<br />
<br />
<strong>BRAIN DOCTOR VISIT</strong>Carla helped me figure out what happened at my neurologist's office. Here are some things we remembered.<br />
<br />
I told the doctor about my ketogenic diet and she thought it was a good thing to try. The doctor said it could take several weeks to notice a change or longer than that for full effect. I told the doctor I was concerned about the drop in total calories I consumed the first two days because I was not eating as many calories as usual but I was not hungry. The doctor said "protein makes you feel full" so since my diet is very high protein, that explains that. I do not mind losing a little bit more weight so I am not concerned about that right now but later I may adjust my diet to slightly increase fat and slightly decrease protein to help me be hungry enough to maintain ideal weight.<br />
<br />
The doctor said I did a good job researching ketones. I asked if I could get a job doing research but the doctor and Carla and the other person there all said no. That was very disappointing. They did not explain why not.<br />
<br />
The doctor said I could try something new called Axona instead of a ketogenic diet. Most of this I learned after I got home: Axona is a 40 gram packet of powder that you consume once a day in water or mixed with anything else and it has a large number of Medium Chain Triglycerides (MCT) that are the same as in coconut oil but the spike in ketones lasts for hours instead of only an hour like when I have tried drinking coconut oil. It is a "medical food" so it requires a doctor prescription but is not a drug and it is not a dietary supplement by the legal definition of dietary supplement even though it supplements your diet.<br />
<br />
I said I wanted to keep trying my ketogenic diet and maybe try the Axona later because Axona is to help alzheimer's and mild cognitive impairment patients and not cancer patients and I have a lot of friends with cancer and a ketogenic might be able to help them but some people who have had ketogenic diets for cancer had a hard time staying on the diet and I want to see if I can figure out a ketogenic diet that is easy enough for people to stay on and that is one reason I am using a high-protein average-fat low-carb ketogenic diet instead of a high-fat average-protein low-carb ketogenic diet and since the Axona only boosts blood ketones for a few hours I figure cancer patients might need the boosted ketones 24 hours a day like happens with a ketogenic diet if you stick to it.<br />
The doctor gave me a starter Axona box and a prescription and I can try it later either with the ketogenic diet or in lieu of it.<br />
<br />
I am going to get retested sometime to measure my memory performance and other brain functions.<br />
The papers that come with Axona show that its positive effects are much better for people who take it every day than the people who forgot some days and very much better than people who took placebo. Test at day 45 showed significant improvement and day 90 tests showed even more improvement. It shows exact test numbers but I do not understand their significance other than that the patients brain performance was better rather than the same or worse.<br />
<br />
Diet of day 3<br />
5 large eggs<br />
5 turkey bacon<br />
4 fish oil pills<br />
1 gummy fiber pills<br />
4 Premiere protein chocolate shakes<br />
1 Muscle Milk drink<br />
3 pints of water<br />
<br />
1,375 total calories<br />
177 grams of protein<br />
51 grams of fat<br />
36 grams unsaturated fat<br />
61.7 unsaturated fat %<br />
72 calories of carbs w/o fiber<br />
<strong>5.21 carb calorie %</strong><br />
<br />
--------------------------<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">Day 4</span><br />
Woke up about 5:30 and drank a protein drink, 160 calories<br />
<br />
I am concerned about what will happen to my cholesterol levels, so that will be tested after 30 days on this ketogenic diet. Fats are far more complex than just saturated and unsaturated. Although saturated fat gets pointed out as bad for human cholesterol it really depends on the type of saturated fat and how it is balanced with other types of saturated and unsaturate fats. For example this statement may be close to true but is oversimplified and has exceptions: "Isocalorically replacing dietary carbohydrates with monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats has been shown to lower serum LDL and total cholesterol levels and increase serum HDL levels, while replacing carbohydrates with saturated fat was shown to increase HDL, LDL, and total cholesterol levels. Trans fats have been shown to reduce levels of HDL while increasing levels of LDL." Generally you want low LDL and moderately high HDL to be healthy.<br />
<br />
Day 4 diet was the same food as the first 3 days: eggs, turkey bacon, protein shakes, almonds, fish oil pills, fiber pills, water.<br />
<br />
1,267 total calories<br />
178 grams of protein<br />
46 grams of fat<br />
30 grams unsaturated fat<br />
65.3 unsaturated fat %<br />
51 calories of carbs w/o fiber<br />
<strong>3.99 carb calorie %</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: large;">--------------------------<br />
<strong>Day 5</strong></span><br />
I added a calculation for percent of daily calories from saturated fat to try to watch to keep it below 7% for optimal cholesterol control.<br />
<br />
1,267 total calories<br />
178 grams of protein<br />
46 grams of fat<br />
30 grams unsaturated fat<br />
65.3 unsaturated fat %<br />
<strong>5.09 saturated fat daily %</strong>39 grams of all carbohydrates<br />
15 grams of carbohydrates excluding fiber ("net carbs")<br />
156.56 calories of all carbohydrates<br />
51 calories of carbs w/o fiber<br />
12.36 carb calorie %<br />
<strong>3.99 non-fiber carb calorie %</strong><br />
<br />
-------------------------<br /><strong><span style="font-size: large;">Day 6</span></strong><br />Morning: I have had some mild constipation so I am increasing water and fiber pills. I have no appetite. My writing skills seem slightly improved. I have not noticed any other changes.<br />
<br />
Noon: My blood ketone level has increased to .7 and my blood glucose level is 130. My last food was a protein shake two hours before the blood tests.<br />
<br />
.3 mmol/L blood ketones on day 3 was in the mild ketosis range<br />
.7 mmol/L blood ketones on day 6 are into the nutritional ketosis range, as expected.<br />
<br />
My appetite returned, but my total calorie consumption was still pretty low for the day. According to one formula for my gender, age, height, and weight, I should be burning in the neighborhood of 1,800 calories a day not counting any exercise.<br />
<br />
I ate an ounce of cheddar cheese because I noticed its nutritional components make it ketogenic, but I did not notice that it would knock my % of calories from saturated fat above 7%. It was also a bad idea on this day because cheese can increase problems with constipation.<br />
<br />
1,159 total calories<br />132 grams of protein<br />55 grams of fat<br />31 grams unsaturated fat<br />57.2% of fat was unsaturated<br /><strong>8.08% of total calories were from saturated fat</strong>38 grams of all carbohydrates including fiber<br />11 grams of carbohydrates excluding fiber ("net carbs")<br />153.52 calories of all carbohydrates<br />35 calories of carbs w/o fiber<br />13.25 carb calorie %<br /><strong>2.98 non-fiber carb calorie %</strong><br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-40569654601413974052014-06-27T15:59:00.002-05:002014-06-28T10:02:40.235-05:00(The Allegory of) Ten Men Drinking BeerSuppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:<br />
<br />
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.<br />
The fifth would pay $1.<br />
The sixth would pay $3.<br />
The seventh would pay $7.<br />
The eighth would pay $12.<br />
The ninth would pay $18.<br />
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.<br />
<br />
So, that’s what they decided to do. The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. "Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I’m going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20." Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.<br />
<br />
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men – the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his "fair share?" They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.<br />
<br />
And so:<br />
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% savings).<br />
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).<br />
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).<br />
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).<br />
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).<br />
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).<br />
<br />
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. <br />
<br />
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.<br />
<br />
"I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man, "but he got $10!"<br />
<br />
"Yeah, that’s right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more than I!"<br />
<br />
"That’s true!!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!"<br />
<br />
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison. "We didn’t get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!"<br />
<br />
The nine men continued to complain and accuse the tenth man and then started planning to make the tenth man pay more. The tenth man finally walked away sadly, as the nine shouted accusations at him.<br />
<br />
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn’t have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!<br />
<br />
