I finally started writing my book for kids about capitalism.  Enjoy the first two chapters!


Kapitalist Kids Book One:
The Kids Build a Tree House

 

Chapter One: Billy Has an Idea

 

Billy was sitting at the kitchen table at his friend Tara's house. Tara's mom had just made them peanut butter and jelly sandwiches that Billy and Tara were happily devouring. Tara was so excited about something that she kept talking with her mouth full.

 

"Bilmy, I jvt hd de bmstst mdee eber!" she said as the peanut butter kept sticking to the roof of her mouth.

 

"What?!" Billy asked as he scratched his head, wondering what she was trying to say.( Keep reading... )

 

Tara washed own the pb & j with a big gulp of milk. "I said," she repeated herself, "That I just had the best idea ever!"

 

"Really?" Billy asked. "Is it to make lots of money?" Billy was always on the lookout for ideas that could make lots of money. For Billy, the only way to know whether or not something was a good idea or not was to know if it would make lots of money.

 

Tara just rolled her eyes at him. "No, silly!" She giggled as she thought about how Billy was always thinking of money. "It's an idea to have FUN!" she said excitedly.

 

"Making money is fun," Billy replied.

 

"Well my idea is to have even MORE fun than making money," Tara said as she stuck her tongue out at him. Tara was always the one with the good ideas. She read lots of books and used her imagination all the time to think of new and fun things to do. But Tara was sure that her newest idea was going to be the most fun yet! "I want to build a tree house!"

 

"A tree house, huh?" Billy responded as he took another bite of his sandwich.

 

"That's what I said, isn't it?" Tara got out a book that she had borrowed from the library and put it on the table. "I read all about different kinds of tree houses in this here book. It tells you all about the kinds of trees you can build them in and what you can use to make 'em and all the fun things you can do in a tree house once you build it!"

 

Tara put the book between her and Billy and began to turn the pages to show him some of the really neat pictures inside. "See, look how cool they are!" she said to him.

 

Billy nodded. The treehouses did look really cool. Billy thought they looked so cool that lots of kids would want to come and hang out in a treehouse if you had one. And that's when Billy started to get an idea!

 

"These pictures are really neat, Tara," he said, "But I bet you could draw a picture that is way better than the ones in the book. Why, I bet now that you know all about treehouses you could draw one exactly like it would look if we built it in that big tree in Harry's backyard!"

 

Harry was Billy's friend, but Tara was never invited over to Harry's house. But she knew about the big beautiful oak tree in the backyard and her face lit up. "That would be a great tree for a treehouse!" she said. "And I know just how I would build it, too!"

 

Billy smiled. "Well you should draw me up a picture of just how you would. That would be really cool!"

 

"Okay," Tara said, and left her half-eaten peanut butter and jelly sandwich on the table as she ran off to her room to get colored pencils and crayons to draw up the beautiful treehouse she could already see in her head.

 

Billy finished his sandwich and took a drink of milk. He pulled out his cell phone and called his friend Harry. "Hey Harry," he said into the phone, "I just had a really great idea! I'll tell you all about it when I come over tomorrow!"

 

Billy put his phone away and smiled again as he thought of the wondeful idea he'd had. Then he took the rest of Tara's half-eaten sandwich and finished it himself. "This is just about the best idea ever!" he said as he finished off her food. "I'm glad I thought of it!"

 

Chapter Two: Billy Tells Harry His Idea

 

Harry lived in a really big house up on a hill. It was too far away for Billy to walk there, so he had his mom drop him off as usual. There were two big SUVs parked in the long circular driveway, and Billy had to walk around them to get to the door.

 

Billy rang the doorbell and the maid answered the door. She let Billy into the house and told him that Harry was in the big family room downstairs. Billy ran downstairs and found Harry seated in front of the huge 54-inch plasma HDTV, playing his Playstation 3. Harry was also watching TV on the smaller 40-inch plasma HDTV to the right of the main set.

 

"Hi Billy," Harry said, though he didn't look away from the screen.

 

"Hi Harry," Billy said, looking at the game that Harry was playing. His face lit up with a big grin and his eyes got as big as beach balls. "Is that Football 10!?" he exclaimed. "I can't believe you got it already!"

 

Harry just shrugged. "Yeah, but it sucks. Barely any better than last year's. I can't believe I wasted half of my allowance money on it."

 

Billy looked at the players going by on the huge screen. "It doesn't look like it sucks," he said, though he was very careful to never disagree directly with Harry. Harry was, after all, his best friend. "So if you have the new one, does that mean I can have Football 9 like you said?" he asked.

 

"I didn't say you could just have it," Harry told him. "I traded it in at the store for five bucks off the new one. You can go down to the store and buy it off them, like I said."

 

That wasn't how Billy remembered it, but he never disagreed with Harry directly, because Harry was his best friend. "Well I would have given you six bucks for it," he said with a bit of a frown as he sat down next to Harry.

 

"Well maybe you would have," Harry told him, "But I didn't see you there at the midnight special release, did I?"

 

"No," Billy admitted. He knew that all the cool kids went to the midnight release to get the new games, but he could never get his parents to see this very simple fact. "My mom said it was past bedtime on a school night. I'm sorry I wasn't there."

