SFA goes on strike: Attendance for NY v Boston, 324

Image via WikipediaI was listening to sports radio this morning as they were discussion the NFL Owners Association meeting to be held this weekend.  It was interesting to hear the analysis on what the owners were going to be discussing and then the follow up on what it would take to save the 2011 NFL season.  As a fan, you ultimately want the game to be played as always, but you end up taking sides and wanting one side to win or the other side to give in so we can play football.

One of the issues being discussed is the 18 week season.  This players don't like this because it leads to more fatigue, more injuries, and frankly, more work for them.  The owners like this because it allows them to charge full price for two more games without fans getting upset with having to pay for two more pre-season games.  Then I thought:  What would the fans want?  I imagine fans would want two more weeks of regular season football!!  But who is representing the fans?  Nobody!!!

Hence the creation of the Sports Fans Association!  This will be union of fans across America that will form a governing body, vote on specific rules and issues, and if things don't go our way, we will STRIKE!!  Can you imagine how quickly we would get owners and NFL players to agree on a specific deal or compromise if 0 fans attended the next big game?  Can you imagine going online and voting for whether you wanted replay on foul balls in baseball?  We could get specific rules in the sports changed, request pricing caps on tickets, or really start affecting the game in almost anyway we wanted.  I know there would be negotiation of sorts, but if it were to take off, the SFA would have more power that both the Overpaid Players Associations and the Greedy Owners Clubs.  

Anyone not think this is the best idea ever?  I think I might have to wright to Bill Simmons on this to see if he'll be NBA chair for me.  And once we figure out American sports, we can get something going for the World Cup and get something done about the excessive crying and horrible officiating.  We've got 4 years before the next one, let's get going.

Related articles by Zemanta

• NFL owners discussing 18-game regular season (sportingnews.com)

Traffic is Infuriating

Image via WikipediaI just can't imagine a bigger waste of time than sitting in traffic.  And this is a waste of time that spans socio-economic status, race, gender, and country of residence.  I just can't believe a world as advanced as ours isn't doing a better job of solving this problem.
Here's what I would do if someone handed me $50 million dollars tomorrow (give me a call).  Find an urban area with a large commuting population (almost any urban area).    Build a single PRT line from a remote area into the downtown of the urban area.  This line would consist of parking lots around stations every 10 or 20 miles.  A commuter could get into a vehicle at any of the stations and ride directly to the downtown (or other stations) at speeds of no less than 100 mph and possibly up to 200 mph with zero stops in transit.  Hopefully there would be a city/area that would donate at least some of the land to the cause.
Once this initial line is established and people realize the potential for this kind of system, we could expand these initial stops to other area stops.  The eventual goal would be to have a stop within .25 of a mile of all residences, or even a personal stop at each house/business.

Related articles by Zemanta

• China's 10 Day Traffic Jam - Exponential Growth at its Worst (singularityhub.com)
• "The World’s Worst Commutes" and related posts (creativeclass.com)
• Long commutes make you unhappy, sick and fat (positivesharing.com)

I am Happier than Tiger Woods

Image by Richard Carter via FlickrFor all my complaints and the difficulties in my life, all I have to say is that I am happier than Tiger Woods right now.

Phew, 5 Americans survived a plane Crash!!

Image via Wikipedia

There's a story out of Columbia today where a plane crashed and of the 130 passengers, only 1 died.  While this is generally a good story with a favorable outcome, it really bothers me that the media has to point out the nationalities of the people on the plane.  "130 other people aboard, including at least five American citizens."  I just don't see why that is important.  Would it be a bigger story if they were all American citizens?  Why are American lives more important than lives of the other 125 people on the plane?

This happens with a lot of disasters that are reported by the media.  Maybe the problem isn't with the media, maybe we as a people actually DO value American lives more than other lives.  Do other countries have this same kind of bias for their people?  

The other time this comes up and annoys me is when War breaks out somewhere.  One of the big things that's reported on is how the U.S. is sending war ships and military personnel to evacuate Americans.  I can understand that if someone is working for the U.S. in that country that we may have some kind of obligation to ensure their safety, but if someone's there voluntarily outside of government business, why should we use our resources to save them?  What about the people who live in that country, do they not deserve to be saved?

In the end, I believe this worlds problems with war, immigration, and racism all stem from the fact that we consider "our own people" to be more important than "them".  Those people who were lucky enough to be born within an arbitrary political boundary, regardless of any merit they may have, are special, protected, and god forbid they get killed in an airplane crash.  I wish the people of this world could open their eyes and see how exactly the same people in other countries are to you.  The last part that amazes me is how proud our country is for the civil rights movement that occurred here.  We're so just, and good, and we treat everyone like equals.  The shame is that for some reason, an imaginary line at our border makes it okay for us to forget the lessons of the civil rights movement and hang on to a "we're better than them" mentality that does nobody any good.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Colombia Plane Crash: Passenger Dies When Lightning Strikes Plane (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Alaska Plane Crash Survivor Speaks (VIDEO) (huffingtonpost.com)
• Lightning crashes Colombian plane (bbc.co.uk)
• You: 2 US citizens killed in plane crash (nation.com.pk)

Ending Life Humanely

I read this article on Letting Go.  It's a very long article, but worth the read.  I believe this is starting to address one of the areas of our society that we have just not been able to address.    The author is a doctor who is struggling with the conflict between trying everything you can for a terminally ill patient no matter the cost, and letting that patient go so they can enjoy the last days of their life rather than be tied up to machines or be worsened by treatments.  It's a hard topic and I think the author does a good job of presenting both sides of the issue.  I think the take away from the story is: "What are your end of life scenarios?"