(copied from Scott Brewster with one edit)Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-11995710448057667912013-06-30T17:56:00.000-05:002013-06-30T18:03:52.381-05:00Global Warming Scientists Debunk Themselves<a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/2/">http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/02/05/in-their-own-words-climate-alarmists-debunk-their-science/2/</a><br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-86890960219701008002012-04-01T06:00:00.000-05:002012-04-01T06:00:00.864-05:00Microsoft Extends Cloud to the MoonMicrosoft today revealed that they have made the first commercial use of private spacecraft to position a containerized data center on the Moon. Known as the Lunar Data Center (LDC), the new facility is part of the Microsoft Cloud and is fully operational, already hosting Microsoft's own Bing, Hotmail, and Office 365.<div>
<br /><div>
Since the same side of the Moon always faces Earth, connectivity will always be available via geographically-balanced, black-laser uplink nodes, with at least one in each time-zone. It's state-of-the art green-energy design uses solar-power and vacuum-cooled CPUs to avoid creating green-house gases that could damage the Moon's extremely thin Ozone Layer.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The LDC also boasts unprecedented long-term-storage (LTS) by means of its unique Deep Space Backup Vault (DSBV). The DSBV provides infinite archival storage based on a perennial series of linked deep-space vehicles (LDSVs), modeled after NASA's Voyager interstellar spacecraft. While Voyager spacecraft will eventually go too far to communicate with NASA's Earth-based Deep Space Network (DSN), Microsoft's first LDSV (and the farthest from Earth) will communicate with the second LDSV (slightly closer to Earth), which will in turn communicate with the third LDSV, so that the last LDSV launched at any given time will always be within signal range of Earth the the LDC.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Microsoft CEO Steve Balmer was quoted as saying that this surprise announcement "seriously undercuts Amazon's Mars-based cloud extension, which is not expected to be operational until 2015 at the earliest." When asked about Google's efforts to build a cold-data storage center on Uranus, Balmer said such a plan was unworkable, but that's exactly where he thought they'd try to put it.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-21542133632576514712011-12-08T21:07:00.001-05:002011-12-08T21:17:38.907-05:00Why the Payroll Tax Cut is a Bad IdeaExtending the "Payroll Tax Cut" is a bad idea. The specific tax it cuts is the Social Security tax. Social Security is already underfunded and every politician in Washington D.C. knows it. That's reason enough to let this tax cut expire, and why it never should have been enacted, but there's an even bigger reason:<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The tax cut will save most families about $1,000 over one year. The politicians pushing it say it will stimulate the economy. <b>No, it won't.</b> $1,000 per year is less than $20 per week. Most families won't even notice it. In fact, most people aren't even aware that this tax cut is already in effect (scheduled to expire at the end of this month), because that amount, spread over such a long period of time, just doesn't make a big difference to each family. The accumulated funds from every taxpayer, though, makes a significant difference to Social Security.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you want to simulate the economy with a tax break, fine, but give families the $1,000 as a lump sum distribution so they actually notice it, and treat it like a windfall, and DO NOT take it out of Social Security!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-34816105441116950892011-12-03T13:09:00.001-05:002011-12-03T14:24:01.163-05:00Still Looking For a Good Republican Candidate<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">I keep hearing a lot of pundits make statements about Evangelical and independent voters that I don't think are accurate. I know many of them aren't accurate for me, and I'm both Evangelical and independent.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">For example, Dick Morris said just a week ago, "</span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Evangelicals... can’t back Romney due to his religion or Newt because of his personal issues." I don't care what religion a candidate holds, and I only care about their personal issues where it reflects on how the person would govern. Where Morris references Newt's personal issues, I believe he's referring to Newt's past sexual indiscretions, and not things like changing his positions.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">I decided that Herman <b>Cain </b>wouldn't have been one of my preferred choices, because of his very notable weaknesses on foreign policy issues. He has other weaknesses, but that was the biggest one for me. I don't know that he's guilty of any sexual harassment or infidelity, so that wasn't a reason he moved to 2nd-tier in my mind. I think his new policy website (<a href="http://www.thecainsolution.com/">www.TheCainSolution.com</a>) is a good way for him to contribute politically.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">Also in my 2nd-tier are, with example reasons:</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><b>Perry</b> relies on his intuition, and I think he has poor intuition.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><b>Bachmann</b> makes flippant false accusations and frequently misstates facts.</span></span><br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><b>Paul</b> is so ideological I don't think he could govern effectively, and he's too isolationist.</span></span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">That left my first-tier as Gingrich and Romney, but the more I evaluate them, the less I like them, and I'll probably drop them to 2nd-tier if I think there's a least one candidate who's better.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">My biggest concern about <b>Gingrich </b>is his tendency to make substantial pronouncements without careful consideration. He's capable of excellent reasoning, but he still doesn't seem to discipline himself well enough to avoid ill-advised assertions. I suspect his propensity for speaking off-the-cuff would make him the most entertaining candidate and president, but that's not my top priority for candidates or presidents.</span></span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">My biggest concern regarding <b>Romney </b>is the fact that he consistently denies he's changed positions on a number of issues. It wouldn't bother me if he consistently acknowledged his changes and explained why he changed, but his denials in the face of video evidence makes me wonder how much more he'll change on issues and deny he's changing.</span></span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;">That only leaves Rick Santorum and John Huntsman as current candidates, so here's my current take on them:</span></span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><b><a href="http://www.ricksantorum.com/">Santorum</a></b>: I haven't begun evaluating his policies yet, but I don't care for his personality much, at least as he's come across in the debates.</span>
<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><b><a href="http://www.jon2012.com/">Huntsman</a></b>: I just recently started evaluating Huntsman's policies and character, and there's a lot to like so far. He may end up in my first-tier, even though he doesn't spell his first name correctly. :)</span></span><br />
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: verdana, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: 14px; line-height: 19px;"><br /></span></span></div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-7350977858264016982011-11-08T19:48:00.002-05:002011-12-01T07:18:34.036-05:00Sexual Harassment and Herman CainSexual harassment is a bad thing. It's just as evil as sexual misconduct such as adultery, because we can expect that the harasser intends to do more than just harass unless the effort is rebuffed. However, falsely accusing someone of doing wrong is just as evil as sexual harassment.<br />
<br />
Often in the case of sexual harassment, only the individuals involved know the truth. The public can examine the character of the individuals, but that can only improve our odds of correctly guessing who's telling the truth. If one person is notoriously corrupt and the other is famous for good character, that gives us the best odds, but if both people seem to have roughly equal records, that gives us the worst odds.<br />
<br />
A long time ago I learned that any human is capable of just about any failure. I'd like to favor the accusers when it comes to accusations of sexual harassment, but unfortunately, some people are just as capable of making false accusations as others are of committing sexual harassment. I can believe that Herman Cain is blameless regarding the current accusations, or I can believe that though he is a man of generally high moral character, there could have been a time in his life when he succumbed to sexual temptations. If he committed these crimes, he may remember them well but have too much pride to acknowledge them, or his mind may have walled off those memories so well that he's convinced himself he never did them. Never underestimate the ability of people rationalize their failures, to misshape their memories, or to deceive themselves.<br />
<br />
Likewise, I can believe that the women who have accused him are wrong. If they are all wrong, the ones who are purported to have "felt uncomfortable" at some of the things they claim he said are probably motivated very differently from the woman who's accused Cain of physically groping her. The former could easily have been based on a misunderstanding, perhaps exacerbated by their personal circumstances at the time. I know a coworker of mine grossly misinterpreted something I said once, and it led to a major blowup between us. My coworker took very serious offense to something I said because she thought it revealed that I thought very poorly of her. Nothing could have been further from the truth: I had tremendous admiration for her skills and capabilities, but she didn't perceive my attitude or motivation correctly. Based on that experience, I feel sure that every day there are people in the working world who make similar mistakes where they think sexual issues are involved.<br />