 

"Well your mom needs to get with the program," Harry said. Then he threw his controller. "Stupid quarterback threw the ball to the wrong guy! Now I have to start over. That'll hurt my stats!" Harry hit the reset button to begin the game over again.

 

"Does that mean I can play now?" Billy asked.

 

"No," Harry told him, "that was my franchise game. I have to beat the Knights to make the playoffs. I really need to finish my season today so I can get to the top of the leaderboards."

 

"Oh," Billy said, trying to hide his disappointment. "Well I guess that's what's most important." He didn't know why he couldn't just play as the Knights. He would even let Harry win. He always let Harry win because Harry was his best friend.

 

But then a smile came back to Billy's face as he remembered why he came over. "Oh, I almost forgot!" He reached into his pocket where he had a folded up piece of paper. He opened the paper up and spread it out on the floor.

 

Harry glanced down from his game to look at the paper for just a moment, and in doing so he threw another interception. "Shoot!" he said and tossed the controller across the room. "See what you made me do? Starting over...AGAIN."

 

"I'm sorry, Harry," Billy said, "You would have never thrown an interception without me messing you up. But this will make you feel better. Look at it!"

 

While the game restarted, Harry took a moment to look at the drawing on the paper carefully. "What's that?" he asked.

 

"It's a treehouse!" Billy told him. "See, it's drawn like it would look in the big oak tree in your yard." Billy watched Harry's face and could see that his best friend was interested. Billy was glad that Tara was such a good drawer. She'd even written out directions about how to build it.
 

"Who drew this?" Harry asked.

 

"I did," Billy told him. "This is the idea I had that I told you about."

 

"Hmmm...it'd be better if it was bigger," Harry said. "You could only get the little TV in there." Harry pointed over to the small 40-inch plasma HDTV. "Still, might be kind of fun."

 

"Forget about the fun," Billy told him. "It'll look so cool. All the other kids will be able to see it up on the hill when they drive by. And they'll all wanna come over for secret clubs and sleepovers and picnics and stuff! And then we can charge 'em money to! We'll make lots and lots of money, just like how you said if I ever got a good idea to make money that we'd split it all fifty-fifty!" Billy's face was bright with anticipation as he thought about how he would finally be able to buy the new video games and not have to wait to buy the cheaper, used versions.

 

"Whoa, whoa whoa!" Harry said. "I never said fifty-fifty. I said I'd give you a fair share if you had a good idea."

"Well half is fair," Billy protested. "It's MY idea, after all. And I already have a drawn up blue print and everything!"

 

"But it's MY oak tree," Harry said. "Besides, where are you gonna get the wood to build it? Hammers, nails? You got those? Ladders?"

 

"Well we can get all those things with the rest of your allowance money," Billy suggested.

 

"That's right, MY allowance money," Harry said. "MY oak tree, MY money, MY yard. That makes this MY treehouse. And that makes it fair that I take all the money we make from it."

 

Billy was pretty sure that Harry's idea wasn't quite fair, but he never disagreed with Harry directly, because Harry was his best friend. "Well why would I give you my drawing then?"

 

"Well of course I'll pay you for the drawing," Harry said. "Tell you what, I feel bad that I didn't let you buy my old Football 9 game, so I'll give you the six bucks you would have paid for it."

 

"But at the store it'll be 15!" Billy said, as his visions of having all the new games gave way to worrying that he still wouldn't be able to get the used ones.

 

"I'm not done," Harry said. "You're my best friend. I wouldn't treat you unfair." Harry chewed his lip as he seemed to be doing some math in his head. "I'll give you six bucks for your drawing, and then I'll hire you for nine bucks to be my foreman. That's fifteen bucks, and you can go buy my old Football 9 down at the game store."

 

Billy's face twisted in confusion. "What's a foreman?"

 

"It's the guy who will tell everyone what to do to build the tree house," Harry explained.

 

"I thought WE were going to build the treehouse," Billy said, still confused.

 

Harry sighed. He couldn't believe how dense Billy could be sometimes. "Well WE are building it. But we're not going to do the actual work. We buy labor to do that. I've got better things to do than pound nails into boards and climb up and down ladders."

 

Billy was still confused. "So you're saying we get other kids to build it? And me and you just tell 'em how?" Harry nodded. "But if other kids build it, ain't they gonna be part owners of it, too? I mean, won't we have to split out money with them?"

 

"No, moron," Harry said, sighing at his friend's lack of understanding. "It's MY treehouse, plain and simple. Don't matter who designs it or builds it. I'm the capitalist, so it's mine."

 

"The capita-what?" Billy asked.

"Capitalist. The one with capital. Money. It's my money, so whatever my money builds is mine. Cause when you think about it, I'm the only one taking a risk. So since I take all the risk, then I get all the reward. That's how capitalism works! Don't you know anything?" Harry didn't have more time to explain these very basic things to his friend, so he turned his attention back to the game.

 

"I...I guess..." Billy said, still not fully understanding this capitalism thing. He thought that HE had taken a pretty big risk when he tricked Tara into giving him her drawing. And she'd be really mad if she ever found out he sold her drawing to Harry for six bucks. But money was the most important thing, Billy knew, so maybe Harry was the only one taking a risk, because Harry was the only one with money to risk. "But didn't you just get the money from your parents?" he asked.

