So… Considering the supreme court’s recent ruling allowing corporations their right to “free speech” by giving them the unbridled ability to contribute to a particular party or candidate during election, I’ve decided to give the math a quick once over.  I went to the US census website and got a bunch of recent data on the population and income.

So lets start with with a broad brush stroke set of assumptions.

Assuming that we start the entire population of the US, (including people under 18) we get a number that looks like this:
301,237,703 people in the US.

Assuming that the census depiction of the US per capita income is correct, we get a number like this:
$27,466 of income per person in the US

That gives us a total population income of approximately
$8,273,794,750,598 dollars earned by the living breathing citizens of the US, and that includes the owners of the big corporations.

Assuming we all gave 25% of our total income (before we pay our bills) to just one candidate, that gives us a total population something like:
$2,068,448,687,650 of buying power

That’s 2 Trillion dollars that we could raise to buy the interest of a particular candidate, assuming every single person in the US went with one candidate, and contributed 25% of their total income to the cause.

You see tho, that’s kind of unrealistic, because of a number of bad assumptions:

1. That children under the age of 18 have disposable income to be giving to candidates, rather than buying gum or baseball cards.
2. That everyone would choose one candidate.
3. Most people can’t give up 25% of their income.
4. That 90% of the wealth in America wasn’t held by 10% of the population.

So, I decided to go with a more practical approach to this number, and included some corrections that Glen pointed out in my math.

So, working off the base assumption that one wouldn’t contribute to a campaign without being a voter.  According the voter turnout for the last election:
Approx. 200,000,000 people voted in the last election

That means that:

Approx. 66% of the total U.S. population voted.

Based on that number, and the total income for all american’s we can assume that there is:

Approx. $1,365,176,133,849 of buying power in the voting population

Lets make another phenomenally ridiculous assumption.  Lets assume all of those registered voters have 10% of their income (before they paid their bills) to contribute to one campaign (just one).  That number looks like this:
Approx. $136,517,613,384 in contributions that could be made to one party.

That number still fails for the fundamental reason that you could not get that population of people to agree on one candidate to contribute to.  So, since this is a fun exercise, lets make a few more assumptions. [Glen] Lets assume that based on the polling numbers from the last election, you end up with a rough 50/50 split in the population that agree on one or the other candidate. In a two party system, you end up with:

Approx. $68,258,806,693 on both sides of the campaign fence.

And as Glen pointed out, that ends up giving the total population a net sway with the campaign of somewhere around $0, cause both sides got the same amount.

So that leaves the corporations, and their ability to influence the situation.  So, lets pick a random large American corporation …. lets see … hmmm… Oh, here’s one… Wal-Mart.  According to their financial statements, they earned a nice amount of money last year, after ALL OF THEIR BILLS WERE PAID.  That number looks like this:
$95,086,000,000 earned after all their bills were paid.

Remember, that’s after they paid all of their bills.   ALL OF THEM.   And notice the last six digits are all zeros, they made so much money they didn’t even bother being accurate about their last million.  In that scenario, should it decide to do so:
WalMart could out buy either side of the argument by almost 50%

So, if you were concerned about the ruling, good, you should be, because America just got sold to the highest bidder.

One final point that makes it even harder for the people to compete with corporations:

• In order to get these numbers to work as expected, the voting population would have to organize themselves wholly as a unified body and turn out with 10% of their income, which is hard for a large portion of the population to do.
• A corporation is a single entity that doesn’t have to organize millions of individual entities to make its decisions.

Please read Glen’s comments below for further details and interesting interpretations of the actual process.

During the days I’m at work most of the time, but when I get home, I find it’s good to keep myself occupied with things that interest me and chores that need to be done.  I find that cleaning up my space (in small doses, not the manic/panic cleaning) gives me a sense of accomplishment and provides the little boosts to get beyond the negative thoughts that can pop up from time to time.   I’ve also taken on writing more, which keeps my mind active in a positive way and allows me to express my inner thought processes more effectively.

I’ve noticed that I’m hanging out with my more sober groups of friends more often.  The drinking buddies are still around, but most of them are aware of my decision and are usually supportive: occasionally they will crack a joke about the deal, but not in a peer-pressure fashion.  I don’t know that I would suggest this for everyone who’s attempting this, but one of my measures of self control has been to actually go to the bars with my buddies, and just drink soda-water and lime, or some mix of fruit-juice and soda water.   I’ve said before that the aesthetic of soda water is a great way to simulate drinking, without actually consuming alcohol.  Also, I’ve noticed that I get a “contact drunk” as my friends become inebriated, I feed of their high in a way that actually makes me feel drunk.   Again, I will stress the fact that this approach is probably not suited for everyone, as the temptations may be too much for some to handle.   For me personally tho, I have found that it gives me a boost, plus I get to be the one who gets everyone home safe at the end.