<br />
The woman who has accused Cain of groping, Sharon Bialek, can have no such misunderstanding. She's either lying or telling the truth, and he either groped her or he didn't. She could be telling the truth, and it could have been very difficult for her personally to come forward. Or she could be lying for any number of reasons, from simply hating something about him, to seeking notoriety and profit.<br />
<br />
As for Mr. Cain's candidacy for the Republican nomination, I've studied him and his major positions a bit, and I like him. I also admire him for many things. But if someone comes up with proof that he committed sexual harassment or worse, my overall respect for him will decline substantially. Unfortunately, proof either way is unlikely unless someone comes up with explicit photos, audio recordings, or a DNA-stained dress.<br />
<br />
I'm puzzled by Gloria Allred's claim that Ms. Bialek has two corroborating witnesses from the year when she claims she was groped, but that she hasn't released those statements. Those statements wouldn't constitute proof, but depending on the witnesses' own character, plus what they said and when they said it, the statements could significantly increase the odds of the public being able to correctly guess if Bialek is telling the truth. As long as they're not made public, they're obviously useless to the public. The fact that Allred hasn't released them makes me suspect they may not lend much credibility, but unless they release them, we'll never know.<br />
<br />
So, will I stop supporting Herman Cain? Not yet. Where there's smoke, there's fire, but that doesn't tell you whether or not it was arson. Based on some leftist blogs I've read, there seem to be people who hate Cain so much they might recruit women to make false claims against him, hoping that the more accusers there are, the more people will doubt his innocence. On the other hand, maybe Cain's almost as bad as Bill Clinton when it comes to sexual misdeeds. I don't know. What I do know is that I will presume innocence until I see proof or overwhelming, high-quality evidence. I actually don't like presuming innocence, but I like presuming guilt even less.<br />
<br />
If such proof or evidence comes to light against Cain, I'll shift to my very close second choice: Newt Gingrich. I don't like Newt, because I already know he has a lousy sexual track record. For those of you who don't know, Mr. Gingrich was committing adultery against his second wife while she was battling cancer, and then he divorced wife #2 and married the woman he was committing adultery with. On the other hand, Newt is much smarter than anyone else running, including Obama. Obama's pretty smart, but if there's ever a debate between Gingrich and Obama, I expect Obama will end up looking like the Great Pretender. So, -1 on Gingrich for poor personal character, +1 for dominant intellect. Newt also gets +1 for being down-to-earth (as much as any Presidential contender can be), and another +1 for his political skills while in office. The most important of those skills, in my view, was when he lead the House and he successfully worked with Bill Clinton to accomplish a lot of great things. I'd have taken President Clinton with Speaker Gingrich over Bush Jr. or Obama any day of the week.<br />
<br />
By the way, today is election day, and I VOTED.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE December 1, 2011:</b><br />
Since this original post, Ginger White has claimed she had an on-again-off-again affair with Cain over a 13 year period. It's been only 3 days, but so far she has provided no evidence of an affair. She's provided evidence of a relationship, but not of an affair, so that leaves us with guessing about character again. I've discussed Cain above, so here's some potentially relevant information about White: She filed a sexual harassment claim against an employer in 2001, which was settled. She's had several eviction notices over the last 6 years, although she claims she's never actually been evicted. A former business partner of White's sought a restraining order against her for "repeated emails/texts threatening lawsuit and defamation of character," and that was followed by a libel suit against White, which she lost by not showing up in court. Further, on Good Morning America, she said of Cain, <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; text-align: left;">“I honestly do not think that he is, in my opinion, would make a good president as far as I’m concerned.” Those are characteristics that would be consistent with a person who would make false allegations for a political purpose. Whether she is lying or not, we can only guess, unless she provides evidence of an actual affair.</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: Georgia; font-size: 14px; line-height: 20px; text-align: left;"><br /></span>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-21280724637188324682011-09-24T19:56:00.001-05:002011-10-01T15:17:19.434-05:00Presidential Candidates for 2012, v2Six months ago I blogged about presidential candidates for 2012. I'm more firmly convinced it's too late for Obama to win reelection, baring an event of near catastrophic proportions. I think President Obama is too narcissistic to step down like Lyndon Johnson did, and I think it's too late for anyone to successfully challenge Obama in the Democratic party primary, even Hillary. Obama controls the Democratic party machinery, and a challenger would not only have to do without that, they would have to overcome it. And no other party can field an electable candidate. If I'm right that Obama will be up for reelection, but cannot win, that means our next president will be a Republican.<br />
<br />
That also means whoever wins the Republican primary will be our next president, so pay attention now, folks, because the campaign for the Republican nomination is in full swing. Democrats in States that allow any voter to vote in either primary may want to consider voting in the Republican primary this time around.<br />
<br />
Six months ago, there were no declared candidates, and I said that Mike Huckabee was my favorite potential candidate. He decided not to run, but a boat-load of others are in. I'm no expert on any of these folks, but I've heard some positions and noticed some personal failings that have turned me off to several candidates, and I've seen a few things that I like in a few candidates. There isn't a single candidate that I like 100%, but that will always be true. If I ran myself, I'd agree 100% with my positions, but I'd be concerned about how my health might hold up under the rigors of being president, so I wouldn't even be for myself 100% taking everything into account. Nevertheless, I do have some new favorites that I'm willing to share:<br />
<br />
My top choice of these folks is a tie between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, and my third choice is Mitt Romney. There are things I like and things I dislike about the rest of the pack, but I prefer that none of the others become president for various reasons.<br />
<br />
I like <a href="http://www.hermancain.com/">Herman Cain</a> for president because he's not a career politician, he has a strong business management background, he's matured enough since he got into this race to stand up to the rigors of the election and the office, and most importantly, I like a lot of his ideas. He understands the importance of fiscal responsibility and simple and stable rules for businesses to be able to risk expanding their workforce and for entrepreneurs to start new businesses. And this isn't a big deal, but I think it'd be cool to have a presidential election between two black guys. Okay, a black guy and a half-black guy that most people refer to as black.<br />
<br />
I like <a href="http://www.newt.org/">Newt Gingrich</a> for president because he worked very well with President Clinton once Republicans controlled the House under Clinton's tenure, and the two of them got a lot of great things done for our economy and our finances, and because Gingrich has a lot of great ideas and stays open to new ideas. He also understands the stability and simplicity of rules that business people need regarding risk management, expansions, and start-ups.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://mittromney.com/">Mitt Romney</a> has answered the complaints against him very well, he has some very good ideas, and he comports himself as a president should.<br />
<br />
I'll reveal a personal problem I have with a lot of candidates and elected leaders that I now hold against some of the Republican candidates: Verbal short-circuits. Anyone can make a misstatement or other verbal gaffe, but when a leader of my civil government does so, I cringe. It's embarrassing. Bush Jr. had the most frequent flubs, and Nancy Pelosi has had two of the worst of all time. Obama has had an average crop. It may be a flaw in my character, but Bachmann and Perry have surpassed my comfort level with their foul-ups. Even though they're reasonably intelligent people (despite how they're portrayed by the media), the sheer number of their gaffes so far leaves me cold. I kind of hope it's not too much to ask for a President that won't embarrass me all the time like Bush Jr. did.<br />
<br />
<b>UPDATE (1Oct2011):</b> After watching a bunch of Herman Cain videos, I'm no longer undecided between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrinch. I'm on Hurricane Herman Cain's train.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-20060425211287700042011-09-17T18:18:00.000-05:002011-09-17T20:36:45.055-05:00The Cost of Gov't Jobs That Are Already Paid ForContrary to what many people think, a civil government cannot efficiently grow a national economy with centralized planning.<br />
<br />