 

But Harry was fully engrossed in his game against the Knights and didn't hear his best friend's question. "Time is money," he said. "Don't be such a lazy bum. Get to work gettin' some workers to biuld my treehouse. And anything you pay 'em over two bucks is comin' out of your nine. So make sure they'll do it for cheap."

 

"Okay, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to be lazy," Billy said as he got out his phone and started thinking of who he could call to come build his and...well, just Harry's treehouse.

My friends, I have uncovered a terrible truth that is more unsettling than all the conspiracies in all of Dan Brown's novels put together! As a devoted watcher of Fox News, I have become increasingly vigilant against attempts to destroy our Constitution and our freedoms by secret socialists and communists like Barack Obama, Van Jones, Acorn, and their ilk.

 

But the threat from these communists pales in comparison to the shocking discovery I have made! Who is that threat, you might ask? None other than JESUS OF NAZARETH. This threat is so dire because Jesus is apparently the most secret socialist of all!

 

I know, my friends, that such a claim is truly shocking and must be backed up by irrefutable evidence. So now I will spell it out plain and simple so that all of you can see all the ways in which Jesus and his disciples are like Barack Obama and the Democrat (Communist) Party:

 

Reason #1: Jesus, like Barack Obama, was born in a foreign country and isn't even an American.

 

Can you believe it? This came as a shock to me, personally. I always thought the town of Bethlehem was in Pennsylvania! Apparently, the Bethlehem that is referenced in the Bible is actually not even on this continent! Not only is it in a foreign country, but it's in THE MIDDLE EAST! Jesus was born in the land of terrorists! I also found that he spent much of his life living in PALESTINE! How can someone with such a dubious background be a friend of Israel and a good American?

 

Reason #2: Jesus engaged in class warfare and foretold the redistribution of wealth!

 

It doesn't get more socialist than that! Just read the populist non-sense that I found in the Gospel of Luke 6:20-26:

 

"Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God is yours. Blessed are you who are now hungry, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who are now weeping, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man. Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. But woe to you who are filled now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will grieve and weep."

 

Can you believe that? Jesus is basically trying to give people an incentive to be poor! He's saying that rich people are going to get it in the end, can you believe that? Why would anyone invest in the stock market and create jobs and entrepreneurify if this is what they thought their reward would be? He's advocating laziness and the eventual redistribution of wealth in the kingdom of heaven! This is plain and simple Marxism! He goes on to say that people should "lend without expecting anything back" (Luke 6:35). Doesn't he know that would ruin our responsible financial institutions and banks? How would capitalism go on? How can he condemn the work of honest bankers? Are you seeing how socialist he really is?

 

Reason #3: Jesus is weak on crime.

 

Like a true bleeding heart liberal, Jesus had some truly insane positions when it came to crime. In this same Communist Manifesto Jesus says that if someone strikes you that you should "turn the other cheek" and that you should "pray for" and "bless" your enemies. What kind of surrender monkey nonsense is that? Was this guy French? And while I was hoping that all this crazy talk about letting terrorists and evildoers do all the evil they want might just have been written by this wacko named Luke, I found almost the exact same socialist propaganda in Matthew! He says "Do not store up your treasures on earth" (Matthew 6:19) and then goes into the same basic speech that's in Luke. Christians call this a "Sermon on the Mount" to disguise its true sinister nature as secret socialist spin! Even worse, in the Gospel of John, he pardons a woman who was guilty of a capital offense and lets her off with a "Go and sin no more!" Can you believe it? (John 8)

 

Reason #4: Jesus says he will judge societies, not individuals!

 

Everyone knows that rugged individualism is the only way to go! Otherwise people become lazy and don't create wealth. Only a bleeding heart liberal would think that the social context matters. We all know that there are good people and evil people. But Jesus says this:
 

"When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit upon his glorious throne, and all the nations will be assembled before him. And he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will place the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. Then the king will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me.' Then the righteous will answer him and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?' And the king will say to them in reply, 'Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.' Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew 25: 31-46)

What kind of socialist non-sense is this? First off, I think it's telling that Jesus identifies with people in jail. Anyone as unpatriotic, subversive, radical and socialistic as he is should definitely have detained as an enemy combatant, interrogated with the harshest techniques and then executed! But just look at all the lunacy that's in this passage! Jesus is basically telling people they will be rewarded for irresponsible behavior like giving handouts to the poor and healtcare to the sick. That only encourages laziness and hurts the profits of good hardworking business people. Everyone knows that. And then those people who are doing the responsible thing by refusing to give away their hard earned dollars to total strangers are told they're going to hell!

If people were every to actually believe and read this stuff then capitalism would collapse overnight! This is truly dangerous, people! It must be stopped!

Reason #5: Jesus gave away healthcare for free.

Apparently, this Jesus of Nazareth was a healer of some kind. He cured lepers and blind people and all kinds of things. Not once did he demand payment. Can you imagine what this did to the livelihood of hardworking doctors all throughout his community? These people went to school and paid their dues and got their licenses and had to pay for medical equipment and needed to be rewarded by being paid by their patients. But here's this Jesus who's apparently just naturally good at healing doing it for free. How's a doctor supposed to make an honest living like that?