But alas, all is not perfect in the world of my choice.   I have lost a friend over it.   I have mentioned him before in previous posts. In the past when I’ve made this sort of attempt, he has “jokingly” eluded to my sexual orientation as being in question because I decided not to drink, or suggested that I’ve stopped being cool because I’m sober, or otherwise taunted me about my decision.  This is actually hard for me to deal with, because the my decision wasn’t just made, I had to convince myself it was worth it, so having him “jokingly” suggest that its wrong, has made me question the value of it, and also allowed temptations to come into my thought processes.   So far I’ve succeeded in not allowing the pressure to get the best of me, but unfortunately, I think our friendship was lost in the process.

I had written of the ones who won’t accept your decision, at this point I have labeled them the “Saboteurs”.   They prey, perhaps unwittingly, on your insecurities to prevent you from changing and forcing them to learn a new version of yourself.   My friend has done exactly this to me, even after I have asked him not to because it made the process more difficult.   A few days ago, he started chiding me again about not drinking and suggested that I had become boring and not-fun anymore.   I calmly asked him to stop and explained a second time why I didn’t appreciate his comments.   He defended himself by stating that I wasn’t cool anymore and that he didn’t like the sober version of me.   At this point, I have to admit that I didn’t say things the way I wished I had, but I will say that I didn’t scream them or yell them, I just said what was on my mind, particularly about him and the way he treats people.   I could have been more articulate, but the situation wasn’t allowing for thoughtful interaction, but more stream of consciousness type of emotional vetting.   I have seen him since the argument, and we got along fine, but I am no longer seeking out the friendship that once was.   If he wants to be my friend, he has to understand that it’s not the same friend he used to know.

So, my parting words are, beware the saboteur, they will use you against yourself to keep their interests in place.

• CBS: FDA Issues Warning About BPS Exposure
• ABC: FDA Backtracks on Potential Danger of BPA

As reported by these two networks, the FDA is using shaky language around their concerns with regard to BPA and its effects.  My favorite is the comment that it is of “some concern”.

The CBS reporter even went as far as to have blood drawn to test for levels of BPA in her blood stream before and after going on a diet free of BPA related products.

Here are my past posts regarding the topics:

• The Touch … the Feel … Of Plastic
• Petroleum: Let the Dead Rest in Peace

First I’ll start off by saying something that may not be terribly popular is certain circles: drinking is a symptom, it’s not the disease.  When I realize that I’ve been drinking too much and/or too frequently, when I look at the root of it all, I find there is some imbalance in my mental and spiritual self that is causing the reaction.   The more deeply rooted the issue is, the harder it is for me to control the reaction.   The closer I come to resolving the problem, the less compelled I feel to drink as a result.  That being said, here are some of the ways (in no particular order) I’ve been able to root out my issues, bring them to the surface, and stick to my decision.

Be completely honest with yourself. The only way I ever made progress was by being purely honest with myself about the nature of my issues.  It’s the root of everything.  If I start lying there, everything else will become a reflection of those lies, and failure becomes imminent.

Don’t fear the truth of who you are. The truth is, I’m a sensitive introspective geek who probably thinks too much, definitely talks too much, and has a profound sense of love for myself and everyone around me.  This combination of traits can make me moody and sometimes introverted and quick to judge.   Once I figured those things out and accepted them as the nature of me, it became much easier to handle myself and my problems, because I wasn’t ignoring the easy explanation for why things might be going wrong in my life.

Perfection is for the gods (and you’re not one). Holding myself to such standards only sets me up to fail.  Life is a spectrum that exists somewhere between absolute failure and absolute perfection.   Barring a few exceptions, even the most renowned people in any field will fail, and their successes usually aren’t perfect, but that doesn’t stop it from being a success.  I learned to allow my failures to be a gentle and personal lesson in how to do it the right way, rather and a harsh scolding criticism of why I can’t succeed.

Give yourself a reason and don’t forget it. Regardless of what I am doing, if I don’t have a reason to do it, I will lose interest quickly.  This leads to a laziness that makes me gradually fall back to a habitually reactive state.  If drinking is my habitual reaction, guess what I’ll end up doing.

Set an expectation for yourself. If I think the world expects it of me, I will usually live up to it.   This time around I told people on the first day that I was quitting drinking — not for a week, not for a month, just quitting for as long as I can.   Now I had to do it, otherwise I’d let down the expectation.   I keep the declaration alive too, especially with my critics.   If someone offers me a drink, I tell them directly that I quit drinking for the new year.  If I have to repeat it to the same person a hundred times I will.

Accept that other people won’t want you to change. In my life, whenever I’ve wanted to change something about my behavior, attitude or ideals, there was always people who didn’t want to see it.   Its because they were used to dealing with  me in they ways they already knew, and were too lazy to relearn the new version of me.  In those cases, you may just have to let them go, and if they want to relearn who you are, allow them to come back.