As a case in point, in <a href="http://tinyurl.com/3odxl6o" target="_blank">this article</a>, the Dept. of Energy has been accused of creating only 3,500 permanent jobs with $38.6 Billion in stimulus funds. The DoE defends itself by saying when they're finished it will be 60,000 jobs and many more in the supply chain. For the sake of argument, let's say the DoE is right, and let's say another 60,000 jobs will be created in the supply chain for 120,000 jobs total.<br />
<br />
$38,600,000,000 divided by 120,000 jobs is $321,666 per job. That's using the DoE's most optimistic numbers.<br />
<br />
<b>$321,666 per job.</b><br />
<br />
Somehow, the President and his administration think their trillion dollar stimulus program has "prevented the collapse of the financial system, saved millions of jobs, and put the economy back in a place where it's creating jobs and growing again," according to White House Communications Director <a href="http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/17/book-obama-white-house-has-real-woman-problem/" target="_blank">Dan Pfeiffer</a>. Of course, both parties habitually claim their policies are responsible for all the good things in our economy and the other party is responsible for all the bad things, and that's easy to do since reporters rarely challenge them on such claims. But $321,666 of tax money per job? C'mon, only morons could believe that's a good thing.<br />
<br />
You know what would have had far better effects on our economy? If they hadn't taken that $38.6 billion dollars from taxpayers in the first place, and instead they embraced "<a href="http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/09/15/mr-obama-to-create-jobs-need-stossel-rule/" target="_blank">The Stossel Rule</a>": For every business regulation they pass, they must repeal two or more. Stossel's rule is based on the sound idea that "hiring doesn't come from new laws. It comes when government gets out of the way and leaves all of us with simple and predictable rules."<br />
<br />
So forget the "PassThisBill, PassThisBill, PassThisBill, IfYouLoveMePassThisBill" mantra. The trillion dollar stimulus didn't work, and another half-trillion dollar stimulus won't work any better. Taking money from companies and families by taxation and spending $321,666, <i>or more</i>, of it to create one job is not a road to recovery.<br />
<br />
As to the claim that it's paid for (the President used the present tense in his televised speech), that's a foolish claim. Even a claim that it <i>will be</i> paid for is foolish as long as the Federal budget isn't balanced.<br />
<br />
Suppose you loaned me $10,000 at 2% interest to support some essential business ideas I had that were guaranteed to work and benefit you, me, and everyone! At the end of the first year I paid you $200 in interest and you loaned me another $10,000, because the expenses for my essential business ideas kept growing. Except first you loaned me the $10k, and then I paid you back the $200. We repeat it the next year, but I pay you $400 in interest because I now owe you $20k. But I decided I need more money for more essential business plans, so I talk you into loaning me $15,000 the next year. So I've borrowed $10k the first year, $10k the 2nd year, and $15k the 3rd year, for a total of $35,000 borrowed, and my next interest payment is $700. Wow, the interest I owe you keeps going up for some reason. I need to borrow more money from you so I can be sure I have plenty to do everything I want and pay the interest I owe you. Okay, now I want to borrow an extra $5,000 in the middle of the year for an essential new business idea. What? You're getting reluctant to loan me more money? Trust me! I know exactly what I'm doing. I have everything under control. And, most importantly, this new project is already paid for! How is my new project paid for if I still owe you so much and I'm borrowing even more money from you? Simple! It's paid for because I was going to borrow that money from you anyway eventually and use it for something else, but now I've changed my plans and now I'm going to use this extra borrowed money for my newest essential idea. And if you notice my newest essential idea is the same as my old essential idea, well, that proves how good my original idea was.<br />
<br />
(For any critics of my analogy who may want to point out that it's not a perfect parallel to life, may I point out that the paragraph above <i>is an analogy</i>, and it's not intended to be a perfect parallel to life.)<br />
<br />
Can you think of a huge problem my analogy didn't go far enough to cover? It's this: Compounding Interest. The amount of interest keeps rising if you only pay the interest and none of the principal, and you keep borrowing more money. It will eventually reach the point where you cannot borrow enough new funds to even pay the interest on the debt.<br />
<br />
In 2010, we paid $196,000,000,000 (196 billion) in interest on the national debt. In fiscal year 2011, we're paying $205 billion dollars. Just think of all the good things we could have done with that $205 billion dollars if we hadn't had to pay it on interest. These figures are from the White House's <a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Overview" target="_blank">Office of Management and Budget</a> (OMB) (see the Summary Tables), which projects the interest over the next ten years:<br />
<br />
2012, $240 billion<br />
2013, $322 billion<br />
2014, $421 billion<br />
2015, $505 billion<br />
2016, $584 billion<br />
2017, $661 billion<br />
2018, $730 billion<br />
2019, $798 billion<br />
2020, $863 billion<br />
2021, $928 billion<br />
<br />
This is not the amount of our debt, this is just the interest on our debt. And these figures are based on interest rates that are at historic lows. Interest rates <i>will </i>rise. And when they do, the amount of interest we have to pay will go up higher than these projections, unless the morons in Congress stop borrowing more money and dramatically pay down our debt.<br />
<br />
Even if interest rates stay flat for many more years (not likely considering Bernanke's historic monetary expansions), if we keep borrowing more and more money, in a few years we will spend more money in interest on the national debt than we spend on Social Security or Medicare, or the military. A decade after that we may be spending more on interest than on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the military <i>combined</i>.<br />
<br />
We are all fools if we continue to elect politicians who think taking your money and borrowing even more money to spend $321,666 of it to create one job will magically make us prosperous.<br />
<br />
We don't have to wait for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution to correct this problem. Find yourself a congressional candidate with personal integrity who will refuse to vote for another dime of deficit spending, and help them get elected in 2012 and in every congressional election after that.<br />
<br />Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-20650550354203246372011-09-05T09:55:00.001-05:002011-09-05T20:04:15.816-05:00Creating Jobs<div>
Political policies to create jobs is about economic incentives. Here I present two ideas to help create jobs, neither of which will cost a dime in additional tax expenditures.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
As a preface, the President and Congress are currently yammering about creating jobs. This concern is long overdue. In my view, any time we have significant unemployment, policies to facilitate the creation of jobs should be a top issue in national politics. That President Obama waited until he was 3 years into office to get serious about this issue is a disgrace. Lest you think I'm just another Obama-basher, I have just as many complaints about Bush Jr. before him. But, I don't merely want to complain, so without further ado, here are my recommendations:<br />
<div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
#1. Permanently eliminate or dramatically reduce the corporate repatriation tax.</div>
<div>
#2. Have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) change the age-old definition of fiduciary responsibility for publicly-held corporations to put domestic employees on an equal footing with shareholders.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<b>Explanations:</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
1. Economists estimate there are over a trillion dollars in profits held overseas by U.S. corporations. If every billion dollars brought home eventually resulted in 1,000 new jobs, a trillion dollars brought home would result in 1,000,000 new jobs. If every billion resulted in 10,000 new jobs, it would result in 10,000,000 new jobs. So this is not a trivial suggestion; It would have a large, beneficial impact on our national economy. I say eventually, though, because it takes months for companies to gear up new projects, and a given company can only manage a certain number of new projects at a time.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Most of our overseas profits are held by only a few dozen of our largest companies. If they bring that money back into the United States, it is currently, and normally, taxed at a 35% rate. That's an extremely powerful incentive for these companies to keep that money overseas. Eliminating or dramatically reducing that tax increases their incentive to bring that fortune back into the U.S.<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
What does this have to do with creating jobs? Well, what do companies do with profits? For the most part, they reinvest them, in a perpetual effort to increase their profits, but job creation depends on how the companies invest those profits: there are both job-creating investments and job-neutral investments. The same is true for how individuals invest, although most people only think about job-neutral investments.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