Reason #6: Jesus' closest followers formed a Communist cell after his death.

One could argue that Jesus didn't really have a social or economic message if all we had were what I described so far. But after he died, we can see just what kind of society his followers went and formed. And what kind of lifestyle choice did they make? By now, you can probably guess the answer but I was shocked and appalled as I read this:

All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one's need. (Acts 2:43-45)

The community of believers was of one heart and mind, and no one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they had everything in common. With great power the apostles bore witness to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great favor was accorded them all. There was no needy person among them, for those who owned property or houses would sell them, bring the proceeds of the sale, and put them at the feet of the apostles, and they were distributed to each according to need. (Acts 4:32-35)

I don't know about you, friends, but I love America and I love capitalism and when I read those words I started to get really emotional. There were literally tears in my eyes, America! I wept to see that this religion I had once put my faith in was actually a secret vehicle for anti-American and anti-capitalist ways. But then my sadness turned to outright fear as I learned what these freedom-hating communists did to anyone who dared to try and defend their God-given right to property:

Thus Joseph, also named by the apostles Barnabas, a Levite, a Cypriot by birth, sold a piece of property that he owned, then brought the money and put it at the feet of the apostles. A man named Ananias, however, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property. He retained for himself, with his wife's knowledge, some of the purchase price, took the remainder, and put it at the feet of the apostles. But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart so that you lied to the holy Spirit and retained part of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not still under your control? Why did you contrive this deed? You have lied not to human beings, but to God." When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and breathed his last, and great fear came upon all who heard of it. The young men came and wrapped him up, then carried him out and buried him. After an interval of about three hours, his wife came in, unaware of what had happened. Peter said to her, "Tell me, did you sell the land for this amount?" She answered, "Yes, for that amount." Then Peter said to her, "Why did you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Listen, the footsteps of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." At once, she fell down at his feet and breathed her last. When the young men entered they found her dead, so they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. (Acts 4:36--5:10)

Can you believe it ladies and gentlemen? Here, in the early "Christian" movement, we see already the kinds of death panels envisioned by Obama and others. They were so hell bent on their program of redistribution of wealth that they would up and kill anyone who would withold so much as a cent from their early form of government. This is what we can expect in our future if these Christians are allowed to continue unchallenged and unchecked.

Reason #7: Jesus, like Barack Obama, is a secret Muslim.

Can you believe that folks? Jesus Christ isn't even a Christian. He's apparently a Muslim and is mentioned all through the Qu'ran. His birth story is told in 3:49-55 and his death is in 4:157. I won't list all the other passages in which he appears. But this shouldn't be surprising to anyone by now, given the fact that he was BORN IN THE MIDDLE EAST, HELD COMMUNIST AND SOCIALIST VIEWS and FOUNDED A COMMUNIST TERROR CELL. Jesus was also a secret Muslim and Christianity is a plot to make all Americans convert to Islam once the church is in charge of everything and has taken away all of our hard-earned property and confiscates all our God-given guns based on some "Prince of Peace" plan.

Conclusion

There you have it, everyone. Christianity, something we once thought of as the bedrock of good conservative values and American patriotism, has been exposed as a socialist program for turning American into a Muslim Communist state. No one could refute the evidence I have so clearly laid out in front of you. I hope that you will help me in raising awareness about this secret conspiracy and join me in proudly defending AMERICA and CAPITALISM from these radical communist Muslims who HATE OUR FREEDOM!

I've only been in one fight in my entire life. It was at the end of the 6th grade and I stood up to the bus monitor who was picking on the little kids by flicking them in the back of the head and doing other silly things like that. I didn't hurt him. I just put him in a full nelson and wouldn't let him go until he promised to stop. He wouldn't promise, so I just held him there. The bus driver, of course, came back and sent me up to the front of the bus for being bad. But I felt really, really proud of myself to be honest.

The point is--I don't do violence. I think it's silly. I think the real battles are fought with ideas. Either my ideas are better than yours--and you should acknowledge that--or yours are better than mine, and I should acknowledge that. If you resort to fisticuffs before you've resolved the matter, I believe you've actually admitted intellectual defeat.

Which is why I found what happened at Telefund today so appalling. I didn't even want to go in today. They called ME to tell me to come pick up my hastily arranged final check. This is what happened:

I suspected that the company, in its haste to be done with
its relationship with me, would short the amount of time they paid me
for. When the number of hours was too low by almost half an hour and
there was no performance bonus (I have always received at least some
performance bonus), I believed my suspicions were confirmed. I asked
to see the log-in record on the computer or one of the days in
question. Some very quick math showed that I was correct. It was a
small error of "only" four minutes, but if that kind of error is
compounded on every shift, that means a lot of money in the long run
for both the callers and the company. Despite my math being correct,
the supervisors told me that I had to sign for the check and take it
because they weren't going to change it. I asked them if my math were
somehow incorrect. They didn't say, but told me I had to take the
check and leave and then threatened to call the police. I really was
incredulous because I did not once raise my tone of voice or say
anything other than what I wanted to do was make sure I was paid for
the correct number of hours. They repeated that I had to leave and I
said I would but if they wouldn't discuss it with me I needed the
number of their supervisor or main office to resolve the disputed pay.
As one supervisor wrote down the number for me (incorrectly, as I was
to find out later), the other either did or pretended to dial the
"police" and started talking about an ex-employee who was "acting
aggressive and threatening". I could only shake my head in disbelief.
I just wanted to discuss and resolve the dispute in a rational manner.

