Who Gets Your Money

This is an Orangutan we saw at the Gulf Breeze Zoo. He was being fed green beans and had his hand out for more. Remind you of any US automakers? I suppose I think better of the orangutan because he isn't at fault for his situation. Of course I'm not sure I'll think any better of a congressman who votes to give a large company money in hard times by taking it from small companies and individuals (and their children) through taxes and a higher deficit.

Voting Tax

Wikipedia's article on Poll tax says among other things, "...a tax formerly required for voting in parts of the United States that was often designed to disenfranchise poor people...".  It also lists state identification cards to prevent voter fraud as a potential poll tax of sorts.  Even those states that provide free identification cards are suspect because traveling to the government office can be prohibitive for the homeless and because there may be a cost to acquire the documents needed for identification.

I'm not sure I've come to a firm conclusion on a poll tax.  I know I don't believe we should institute an Oligarchy.  You could have a good oligarchy for a time, but it would become corrupt sooner rather than later.  On the other hand I'm not sure a small barrier to the privilege of voting would be a bad thing.  Think about it; do we really want to be bending over backwards so that people who refuse to work a few hours at minimum wage can help decide the course of government?

If we don't require voters to be verified before they vote (as we often don't here in the states) voter fraud will increase regardless of any federal penalties.  A small fee would not have the privacy concerns (which I don't necessarily agree with) that an identification card would have, but it would have a similar effect of keeping would be repeat voters from voting again.  Some would say this would only prevent this type of fraud for the poor, but since each individual only gets one vote anyway a wealthier person committing this fraud would be easier to catch as they pass out the poll tax funds.  Of course this is the situation we are already in to some extent as the wealthy finance rides to voting locations for those they want to vote a particular way.  This is not illegal even though it has the same effect.

Of course a poll tax is by no means a cure all.  A poll tax would be a minor impediment to an electorate that sees no problem in using their 60% vote to take income from the 40% that are wealthier.  Of course this doesn't change either the 40% or 60% in relation to one another it just lowers them both, but that's another topic.

Perhaps the poll tax should be directly tied to the cost of the election.  Citizens are paying for the election indirectly now, so why not pay for it directly.  Normally I am against any new tax proposals, but in this case I'll make an exception.  A tax tied directly to the benefit would be equitable, voluntary, and simple.  It would be interesting to see what would happen if a state re-instated a poll tax.

India and Pakistan Standoff

This is a humorous bit on the "volatile" India/Pakistan standoff.

http://www.theonion.com/content/video/volatile_india_pakistan_standoff

A persistent demand to be met is bound

In Level 7 by Mordecai Roshwald, a fiction book with a political point that I do not necessarily recommend, there is a quote in appendix B that I found interesting.  Appendix B is two chapters from a novel the author wrote that was never published.  In this section there is said to be a proverb.  The proverb is, "A persistent demand to be met is bound,".  I found this interesting because that is all there is to the quote.  My mind completed the thought and added ...to be met, but then the quote is saying that I would do so.  But, then the quote would not have made sense if I had not completed the thought, but then it wouldn't have said I would have if I hadn't...

What kind of blogger am I?

Typealyzer defines my blogging style as follows:

The organizing and efficient type. They are especially attuned to setting goals and managing available resources to get the job done. Once they´ve made up their mind on something, it can be quite difficult to convince otherwise. They listen to hard facts and can have a hard time accepting new or innovative ways of doing things.

The Guardians are often happy working in highly structured work environments where everyone knows the rules of the job. They respect authority and are loyal team players.

Ark Replica

Johan Huibers in the Netherlands has built a scale replica of the Ark. I received an email forward that said it used the "exact scale given in Bible". It is neat to see someone who takes Genesis literally and wants to promote knowledge of the gospel through this means, but there is a few statement on his website that could cause confusion even before the media comes in and enhances the confusion with their own misconceptions.

The builders website says "The original Ark was 140 cubits long, and 23 cubits wide and 14 cubits high, This Ark is 70 cubits long, 9,5 cubits wide and nearly 13 cubits high". Breaking this down we have the following:

140 x 23 x 14 = 45,080 cubic cubits - Actual?
70 x 9.5 x 13 = 8,645 cubic cubits - Replica

By these dimensions the replica is 19.18% as large as the original or about 1/5 as large. Of course the dimensions are distorted. The replica is about 5/10 as long, 4/10 as wide and 9/10 as high. This certainly could lead to some misconceptions. It seems like it could have at least been made 1/2 as large for all dimensions, not just the length. That would have made for a vessel 70 x 11.5 x 7. Perhaps these dimensions weren't as usable for his purposes.

Of course if you look at the builder's blog about the full size replica they are working on, that one will be 153.2 yards long x 27.35 yards wide x 19.7 yards high using an 18.4 inch per cubit relationship (18 inches is typically used). Reversing those dimensions using their size for a cubit we get the following dimensions for the original ark:

300 x 54 x 39 = 631,800 cubic cubits

But wait a minute, did the original ark really have those dimensions? We don't have to guess or suppose about the cubits. The scripture says in Genesis 6:14-16 that "...The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits and its height thirty cubits." Those dimensions yield the following:

300 x 50 x 30 = 450,000 cubic cubits

Perhaps the differences between the actual and this second reconstruction are due to the limitations of the barges being used to construct the second replica, but that still doesn't explain the first. Here is a side by side comparison of the first replica and the actual ark:

300 x 50.0 x 30 = 450,000 cubic cubits - biblical dimensions
70 x 9.5 x 13 = 8,645 cubic cubits - Replica

So the replica is 23/100 as long, 19/100 as wide, 43/100 as tall and only has 2% of the volume of the original. I don't see any way the replica could be considered 1/2 as large as the original, but 1/5 doesn't seem quite right either. Averaging the ratios to the originals gives an average ratio of 28/100, which is 7/25 somewhere between 1/3 and 1/4 the size of the original. Perhaps I'm too much of a stickler for accuracy, and perhaps the good being done by this project is not hindered by these discrepancies. I certainly hope that this is the case. In any case at least the full size replica has closer to the correct proportions.

Because He Lives

The combination of having a new baby and the election of Barack Obama as President makes the second verse of Because He Lives all the more applicable.

How sweet to hold a newborn baby,

And feel the pride and joy he gives;

But greater still the calm assurance:

This child can face uncertain days because He Lives!