If you take some of your retirements funds (or your pension plan managers do this for you) and purchase some stocks in an established company, that's a job-neutral investment. You and someone else are trading shares of that company's stock. That's a valuable function in society, but it doesn't create jobs. If, however, you were to invest in a start-up company, or start your own company, <i>that</i> creates jobs. If you start your own company and succeed in it, then you've created at least one job, even if you don't hire anyone else.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
There are quite a few job-neutral investments available to corporations if they repatriate their overseas profits, the same as with domestic profits, such as repurchasing shares of their own stock to try to increase their stock prices or issuing stock dividends to directly reward investors.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The corporate repatriation tax has been in effect for many years, with an occasional tax "holiday" that resulted in bringing overseas profits home in big lumps. Some opponents of eliminating or reducing this tax point out that when the holidays have occurred in the past (the last one in 2004), companies put most of that money into job-neutral investments, not job-creating ones. Of course they did! Because they can only manage a certain number of new projects at a time, they invest what they need in those projects, creating jobs, and they invest the rest as wisely as possible. For example, if they repurchase stock now, they are later able to reissue that stock to raise cash when they're ready to start or expand new projects.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
The previous paragraph highlights why it would be beneficial to make this change permanent, rather than have unreliable, once-in-a-while tax holidays. It would create stability in those cash flows, allowing corporations to make reliable plans further out into the future, and that is a critical factor to any company considering hiring new employees. In addition, if the change is not permanent, then the remaining tax creates incentives for companies to permanently move jobs overseas, the opposite effect from what we need.</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
As far as eliminating vs. dramatically reducing, some of the CEO's of the companies holding that trillion dollars overseas have indicated they would have sufficient incentive to bring the money home if the tax rate was lowered to 5% or less, as opposed to eliminating it. I have no strong objection to that, so why do I suggest eliminating the tax? Because permanently eliminating the tax would <i>maximize </i>the incentives to bring the money home, and keep it working here to create jobs on a steady basis. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
It is more than interesting that the United States is almost the only nation in the world to tax repatriated corporate profits. Why did a previous short-sighted Congress create this tax? They obviously thought it would raise revenue. They were wrong. Companies simply hold those profits overseas and wait for the next tax holiday and invest those funds overseas in the meantime. Also obviously, other nations see this tax for what it really is: a counter-productive drain on the national economy. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2. As long as we've had public-stock companies, the managers of those companies have been legally required to make their decisions in such a way as to maximize benefits to the stockholders. This didn't always result in moving jobs overseas because international shipping and communication used to be far more expensive and far less reliable. However, in the last half-century or so, both shipping and communication have become much less expensive and highly reliable. When this is combined with placing stockholder interest as the exclusive top-priority of corporate managers, of course they've been moving jobs overseas where labor is cheaper: They're legally required to do so if it increases their profitability!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
We can permanently reverse this trend with one simple adjustment that won't cost any taxes: Have the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) change the age-old definition of fiduciary responsibility for publicly-held corporations to put domestic employees on an equal footing with shareholders. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
This change won't stop all American jobs from ending up in other countries, but it will protect many of them, and will eventually result in many jobs coming back to the United States from overseas. When the needs of domestic employees are given equal consideration to those of shareholders, an existing factory will only be relocated when that factory is completely unsustainable where it is. In that case, the local factory has to be shut down no matter what. The company could, under those conditions, still build a replacement factory in another country, if that's feasible. But <b>no U.S.-based factory would ever again be relocated to another country just to increase profits when that factory could be sustained where it is at marginal profits.</b></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: #333333; font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: x-small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 20px;"><br /></span></span></div>
Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-5561200135564988052011-07-04T09:00:00.000-05:002011-07-04T09:00:49.912-05:00Happy 235th Birthday to U.S.!It was 235 years ago today that the Continental Congress passed the Declaration of Independence, and it was eventually signed by 56 of our Founding Traitors.<br />
<br />
We usually refer to them (and a few other notables from that period) as our "Founding Fathers", but at that time, they were legally subjects of the British crown. Declaring independence made them traitors. Today we don't think of them that way because the colonists won the War for Independence, but if they had lost, they'd probably be remembered mostly as traitors who failed at rebellion.<br />
<br />
I appreciate our freedom and history as much as anyone, and would sacrifice my life for our nation as quickly as anyone today, but I've often wondered what my opinions and actions would have been during that time. Holding rule-of-law in high regard, I may have been a Royalist, as were many colonists at the time.<br />
<br />
I've also wondered more than once how the signers of the Declaration would fit into our current labels of liberal vs. conservative. It's my perception that our current conservatives are generally strong Constitutionalists, based on principles such as the fact that we owe our continued freedom and prosperity largely to that set of laws. It's also my perception that our current liberals generally don't care to adhere to the rule-of-law principle in that they're willing to forsake rule-of-law for expediency in attaining their political goals, despite how dangerous that path is even to their own interests. (I think many liberals are principled in the aspect that they want to do good, but are short-sighted when they endorse a simple current-majority-rules approach.)<br />
<br />
Our Founding Fathers valued liberty highly enough to risk their lives in rebellion, so rule-of-law wasn't paramount if that rule was tyrannical. Yet they had a legal precedent of sorts in the English civil war from a century past, and a major purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to explain their carefully-reasoned justification for the rebellion. By their written testimonies and by the fact that they were pitting 13 small colonies against one of the strongest militaries in the world (they were not only risking their lives, but with little assurance of success), it seems clear that they were acting on principles.<br />
<br />
These and other reasons lead me to think that a large majority of our Founding Fathers would have been somewhere in the middle between our current liberals and conservatives.<br />
<br />
As a modern-day patriot, it bothers me not to know with certainty which side I would have ended up on, but there are just too many what-ifs for me to figure that out. What I can figure out, happily, like most of our Founders, is that I can give thanks to Divine Providence for creating a nation with a degree of freedom that is awesome in its historical context, and has directly blessed me, my family, and all my fellow-citizens.<br />
<br />
So, as a grateful beneficiary of their sacrifices, I wish a very happy birthday to all of U.S.<br />
<br />
May we as a nation become ever-more deserving of our freedoms, and much better at helping those who still yearn for the liberty we hold so dear.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-32738815188082001142011-04-01T00:00:00.007-05:002011-04-01T00:00:03.941-05:00Microsoft Acquires France<b>News Flash: Microsoft has just announced it will acquire the national government of France as a wholly-owned subsidiary.</b><br />
<br />
In a historic move, Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) has announced that it will take advantage of the recent weakening of the Euro against the dollar to purchase the national government of France. This represents the first time a sovereign nation has been acquired by a corporation. Microsoft's strategic objective in this friendly takeover is to reduce it's own exposure to European anti-trust liability, while increasing the anti-trust scrutiny of Google. The primary benefit to France is anticipated to be free upgrades from Windows Server standard edition to the enterprise edition, free competitive upgrades from Oracle to SQL Server, and a five-year discount on Microsoft Premier and Consulting Services.<br />
<br />
President Sarkozy explained in a press conference with Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer that current French legislators at the national level will become employees of Microsoft and receive a free Windows Phone 7, while retaining their French vacation and retirement benefits. Local elected officials will be unaffected, and citizens of France will reportedly be offered discounts on new purchases of X-Box consoles. The French Foreign Legion will now be known as the Microsoft-French Foreign Legion, and will begin a three-year plan to switch from military activities to I.T. consulting.<br />