Once I was outside, sitting on a public bench, I called the police
myself to make sure a false report had not been made. That's when the
male supervisor came down the stairs and started pointing at me and
making glaring gestures telling me I had to "vacate the area." I shook
my head politely and told him that I was on a public street making a
phone call and he went back inside but again put his phone to his ear
as if he were going to call the police again.

I have never been so poorly treated by a company or its
representatives. They are probably used to these tactics functioning
to keep employees from asking legitimate questions about their pay and
treatment. But they never had an employee who wasn't afraid of them and
who also isn't afraid to sit at the front of the bus if it's for something he didn't
do wrong.

I would ask anyone who cares about progressive causes to look into Telefund. They really are a despicable company. First, check out my longer blog (and some interesting discussion it generated) over at Daily Kos:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/9/11/780683/-Say-No-to-Telefund!-Progressive-Fund-Raisers-Deserve-Progressive-Treatment-%28now-w-poll!%29

Then, you can see just how many progressive groups are in bed with this unethical company here:

http://www.telefund.com/clients.html

Then you can find out how to tell Telefund what you think of them here:

http://www.telefund.com/contact.html

Lastly, if you belong to any of the organizations on that very long list, contact their member services divisions and let them know they're utilizing an anti-progressive and downright unethical company.

Help stop Telefund now!

This summer I had the unfortunate experience of working for Telefund, a company that claims to be an ally to progressive causes. I thought it was a win-win situation--I get to make a little money and help out progressive causes at the same time!

But my brief experience at this company (six weeks at the Santa Barbara office) has left me feeling hypocritical, cynical, and downright outraged. I cannot believe that progressive groups have gotten themselves in bed with Telefund due to the company's deceptive and inconsiderate attitudes toward progressive supporters. More importantly, I am appalled at Telefund's anti-union and altogether anti-progressive stance in regards to it's employees. I am very fortunate in being able to leave my job and say no to poor treatment. Others are not so lucky.

Below I have posted a letter I am writing to every progressive group I know that raises money through Telefund. I hope that you will take the time to read it. I am even more hopeful that you will also contact these groups, and Telefund, and let them know what you think!



Dear "Progressive Group":

(These groups include, but are not limited to: the DNC, Mother Jones, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Amnesty International, Southern Poverty Law Center, Environmental Defense Fund, IRC, American Foundation for AIDS Research, etc. If you get a call from one of these groups, please ask who is really calling. It would be a shame if most of your donation went to lining the pockets of these anti-progressive corporate types! But be nice to the person on the phone!)

My name is Todd Foose and I am writing to you now because I am very concerned about your relationship with a company known as Telefund. This organization portrays itself as a friend to progressive causes that simply raises money to help progressive groups achieve their goals. I have learned through both firsthand experience as well as through on-line research that this company is deceptive in its practices, anti-progressive in its employment policies and ultimately harmful to the progressive movement as a whole.

I have contributed both my time and money to your organization in the past. I am letting you know now that I will not contribute any more of either until either 1) your relationship with this company is terminated or 2) Telefund adopts progressive practices towards its employees and stops using deceptive tactics while it acts as your voice to your own supporters and donors. I have come to this conclusion after spending a little more than a month as a Telefund employee in Santa Barbara, California.

First off, let me say that I understand completely how difficult fundraising efforts can be. I know that non-profits are especially hard hit in a tough economy. I'm sure that you entered into your current relationship with Telefund because any extra money in your coffers probably seems to good to refuse. I am aware that, financially speaking, you get a short term net gain by contracting out some of your fundraising efforts to a company like Telefund. But I am writing as a concerned supporter because I believe that in the long run your relationship with this company is not only unethical and hypocritical, but ultimately self-defeating for your organization and the progressive movement.

I will begin by describing the inconsiderate and deceptive and often unethical practices that Telefund engages in while it is in direct contact with the men and women who are the real backbone of the progressive movement. I believe that the damage Telefund does to your organization's reputation goes far beyond the annoyance of constant phone solicitations (apparently always during dinner).

Inconsiderate and Deceptive Contacts With Supporters

I'm not sure if it's required by law or simply by their contacts with your organization, but in the greeting of every Telefund script is the line: "I'm a paid solicitor from Telefund, Inc., calling on behalf of Progressive Group." The first thing that every caller learns on their first training shift is that you never read this part of the script. It is never a supervisor who tells you this--this is always delegated to a regular caller who has volunteered to train you. The reasons for the ommission of being a paid fundraiser and not having management be the ones to tell you to omit it are obvious. They also lead your supporters to believe that the person they are talking to is YOUR ORGANIZATION ITSELF. This is what leads to damage to your reputation.