The more we think about our end-of-life scenarios now, the better chance we have of making a good decision once we're in that situation.  Are you willing to suffer for a week for a 5% chance at living 2 years longer?  Are you willing to suffer for a month for a 1% chance at living 10 years longer?  What is your break even point?  What are the things that you want to live for?  Would you rather spend 1 more week comfortably with your family, or fight to the bitter end hoping for a miracle?  These are hard questions.

I believe that in an advanced society, we would not find it so hard to let go of the dying.  It's a certain shortfall of who we are.  Whether this is because of religion or an evolutionary need to preserve our own, our tendencies are misguided and we should work on this.  Figure it out for yourself.  Talk to your family.  Make a small step toward improving your end-of-life scenarios.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Opinions on Euthanasia (socyberty.com)
• Panel to discuss end-of-life issues (bendbulletin.com)
• 6 Ways to Cope with an Illness (lifescript.com)
• Main Points About Death and Dying (socyberty.com)

The problem with the UN

Image via Wikipedia

I know, just one?  Well, this is the most important one.

What purpose does the UN serve?  Well, it SHOULD be able to enforce treaties, peace, prevent attacks on smaller nations.  It has not been successful with this.  Why?  Problem is that the UN has no power.  Even if it decides a country is our of compliance, or flat out defying UN rules, the UN will not do anything, especially if that country declares that any sanctions will be considered an act of war.  Not that sanctions ever help anyway.  They hurt the people and usually give the rebellious leaders added resolve.  It's not a good system.

We need a UN with teeth.  First, I'll take this to the extreme.  What if the UN had a host of Nuclear bombs and every time a country did not follow UN resolutions, that country's capital was bombed with a nuclear bomb with the intent on destroying that country's leadership.  I can think of a few problems that probably wouldn't have happened.  Once the UN drops one bomb, I can't imagine there would be a lot of countries causing problems.  We would still have gorilla type problems, but that's not what I'm addressing here.  So, once the UN establishes itself as having some teeth, then countries should feel more confident in reducing their armies, weapons, and other wasted resources so they can focus on growth, human rights, and anything else they might spend $800 billion dollars on annually.  Ok, so that's the figure for the whole world, but still, it's a lot of money.

So, it seems like the end goal could be beneficial, but we can't bring ourselves to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent people for the sake of world peace.  Would it be worth it, or possible if it was just one bomb and it gave us world peace forever?  Still a questionable thought and almost impossible to do.  I get that.  So lets consider an alternative.

Alternative:  Are nuclear weapons so completely unacceptable that it's just not a reasonable policy?  Maybe.  So instead, put into place a policy of complete destruction of central political establishment, central political symbols, and some high end residencies.  The ideal situation would be to kill the leadership, but this comes close to the goals of using a Nuclear bomb.  I think especially, the idea of going after high end residencies is especially interesting as money buys influence no matter where you live and if you give enough of the rich a reason to put pressure on the government to change, then you may just get peace.

Related articles by Zemanta

• On The Edge of Nuclear War (socyberty.com)
• Mapping Nuclear Bomb Explosions (neatorama.com)
• Iran leader says sanctions will not slow atom work (reuters.com)
• Do you think that we could ever get rid of nuclear bombs? (greenanswers.com)

Why isn't the post office a business?

Image via Wikipedia

I just don't understand government organizations that can't be run by businesses.  There are many departments or organizations within government that actually take in money to provide a service.  The DMV for example as well as the post office.  News is out now that the US Post Office is requesting a 23% increase in the price of stamps.  http://www.adafruit.com/blog/2010/07/07/standard-mail-prices-for-parcels-to-increase-23/

The problem here is that the post office is not improving it's services, should be making money off of us, and still continues to lose money and charge unreasonable rates to deliver mail.

I think it's about time there be a rival created for the USPS.  One of the large freight companies should start delivering mail door to door like a business would and see if it can't improve on how the USPS operates.  Here is a short list of some of the improvements I think could be made:
- Create an opt-in system for junk mail.
       -  Does the post office make extra money by delivering junk?  How much time would be saved if there was no junk mail?  What if companies had to pay the recipients in order to send mail to them?
       -  Provide ways for consumers to provide information so that junk mail could be targeted better.  This would increase the value to the advertisers as well as provide junk mail that may actually be interesting to the recipient.
- Establish accounts associated with sender's addresses.  Instead of stamping mail, just charge each account for the mail that is delivered from that address.
- Create different classes of mail delivery.  Have standard mail delivery every other day and have urgent or 1st class delivery every day for a higher charge.
- Instead of charging people for P.O.Boxes, make it cheaper for people to receive mail at a main postal office.  Saves on delivery time and expenses and may be more convenient for some people.
- Offer a fax to mail service.  Fax the post office, or bring it in, and we'll deliver a physical printout of your fax to the address specified.

I bet a serious competitor to the USPS could not only make money, but they could probably improve on service, reduce junk mail, and reduce prices for end consumers.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Post office plans to announce new rate increase (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
• How Postal Rate Hikes Foretell America's Future (money.usnews.com)
• Forty-Six Cents for a Stamp? (abcnews.go.com)