<br />
Microsoft stock declined slightly on the news, despite record profits in all departments. Wall Street analysts have been cool on the deal, noting that the French divested the last of their colonies several decades ago, dramatically reducing the wholesale value of France. During a question-and-answer session, Ballmer denied that plans had ever existed to offer French colonies their independence in exchange for an agreement to use Windows operating systems exclusively. Vanuatu President Iolu Abil, vacationing in France at the time, said that he had not been approached by Microsoft, but that their island nation was open to being acquired by Microsoft or to hosting a self-contained Data Center.<br />
<br />
There was no explanation for recent sightings of French reconnaissance aircraft over Mountain View, California, where Google's headquarters are located, or for a squadron of French Mirage jet fighters with air-to-ground missiles moving their base to an area of a Boeing compound just outside Seattle.<br />
<br />
Google executives, ensconced in private meetings with German officials, could not be reached for comment.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-43800154469561881232011-03-29T20:23:00.000-05:002011-03-29T20:23:53.587-05:00Birther BotherSince even before Obama was elected President, some people fussed that he might not be a U.S. citizen, raising the birth certificate issue, while Obama's supporters belittled their concern. Then he won the election, and the issue heated up. Eventually, a certificate of live birth was released for Obama. A certificate of live birth, however, is not the same thing as a birth certificate. Some cried that a certificate of live birth wasn't good enough to prove Obama's citizenship. Obama's supporters insisted that it was good enough. Nothing came of the ruckus, and the noise eventually died down, even if the issue never went completely away.<br />
<br />
Recently, Donald Trump has raised the issue again on a popular talk show, and Obama supporters have gotten defensive again. Trump later provided what he called his birth certificate to the media as proof that he is a U.S. citizen. Except that what he actually provided was a certificate of live birth. That's where the funniest part comes in: Some Obama supporters then howled that Trump's certificate of live birth was insufficient proof. (In so doing, they weakened their own argument in favor of Obama.) Trump quickly came up with his actual birth certificate. So far, President Obama hasn't.<br />
<br />
What's my position? The same as it always has been: I believe in rule-of-law, and that we should enforce the requirement that a person must be a U.S. citizen to be President. Seems to me like a certificate of live birth is adequate proof, so that's good enough for me unless someone proves otherwise. So, I'm satisfied that Obama is a natural born American, and entitled to be President on that count.<br />
<br />
It does still puzzle me, however, why he won't authorize the release of his actual birth certificate. I used to suspect it must have something on it that he might find embarrassing, so a while back I looked up an example copy of Hawaiian birth certificates, and I didn't see anything that could justify much embarrassment. Because I believe a certificate of live birth should normally be adequate, I don't care much about the issue, other than it's entertainment value.<br />
<br />
Since the actual birth certificate wasn't released, however, there are people who have spent a lot of effort investigating to try to determine his citizenship based on other facts. While I'm not concerned about the issue of citizenship, I am concerned about some of the issues run into by investigators. They have apparently been actively opposed, with someone paying lawyers to fight the release of information like the following:<br />
<br />
Passport files<br />
University of Chicago Law School scholarly articles<br />
Harvard Law Review articles<br />
Harvard Law School records<br />
Columbia University records<br />
Columbia University senior thesis, "Soviet Nuclear Disarmament"<br />
Occidental College records, including financial aid that he may have received<br />
Punahou School records, where Mr. Obama attended from the fifth grade until he finished high school<br />
Noelani Elementary School records<br />
Complete files and schedules of his years as an Illinois state senator from 1997 to 2004<br />
Obama's client list from during his time in private practice with the Chicago law firm of Davis-Miner<br />
Illinois State Bar Association records<br />
Baptism records<br />
Obama/Dunham marriage license<br />
Obama/Dunham divorce documents<br />
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license<br />
Soetero/Dunham Adoption records<br />
<br />
For someone who promised unprecedented openness, we find unprecedented hiding instead. This bothers me. I'm curious. Most people seeking the limelight would be happily inclined to release such records, and running for President is clearly seeking the limelight.<br />
<br />
President Obama is a pretty bright guy. Surely he knows that most, if not all, of this information will become public sooner or later, and much more like it. So I keep asking myself... why doesn't he release such information himself? Why pay people to fight its release?<br />
<br />
If anyone has any rational explanations and can express them calmly, I'd love to hear them.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-70365326599896870742011-03-16T20:16:00.001-05:002011-03-16T20:16:48.640-05:00Presidential Candidates for 2012There are generally two strategies in voting for a presidential candidate for a party:<br />
1. Who can beat the opposing candidate?<br />
2. Who do we want to be the president?<br />
<br />
The first concern often relegates the second concern to a footnote, and sometimes results in choosing the strongest campaigner rather than the person who would be the best president.<br />
<br />
In 2012, President Obama will almost certainly be the Democratic candidate for president. The 3rd-party candidates aren't likely to be significant in any way. That leaves the Republican candidate as the next big choice.<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">I suggest that the campaign ability of the Republican candidate won't matter a great deal, because I think President Obama will win or lose based primarily on how the economy is doing. If the economy is doing well, Obama is likely to win no matter who the Republican candidate is. If the economy is doing poorly, Obama is likely to lose no matter who the Republican candidate is. If the economy is muddling along, then it might be closely contested and the campaigning skills of the Republican candidate might be important, but I project that our economy will be doing quite poorly in the months leading up to the next election a year and a half from now. The long-term economic factors are headed in that direction, and has too much momentum to turn around before then.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">If I'm right, then Republicans (and Independents who vote in Republican primaries) should focus their attention on which candidates would make the best president, because no matter who it is, that person is likely to become the next president rather than a footnote in history.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><iframe align="right" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jdlambert-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1595230734&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>My favorite for the Republican candidacy at this point? Mike Huckabee. Not because he used to be a preacher, which is irrelevant in my view. The leading reasons I prefer Huckabee are because he's knowledgeable on both domestic and foreign issues, I agree with his big-picture positions (the ones I'm aware of), he has a little more humility than most presidential candidates, he's optimistic, he knows how to build consensuses well enough to manage large organizations such as the State of Arkansas, he has personal integrity, and he's cordial even with his opponents. Does he have flaws and past failures? Sure -- but as long as we're electing humans, that will be the case, and I think Huckabee's flaws are less serious and less numerous than most other contenders. So I hope Republicans and Independents give him serious consideration.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;">One last thought, just for Democrats who live in States with open primaries (anyone can vote in any party's primary). You don't need to vote in the Democratic primary, because no one is going to beat Obama in the primary anyway. So you could vote in the Republican primary and try to vote for whoever you think Obama could beat most easily in the general election. Well, I'd like to ask you to consider the reasoning I provided above, because we may have a Republican president next time no matter who it is. So if you vote in the Republican primary next year, don't vote for who you think would be most likely to lose, vote for whoever you would like as president the most. Or at least the person you would hate the least! And right now I hope that's Huckabee.</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
If you're interested, here's Huck's latest book: <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Simple-Government-Twelve-Washington-Trillion/dp/1595230734?ie=UTF8&tag=jdlambert-20&link_code=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969" target="_blank">A Simple Government: Twelve Things We Really Need from Washington (and a Trillion That We Don't!)</a><img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=jdlambert-20&l=btl&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=1595230734" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /></div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"><br />