Callers are under constant pressure to keep their "yes" numbers up. (I will say more about this in the next section about anti-progressive employment practices.) At first glance, this isn't a bad thing. We want these supporters to say yes to donating to a good cause. But it leads many callers to log the more polite refusals to give a donation as being in need of a callback. Many supporters are called numerous times because of this fact.

Even if a supporter says "No I can't help you at this time" or "I have nothing to give" or even "I was just diagnosed with cancer," the caller is instructed not to let up. The basic training is that you SAY "Oh, I understand that...x, y or z BUT..." and go right back to a part of the script. Very rarely, this method might result in a donation. More often than not, however, it leaves the supporter on the other end of the phone saying things like, "No you DON'T UNDERSTAND if you're still asking me for money." And the worst part is, they are right. If you and I were talking like ordinary people, and you asked me for money, and I told you I didn't have any to give you, and then you talked for a while longer and then asked me for money again, I would quite rightfully be angry at you for not listening to me, and even angrier for saying you understood the first time. This is how it makes people feel about your organization when they are called on the phone in this manner.

Calls are made even in the midst of important progressive events. For instance, just this evening we were on the phones calling people on behalf of the American Foundation for AIDS Research during the president's televised address on healthcare. This brought in almost nothing in the way of donations, but upset many people who couldn't believe the inconsiderate timing.

Callers are instructed to tell your supporters that "every dollar" they donate goes straight to your organization. I'm sure that this is technically true. They make out their checks or their credit card payments to your organization. However, just a bit of research turned up the fact that Telefund keeps 65% of the money for itself. Some people we call are finally catching onto this fact. They'll even come out and ask if it would be better for them to go to the website and donate. Truthfully, the answer is yes. But as a caller, you are warned to never mention donating in other ways. You are warned never to mention the fact that Telefund is paid a hefty percentage of the proceeds of the fundraising drive (even if it's upfront and technically not from THESE donations). I suppose they want you to present people with a scenario in which paid solicitors still get paid even with 100% of the money going to the non-profit group. Most people find this an insult to their intelligence if they bother to think about it at all. This is because Telefund is not interested in helping your organization. It is interested only in its profits (and not in sharing those profits with employees).

As I mentioned, other ways of donating are always to be discouraged. Even if the person says "Oh I have that organization's envelope right here, I'll just use that to send in my donation and save a tree," callers are instructed to tell the supporter to instead wait for a new envelope (one that is, of course, coded to give credit to Telefund) instead of being environmentally friendly. This is another practie that should irk progressive-minded organizations such as your own.

The end result of these and other practices is that more and more people come to distrust your organization and re-think their financial and, in my opinion, more importantly, their volunteer support of it. The scripted, unnatural and unresponsive conversations your supporters have with callers who are told to portray themselves as being FROM your organization leads to a great deal of donor fatigue, cynicism and eventually apathy.

There is no greater danger to your organization and the progressive movement as a whole than to turn more and more people off to these causes and to the idea of getting involved in general. Many of them feel they are being punished for having contributed in the past because "Now I get calls all the time" and "It seems that all your organization cares about is money!" (This is not helped by the fact that all Telefund cares about is, in fact, money. We're told not to engage with your supporters about their concerns on other issues or spend too much time helping them figure out how to volunteer or anything like that--we're just supposed to raise money so if they don't donate, then move on!)

I am also writing because I am appalled at the anti-progressive ways in which Telefund treats its employees. The most egregious abuse in this area happened at the Denver office. I would refer you to this article which describes how Telefund went about firing anyone who thought about forming a union:

http://www.iww.org/en/node/2312

There are other articles on the web that detail the same story. I'm sure Telefund would say that these are just the ramblings of a few disgruntled employees. I'm sure they will say the same about this former employee. But now that I've seen their practices up close and in person, I find it easy to believe the claims made in the article I referenced above.

But being anti-union is not the only anti-progressive stance that Telefund takes with its workers. Here is a list of the unfair and/or anti-progressive labor practices that are engaged in by Telefund:

Anti-Progressive Labor Practices

Telefund is one of those employers that President Obama mentioned in his speech tonight as not doing right by their employees by offering some form of health benefits. No healthcare package is offered to any employee regardless of the number of hours that employee works. One wonders if Telefund will raise money for groups opposed to a mandate for employers who can afford to, to do so.

Telefund does NOT provide reliable hours to its employees. It had been the practice in the past to over-schedule callers for a shift, meaning that more people were scheduled to work than there were seats available. Even people who arrived for their shift on time could be sent home. (This is no longer the practice at the Santa Barbara office, though I wonder if it's simply due to the huge recent turnover in employees.) Furthermore, once people show up and have a seat for a shift, there is no guarntee they will finish it. If the office as a whole is not doing well, the shift supervisor can and often does simply send everyone home. The callers must log out and are not paid for the rest of their shift. Also, while I was at the Santa Barbara office, the entire place was shut down for a week due to a "system problem." No one could work or earn pay during that entire week. Hourly workers should not have to deal with the added stress of never really knowing how many hours they can expect to be paid for.