Defend yourself. People have had strange reactions to my choice.  While most of my friends have been supportive, some have come out and challenged my decision.  The most common way was by suggesting that I didn’t have the ability to succeed at it.  This is a divisive trick that people employ to keep themselves from having to face certain truths.   I stood up in those situations and calmly explained that this was a choice I was making for myself, to give myself more clarity, and if they are really  my friend, they won’t attempt to sabotage my progress.  If they continue the argument beyond that, I leave.  No one is making me stay.

That’s all I’ve got for now, I’ll keep you posted as new ideas and challenges as they present themselves.   In the mean time, here are some posts I’ve written from the past that are related:

• Beating Churchill’s Black Dog
• Drinking Isn’t My Problem
• EXPERIENCE-I-TRUE-I-POSSIBLE-I-EVERYTHING-I

Read the study.

The most disturbing part of this study is the fact that corn is virtually ubiquitous in the American food supply.  A huge percentage of the food we consume on a daily basis contains corn, corn by-products or corn derivatives.   Here’s a list of common foods that contain corn.  Combine that with the market share of corn controlled by Monsanto (read on for more on this), and the health impact becomes quite evident.

Monsanto is the parent company of these product developers: Acceleron®, Asgrow®, DEKALB®, DeltaPine®, De Ruiter Seeds, Genuity™, Roundup® Agricultural Herbicide, Roundup Ready®, Seminis®, Vistive™, YieldGard® and YieldGard VT™.

The majority of these products are some form of genetically modified seed, or vegetative growth additive that prevent insect and weed infestation in crops.   Monsato has patented their genetics, so if you use their products without paying for them (e.g. your crops cross-bred with their crops due to the natural occurring cycles of fertilization) then Mansanto can and will take you to court over the patent infringement.

Monsanto’s only major competitor in the seed and GMO market is Dupont.  As of  01/09/2010, The DEKALB® line of corn seeds owns about 24% of the market share, with Dupont holding 30% (see this Forbes article).  More than 50% of the corn product in the US is owned and manipulated by these two companies, whose pasts are sketchy at best when it comes to consumer safety.

Monsanto’s company DeltaPine®, created and owns the patent on what is known as the Terminator.  The terminator is a “technology that genetically programmes plants to bear sterile seeds.”  This effectively forces the farmer using the seeds to repurchase the seeds each planting season, directly from Monsanto.

Citations:

1. de Vendômois JS, Roullier F, Cellier D, Séralini GE. A Comparison of the Effects of Three GM Corn Varieties on Mammalian Health. Int J Biol Sci 2009; 5:706-726. Available from http://www.biolsci.org/v05p0706.htm
   
2. Ackerman, Ruthie. “Monsanto’s Corn Crazy.” Forbes. 09 January 2010. Web. 09 January 2010. <http://www.forbes.com/2007/10/09/monsanto-ethanol-corn-markets-equity-cx_ra_1009markets27.html>

I’ve noticed that sobriety feels a lot like inebriation used to feel.  Sometimes I’m completely dazed out, and think to myself, “What did I take to make me feel this way.”  Then I realize, aside from coffee, I’m not any form of medicated.   Maybe it’s the coffee.

I’m feeling good about all of this.  I’m starting to take pride in my sobriety, so it’s becoming a self-defining prophecy I think.  Much like quitting cigarettes.   That was the the day of the tsunami (December 26th, 2004).  It was strictly a coincidence that those two events lined up.   I tried one a year later; I nearly vomited after half-a-puff, there wasn’t even ash at the tip yet.   Tossed it out the window, much to the chagrin of my buddy who I bummed it off of.  Just the same, I haven’t looked back since.

No revelations at this point, other than a general feeling of positivity and well being, and a fond appreciation for coincidence.

I’ve written on my attempts to quit drinking in the past and how I’ve let my surroundings influence my decisions and eventually fall back into the scenario. My problem in those situations was that I wasn’t seeing it as an end to my drinking, but as a reprieve from drinking. So if I failed a day short of my goal, it wasn’t a big deal because it was supposed to end anyway.

This time the difference is the fact that I haven’t set or excepted a finite end to this decision. There wasn’t a term in the agreement with myself. The inevitable followup to my statement that I quit drinking is “For how long?” …. My answer is simply this:

As long as I can.

It’s an infinite possibility, and I have to accept that. Acceptance of this notion has changed some of my psychological reactions to the choice. For instance, I’m noticing activity in areas of my thinking that were otherwise dead.