</div>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-14642945363153312032010-12-05T20:12:00.000-05:002010-12-05T20:12:38.530-05:00Limited Government vs. Free EnterpriseA lot of folks, including many tea party activists, say they're for limited government and free enterprise. I'm not.<br />
<br />
If by "government" you specifically mean civil government, then okay, I'm for limited civil government. There are other forms of government, such as self-government and family government, that enter into the picture of human governance, but I'll stick with civil government in this post, since that's what most folks mean when they refer to "the government." Overall, I'm for balanced human governance.<br />
<br />
If you consider "free" enterprise as completely unrestrained enterprise, then I'm against it. There are countless examples of how we're all better off due to some limits on enterprise, such as not allowing companies to put sawdust in milk (yep, that really happened, on purpose, to make the milk thicker), not allowing companies to impose sweatshop conditions on workers, and not allowing companies to discriminate against employees or customers based on skin color.<br />
<br />
So, I'm for limited civil government <i>and </i>limited enterprise. However, there's a big, huge, colossal difference: Regarding civil government, we do best when we are cautious in what powers we grant to it; and regarding enterprise, we do best when we're cautious in what constraints we impose on it.<br />
<br />
Give the civil government too much power, and we will all be its slaves. Impose too many severe restrictions on private business, and we will all be paupers.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-37775434852172562882010-11-25T10:58:00.000-05:002010-11-25T10:58:00.543-05:00The First National ThanksgivingShortly after Congress approved the First Amendment in 1789 to send to the states for ratification, President George Washington issued the first National Thanksgiving Proclamation:<br />
<br />
“Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me 'to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness;'<br />
<br />
Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the People of these United States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be;<br />
<br />
That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks...for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government...particularly the national one now lately instituted, for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed...to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue.”Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-55731322078970028902010-11-10T01:40:00.000-05:002010-11-10T01:40:45.531-05:00Something NiceCan I say something nice about President Obama? Quite a few things, and here's a good example: In a speech in Indonesia, he said, "I have made it clear that America is not and never will be at war with Islam. ... Those who want to build must not cede ground to terrorists who seek to destroy." Amen.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-56705392443873785552010-11-05T19:39:00.001-05:002010-11-09T07:53:30.524-05:00QE2 and 2012Federal government intervention hasn't solved all our economic problems yet, so it's time to try the same things again, obviously. Without a gold standard or something similar, the Federal Reserve has the ability to create money, and put more of it into circulation. They claim this is to improve the economy. Interestingly, they expanded the money supply by 2.45 trillion dollars from Sept 2008 to June 2010 (the biggest expansion in history), and as you may have noticed, it didn't improve the economy. So now they're planning "QE2" to expand it by another 800 billion dollars (600B fiat and 200B from TARP funds) from now until mid-2011. It will have an impact, primarily by further enriching the biggest banks, who are at the front-end of the expansion, but it won't benefit the economy in accordance with their stated goals.<br />
<br />
This makes it clear, once again, that these high-level leaders (Obama; Bernanke, chairman of the Federal Reserve; Timothy Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury; et al.) don't exercise common sense and appear to be too ignorant for their posts. They're guessing! Worse, they're gambling with trillions of dollars of <i>our</i> money. Bernanke just recently said that QE2's 800 billion dollar expansion is an "experiment."<br />
<br />
<iframe src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=jdlambert-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=0446549177&fc1=000000&IS2=1<1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align:left;padding-top:5px;padding-left:10px;width:131px;height:245px;padding-right:10px;"align="right" scrolling="no" marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" frameborder="0"></iframe>Expand the money supply to stimulate the economy? Really? Consider this quote and see if it doesn't make more sense than our exalted leaders... "A lesson that was taught by classical economists that remains true: there is no ideal supply of money in a society. Any quantity of money will do, so long as the quality of the money is sound. Prices adjust based on the existing money supply. New quantities of money injected into society confer no social benefit. If production rises and the money supply remains stable, the purchasing power of the money will rise. If production falls while the supply of money remains stable, the purchasing power of money will fall." <i>End the Fed, Ron Paul, page 203</i><br />
<br />
Obama, Bernanke, and Geithner seem to have no concept that the money supply has quality, let alone that their actions are harming its quality. But whether I like it or not, QE2 is here. If, as I suspect, QE2 makes things worse in the long run, then Obama probably won't be reelected in 2012, because the economy will still be struggling. By then, a majority of voters will know or suspect that Obama and his czars' efforts to control the economy were guesses all along, and they guessed wrong. And instead of making things better, they made things far worse.<br />
<br />
In 2012, the Democrats will almost certainly field Obama again, and no independent or 3rd party candidate is likely to win, so if we're to change presidential administrations, it will have to come from electing whoever wins the Republican primary. So let's not blow this deal.<br />
<br />
I don't know who to recommend yet, but I know who not to recommend: Sarah Palin. Why? Lack of sufficient experience and knowledge. She's added to her knowledge since her vice-presidential candidacy, and can add more, plus she is an electric speaker (with polarizing charges - pun intended), and her experience is greater than Obama's was before he became President, but her experience is still not enough. I want a President with a lot more experience and a lot better understanding of economics than either Obama or Palin. Surely we can find someone better out of 310 million people. And while it is essential to have a candidate who understands the importance of a constitutionally-limited civil government, of financial responsibility, and of free-market economics, is it too much to hope that such a candidate could be more congenial than polarizing?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-13607662300934740532010-06-24T20:11:00.000-05:002010-06-24T20:11:07.670-05:00Surf ShelfI just recently got a Surf Shelf, and it's great. It easily mounts on the control board of a treadmill or exercise bike and will hold your laptop while you walk, run, or pedal. It's $40, but it lets you work or play while you exercise.<br />
<br />
Oh, and it works for books and magazines, too.<br />
<br />
http://www.surfshelf.comJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-29463774748613290202010-05-30T21:34:00.001-05:002010-06-03T23:06:40.691-05:00All The King's Men and All the King's HorsesThe catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico is not only an environmental catastrophe, it's an economic catastrophe for that region of the United States.<br />
<br />
I know they've been consulting an army of experts, but I still don't understand why this has been going on so long. I'm reminded of a story I heard long ago about a tractor-trailer that the driver tried to get under a bridge that was too low. Traffic was snarled for hours as they tried using tow trucks and other means to pull it out, all to no avail. All the experts were stumped, until a little boy who had been in one of the cars that got stuck in traffic and was now in the group on onlookers said, "Why don't you just let some air out of the tires?" Problem solved.<br />
<br />
Maybe there's something I'm missing, but it seems to me like all the solutions I've heard about involve experts trying sophisticated techniques of some kind or another, when a brute-force attack would be a better approach. <br />
<br />
Instead of focusing all efforts such things as trying to calculate just the right density and adhesive qualities of slurry to pump into the well head, why not build a huge concrete dome with more than enough mass to counter the oil pressure, tow it out to sea and sink it over the well head?<br />
<br />
Yes, I'm aware of the box idea they tried that failed. That was too small, with too little mass, because that wasn't an attempt to stop the leak, that was an attempt to cap it with an outlet that would still allow them to pipe up the oil to the surface. Forget all that. Just smother the thing.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-70615119916150679342010-05-07T22:05:00.000-05:002010-05-07T22:05:40.442-05:00The Greatest Ice Hockey Goal of All Time?I thought I had posted a link to this clip here before, but I wanted to watch it again, and discovered it wasn't here after all. So I hunted it up and I'm posting it anyway, even though it's 3 1/2 years old now. Maybe someone else will see it here who's never seen it before, and wow, is it worth watching.<br />
<br />