"Performance-Based Pay" is actually another name for depriving employees of earned bonuses and actually lowering their base pay rates after they've been calling for awhile. Telefund advertises higher average pay than it actually doles out. Here's how it works: Telefund claims that the top 60% of callers earn at least a $1/hour bonus. That 60% is determined by the pledge-per-contact rate. What they leave in the fine print (and never really explain) is that the bonus is forfeit for any of about ten different reasons. I spoke with one fellow caller who had done incredibly well on the pledge-per-contact rate--he raised more money than almost anyone there. Part of the reason for that is that he is very friendly on the phone and speaks more casually. He takes longer than most of us do on each call. Fewer people hang up on him. As a result, his "contacts per hour" number is actually quite a bit below the average. That's because he's GOOD at what he does. But in management's eyes, it was an excuse to deny him his bonus. On top of this, your "performance" is evaluated every 80 hours. At this time, they can (and often do) lower your base rate of pay, even if most of your statistical categories are improving. If ANY of your statistical categories have dipped, then that can be an excuse to cut your base hourly pay by as much as 50 cents an hour. People who are reliable employees who follow the feedback they are given should not be rewarded with a pay cut.

Performance statistics don't take into account the arbitrary nature of fundraising work. No, I'm not complaining because my performance was poor. I received at least some bonus pay on each paycheck. But the supervisors and management do not appreciate the amount of random chance in this job. They only look at numbers. I was once congratulated on a night when I had a great pledge-per-contact number. The reason for it was that three people stopped me as soon as I mentioned the group I was calling for and said "I can give you $100" (or more!) and they put it right on their credit card. I did nothing special. I barely did anything at all besides taking down a credit card number. But there was my supervisor beaming and telling me what a fine job I did. Of course, if you go 0-for-30 one night, that is obviously your fault, too, even if 15 of those people hang up on you the moment you get out the organization's name. Furthermore, feedback about the job you're doing is as haphazard as the calls themselves. If you were being polite to one supporter who says no, you're told you need to be more persistent. If someone listens in on another call, and a person hangs up, you're told to be more polite. The bottom line is that the supervisors always tell you to do something different than what you just did when you receive a "no," even if that same approach got you three yes's earlier.

Lastly, and most egregiously for a company that has raised money for a progressive labor group like Mother Jones, Telefund is, as I mentioned before, adamantly anti-union. Having listened to the stories of other employees, as well as having seen the deceptive employment practices myself, I made brief contact with an organizer at the CWA (Communications Workers of America) about what I would need to do to organize at my local office. I then spoke briefly about the idea with a few co-workers while on break, clocked out, on a shift this past weekend. When I came in on Tuesday, I received my performance review and was told I'd be paid 50 cents less per hour. The supervisor, as usual, took on a condescending tone about the reasons why. When I pointed out some of the problems in his logic and then went on to mention some of these other issues I've already addressed, he basically told me there was nothing I could do. That's when I quit. But then I told him I wanted to know the contact information for someone I could talk to about all these concerns I'm now voicing--because I was never and never would have been just an employee at Telefund--I'm a passionate member and supporter of many of the groups Telefund raises money for. He would not engage in any conversation at that point, he just kept repeating that I had to leave. He then hovered over me as I went to my station to pick up my things.

I remained outside on the public area we have our breaks in to try and talk to people about my union contacts. They were all highly interested and engaged in the conversation when the supervisor came down and started trying to intimidate me, standing just a few inches away and glaring at me. I couldn't help but laugh at him. I asked him if he wanted something. He said no. I asked if I could continue my conversation, which he wasn't apart of. He didn't move until I told him directly to move from my personal space in this public area. Finally he left.

Employees are too intimidated to even give their contact information to a union representative. In the incident I described above, I tried to get someone's contact information to pass along to the representative I spoke to. After the shift supervisor's little display, not one of them would put their name or even and e-mail down. I did have two people ask me if the organization had a web site, though, and I am hopeful that someone will contact them. But why should people working for a progressive fundraising organization be afraid of talking about forming a union? Labor is one of the critical pieces of the progressive puzzle. How can progressive groups get in bed with a union-busting and employee intimidating company like Telefund? Forget about what happened to me. The employees there deserve collective representation! No organization that calls itself progressive should contract out fundraising to a company that is so blatantly anti-union that no one will even put down their e-mail for a union organizer to contact him or her!

I apologize for the length of this letter. But I wanted to spell out clearly and definitively exactly why I have come to the decision that I have--to stop supporting your organization until it either gets out of bed with Telefund or until your group and others put pressure on Telefund to adopt truly progressive values in its practices. As it stands now, it's hard to take your organization seriously when it hands over its fundraising to a group that is run as if it's a neo-conservative-anti-labo

So here was the first dream narrative from my new site at www.thefoxfoot.com  If you go to the site itself you can see how I use the dream to explain some of the science of dreaming and then go on to talk about what I think the dream means on a more personal level:

The Bottom Drops Out (Dreaming the Fool, Part 1)

I've decided to write this up as a blog because I cannot fathom how anyone would be more interested in the NBA Playoffs than the NHL Playoffs at this time of year. It's even more puzzling now that I live in southern California where no one even seemed to notice that the Ducks went to a seventh game in the second round of the hockey playoffs, or that the first round contained a great North/South rivalry between San Jose and the Ducks. Nope, everyone is just decked out in purple and gold (two colors that should never, EVER have been put together in the first place) and cheering on one of the LEAST likeable superstars in all of sports. (Kobe "No, I didn't sexually assault anyone, I just cheated on my wife!" Bryant "And yes I have to whine about every single play during the game that doesn't go exactly as I would like it!")