The first thing I really noticed was that my paranoia’s are heightened. I think this will be a temporary effect, and I’m currently attributing it to the fact that I was probably dulling or numbing that part of my brain with the alcohol, and now it’s found a new life. I’m not sure how I feel about this, and dealing with the repercussions of a paranoid mental state can be tricky, which leads me to my second observation about my altered mental state…

I’m much more able to facilitate and navigate difficult situations that don’t turn out how I expected them to. I used to just react with frustration and anger, now my responses are more level headed, and less emotional. I’m able to see an alternative point of view with more credibility that I used to. I think this new found ability has lead to the third observation…

I’m more willing to defend myself. In previous situations where I was being put in an awkward situation, or “forced” to make a decision that wasn’t mine to make, or otherwise compromised in my basic morality, I would often roll over and allow the pressure to make a decision. But having something to defend has provided me a higher level of clarity on what is good for me versus what is not. For instance, a friend I was hanging out with last night was trying hard to get me to drink with him, even though he knew about my choice. His disrespect for my situation would have provoked one of two responses prior to my choice: 1) give in and drink and allow his pressure to make the decision for me or 2) get angry and start an unfocused meaningless fight with him about his lack of respect. Instead last night I just said, calmly “Look, I’m trying to do something healthy for myself, I don’t understand why you would try to challenge my ability to do this. It’s hard enough as it is.” … to which he had no response.

I don’t know where this will go, I’d like to believe that it’s the beginning of a nice new shiny life, sans alcohol, but I know myself too well for that to be a final assumption. I have agreed with myself not be upset if I fall back, but I must keep moving in this direction, because the old way isn’t acceptable.

I had what alcoholics refer to as a moment of clarity

- Jules Winfield, Pulp Fiction

I did learn something, however. For the first time, I loved her, really truly just loved her, I let go of my fears completely, and didn’t keep “one toe on the shore”. I realized that it doesn’t hurt as much to lose that kind of love — it hurts — but I know I did it completely and without reproach.

I feel empathy for her. Because I was there at some point in my past, so protective, so vulnerable that I couldn’t allow others into my experience. It’s probably the commonality that made me like her in the first place. I’m just not that person anymore, and I’ve been hurt by that person, so I am having a hard time seeing it through her eyes. She feels completely justified (while perhaps conflicted) in her response, and for good reason, because she’s reacting with the only instincts she’s ever really known. For her to see it my way would have required her to transcend those instincts which are so deeply rooted. It may be painful for me, but it’s unfair for me to expect that she could do that in one fell swoop.

I have lost another game of love, but the score was close, and my heart was in it.

Collin at Make talks about induction.

Larry Lessig talks about Copyright Law and its Downfalls.

1. I have a love/hate relationship with technological advancement.  Once I invest myself in a particular piece of technology, I have a tendency to wear the bastard out, well beyond its expected date of obsolescence.
2. The Treo 650 was one of the most advanced phones on the market at the point when I purchased it (costing me $450.00 after the $200 rebate for signing a contract).
3. I don’t really use advanced data features on my phone, even tho I had access to those capabilities when I bought the 650.

So all that being said, I have to say, I’m thoroughly disappointed with Palm.  Perhaps its an obvious conclusion, but when I bought the 650, I was promised that I was going to be on the bleeding edge of technological advancement for many years to come.   Given my stubbornness when it comes to ditching old technology, I believed this up until last week.

Last week, the 650 finally died on me after almost 4 years of dedicated (perhaps dysfunctional) service.   I spent much of its life explaining to people how to use my phone, even tho I became quite smooth in its operation.

I bought an LG NV3 as my replacement for the following reasons:

1. I only text and talk.  I’m so into the web at work and home that I don’t need it when I’m not at either of those places. I don’t tweet, and I Facebook only when others Facebook me.
2. I didn’t need a 20 lb. brick in my pocket anymore.
3. I still wanted to maintain access to QWERTY keyboard, and the NV3′s keyboard is more accessible than the 650.

But those are just technical reasons.  My eyes were finally opened once I started to use the NV3.   I was blown away with how easy the user experience is, and how little explanation I had to give to my brother on how to use it (my brother is a farmer who’s technological know-how expands no farther than his stereo, iTunes and automated watering systems).

The interface is fast, interesting and reliable.  One key access to voice recording, voice dial, speed dial and photos doesn’t require it be opened.  The contact list if far more searchable, and texting is two steps from start to finish.

The Treo was far more complicated.  The only feature that was similar was single button speed dials.  Other than that, I would constantly find that when I would access the phone I’d be in some random app that I didn’t use.  Accessing the contacts is quick, but writing text messages requires at least a minor in Computer Science to figure out.  Additionally, accessing the data on the phone from the computer is nightmare.

This all was quite a shock to me, considering that at the end of the day after rebates, the NV3 costs about $75.00, and the Treo 700 (650 doesn’t appear to be available anymore) still hangs around a $500.00 price point.

The point being, price is not an indicator of value.  Buy and NV3 if you don’t need/want the internet, it’s worth the price.