This is Alex Ovechkin playing for the Washington Capitals, against the Phoenix Coyotes in November 2006. The announcers are Coyotes' announcers, and one of the says during several replays from different angles, "...we can't see this enough. I mean, we can, because it's against the Phoenix Coyotes, but that is something spectacular."<br />
<br />
Alex the Great, on his back, rolling over, moving away from the goal, which he can't see but knows about where it is, three opponents between him and the goal, only one hand on his stick, next-to-impossible absolutely-minimum angle left to get a shot in, but...<br />
<br />
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vzbmI6-YSnQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vzbmI6-YSnQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object><br />
<br />
Link for when it gets copied into Facebook (on accounta FB hasn't been copying embeds): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzbmI6-YSnQ">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzbmI6-YSnQ</a>.<br />
<br />
What a shot!Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-30643651483706860472010-04-29T19:12:00.000-05:002010-04-29T19:12:27.688-05:00A Candidate I Can SupportToday I started campaigning for a candidate for the U.S. House of Representatives. It feels strange.<br />
<br />
I strongly dislike the long-term behaviors I have observed in my incumbent Congressman. For example, on taxes, he emphasizes that while he was Chair of our County Board of Supervisors, he "lowered taxes." He clearly makes it seem that his lowering of taxes was the most notable characteristic of his tenure as Chairman on the issue of taxation. He lowered taxes, he claims. Yeah, well, he once voted to lower the tax rate on properties after the property valuations had risen dramatically, so that they were ever-so-slightly less than what they otherwise would have been, but the overall effect was that property taxes went up. Up is not down. Property taxation is a huge issue, as property taxes make up the vast majority of tax revenue for most counties and states.<br />
<br />
During this guy's entire tenure as Chairman, property taxes doubled. Doubled. He voted for one tiny little reduction in a tax rate one time, but he allowed the overall taxation to go up and up and up. And yet he has the gall to talk as if lowering taxes defines his position on the general issue of taxation. He is a quintessential ~politician~ who appears to have no difficulty distorting the truth, and I want to vote him OUT.<br />
<br />
I'm an independent. This political bum I'm referring to happens to be a Democrat. He not only voted for the recent health insurance legislation, he was a co-sponsor of the bill. This is the roughly 2,000 page bill of which House Speaker Nancy Polosi made the idiotic statement during a press conference, "We have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill."<br />
<br />
Well, there are two Republicans running in the primary to compete against my incumbent. I like the stated positions and real-world, private-industry experience of both of them. Neither one is a career politician. Both have accounting expertise. Neither one is perfect, but I think they are far superior to the sorry excuse for a Congressman who now holds the office. I prefer Pat Herrity for several reasons, so I have started supporting him. A couple of independent polls indicate it will be a close election in November.<br />
<br />
Today I went to Pat Herrity's campaign office and got a handful of bumper stickers and a dozen signs. I drove to a busy highway, parked my car, walked to the median and started planting them. Tomorrow I'm going back for more.<br />
<br />
Pat's not rich, and he can't fund his campaign out of his pocket. If you're looking for a good guy to give $5 to help him de-fund the recent health insurance legislation, promote generally "conservative" values, including actually supporting the U.S. Constitution, you can contribute here: <a href="http://patherrity.com">http://patherrity.com</a>.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3129465223942754887.post-9740588105852530732010-04-14T18:30:00.000-05:002010-04-14T18:30:30.611-05:00Pre-Strike Civilian Warning?Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mind may be warped the same way Saddam Hussein's was. He may think he can stall forever by stringing along the U.N. while bouncing between promises and threats without getting bombed by the U.S or Israel. He may think that we learned a lesson from overthrowing Hussein that it's too hard and costs too much, in money and lives. He may think we wouldn't even drop bombs on his nuclear facilities without invading because we're too -- take your pick: weak, tired, soft, foolish, etc.<br />
<br />
Maybe he's right. I don't know if President Obama has what it takes to decide we're too close to a homicidal dictator getting working nuclear bombs to actually stop him, rather than merely lament and plead until after they detonate their first underground bomb as a test and testament.<br />
<br />
Certainly the pronouncement this week that the world is safer now from nuclear weapons than before the security summit is not encouraging. The security summit changed exactly nothing, and Iran wasn't even mentioned in the self-congratulatory assurances that sounded too much like Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time." That was shortly before Hitler launched World War II, for those who don't recall.<br />
<br />
Obviously, I don't know if we'll strike, or allow the Israelis to strike. But as far as I know, we might. So, here's a wild idea I had, and I'd love to get some responses from other folks. If we decide to bomb Iran's nuke sites, what if we were to warn the entire population before-hand? Give the civilians time and warning to get out of the way, in order to minimize innocent casualties?<br />
<br />
It might make things more difficult and riskier for our military. If so, that's a clear down-side. Saving civilian lives would be a clear up-side, but I don't think this would simply be trading our military lives for their civilian lives. Just because it might increase risk to our guys doesn't mean it would definitely cost more of our lives, or any, for that matter. If we were to use high-altitude stealth bombers that can fly above the range of Iran's anti-aircraft missiles, that'd be one option. Another would be stand-off cruise missiles, or even non-nuclear ICBM's.<br />
<br />
For the sake of discussion, suppose we were certain we could bomb them with them being able to strike back. Would it be a good thing to warn them to let the civilians flee to safer places? We would haven't to specify the exact day or time. The targets are fixed sites, so we can't exactly surprise them there, except that we may know more of their secret places than they hope.<br />
<br />
After 6 months of incinerating scores of Japanese cities with conventional bombs brought them no closer to surrender than ever, we finally dropped the first war-deployed nuclear bomb on Hiroshima. That killed over 100,000 people. When they still didn't surrender, we dropped a second one on Nagasaki, and they finally surrendered. Regardless of what you like or don't like about that history, two things are clear: it was effective in getting them to surrender unconditionally, and it killed a whole lot of civilians.<br />
<br />
Yes, the situation between the U.S. and Japan was far different from the situation between the U.S. and Iran, by many measures. And if we had warned them about which city we intended to bomb, they may have been able to shoot down our bomber. But suppose we had warned the Japanese that we were going to annihilate one of their cities without telling them which one, and urged their civilians too leave all their cities? Maybe no one would have paid heed and the same people would have died in Hiroshima. What would have happened when we warned them the second time? Perhaps a lot of people would have fled cities all over the country, including at least some in Nagasaki, and perhaps tens of thousands of lives would have been spared.<br />
<br />
We only had two bombs back in 1945. If either one had gotten shot down, maybe they wouldn't have surrendered for a much longer time. How much would a warning have increased their chances of intercepting one of our nuclear bombers? I don't know. And if they had, perhaps even more civilians would have died in the continued conventional bombings. I can't help but recall that my Dad was in the U.S. Navy, in Hawaii, about to ship out toward the fighting front, when the Japanese did surrender a few days after Nagasaki. That was before my dad met my mom and fathered my brother and myself.<br />
<br />
But in this situation, the point of bombing Iran wouldn't be to get them to surrender. It would simply be to physically eliminate their ability to process weapons-grade uranium. No invasion necessary. Cruise-missile their underground processing facilities with non-nuclear warheads until there's nothing left but dust. That's my best guess as to what we would actually do, IF we do anything other than talking until seismographs reveal they've succeeded in a detonation.<br />
<br />
Well, if we were to do that, what would be the harm in giving them advance warning? Something along the lines of, "Citizens of Iran: We wish you no harm, but we cannot allow your dictator to finalize his efforts to build nuclear weapons. We have reasoned, we have urged, and we have threatened, all to no avail, and now we regret that he has forced us to act to eliminate this very serious threat to world peace. Therefore, we urge you to stock up food, water, and medicine, and move as far as possible away from your government's nuclear facilities. We will begin bombing them within a few days and will continue bombing them until they have been completely destroyed. Here is a list of the most prominent facilities that you should remain far from at all costs..."<br />
<br />
So... what do <b>you </b>think?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11369657896528823886noreply@blogger.com0