 

Hockey is a better sport. The NHL is far more exciting than the NBA. And these are the reasons why:

 

Reason #1: The NHL has non-stop action.

 

On more than one occassion during most hockey games, the puck will drop and then there will not be a whistle, time-out, or other stoppage of play for 8-10 minutes of actual game-clock time. Can you even imagine this in the NBA? Can you imagine that there wouldn't be a single whistle, time-out, out-of-bounds play or commercial until there were 2 minutes left in the first quarter? Play is continuous in the NHL, especially now that it's a much bigger deal for a team that ices the puck. (If you don't know what icing the puck is, watch some NHL games and you'll figure it out.) Teams go end to end with big hits and near-miss scoring chances and battles along the boards for the puck, all the while subbing in new players as play continues! You can't get more exciting than that.

 

Reason #1A: There are fewer timeouts!

 

One of the reasons you get non-stop action int he NHL is that each team has ONE TIME-OUT. That's it. One. For the ENTIRE GAME. If you use it and then the game goes to OT, too bad. You used it. It's gone. And this means that the last four minutes of a hockey game are a non-stop mad scramble for the team that is behind to tie it, and it means that an NHL OT is a no-stop mad scramble to get the game-winning sudden death goal. The last two minutes of an NBA game drag on for about an hour and there is no back-and-forth, full court action that make basketball exciting at other times during the game. Heck, in the NBA with each team having three-hundred timeouts per half, you almost never even see a team bring the ball up the court from two minutes to go on. And I understand the TV people probably think this makes the NBA better, because they can ram fifteen more commercial breaks down your throat during the "dramatic conclusion". It's like watching a movie on AMC where they figure you've watched this much of the movie so you'll sit through 25 minutes of commercials in the last half-hour to see the final five minutes.

 

Reason #2: OT is far superior in the NHL Playoffs

 

This is related to the point above. I wanted to pull my hair out trying to watch the end of the Boston-Chicago games that went into OT in the first round of the NBA Playoffs. Five minutes of OT? My ass! Two "five-minute" OTs lasted longer than the first HALF of the late game that was being pre-empted to show it. Why? Because someone thinks its a good idea to give a team ten more timeouts per OT. And then of course you have the fouls. Foul after foul after foul. In hockey, that would only stop the clock if you could get possession of the puck by doing it, and then you'd be down two players. Let the teams play basketball up and down the court for five minutes the way it's meant to be played. Meanwhile, NHL OT is SUDDEN DEATH and can be over in thirty seconds or go on for two hours! Each second that passes leaves you on the edge of your seat because the next rush up ice could mean the end of the game, the end of a series, the end of a team's season! And by rule there can be no TV time-outs during OT of an NHL Playoff game. How freaking awesome is that! Oh, and speaking of fouls...

 

Reason #3: It's a more physical game with less whining and no "technical" fouls

 

Is it just me or is everything a foul in the NBA? And if it's not a foul, the look on Kobe Bryant's face says that he thinks it should have been a foul after every single play. And the whining gets so bad that they start calling technicals every time someone complains. Or celebrates. Or plays defense. Or does anything. In hockey, hitting is part of the game. The number of hits you dish out is kept as a statistic. You can get in a fight and not be kicked out of the game. You just go to the penalty box for a couple minutes and get a standing ovation. And this all goes on pretty much self-policed and rarely gets "out of control" because it's part of the culture of the game. The players are free to play with emotion and grit and passion that it seems to me the refs are trying to take out of the NBA as much as possible. Oh, and no one whines in hockey if they are bumped while driving to the net. Or decked, for that matter.

 

Reason #4: Scores Matter

 

Oh yay. Another two-point basket. One of about a hundred that will be scored over the course of the game. Yawn. In hockey, a goal triggers a celebration of epic proportions. The horn blares, the music plays and the whole arena rocks for minutes afterward. And hockey is NOT that low-scoring anymore. The Pens-Caps series saw average scores around 5-4. In football that would be a 35-28 game, to give a comparison.

 

Reason #5: It's More Competitive Top to Bottom

 

When was the last time a #8 seed beat a #1 seed in the NBA first round? It's happened in at least one conference in the NHL each of the last four years. Every series is competitive. Even when a series ends up in a sweep, it's usually the case that each individual game was competitive. (Take, for instance the Columbus Blue Jackets valiant effort in a heartbreaking 6-5 loss with seconds left in Game 4 against the Red Wings.) In the NBA, even a seven-game series can end up being boring as one team rushes out to a lead and the other team quits like the Hawks-Heat series from the first round. And in hockey, at least if there is a blowout you can have three or four good fights to watch down the stretch! In the second round of the NHL Playoffs, three series went seven games and one series went to six. Meanwhile, in the NBA, two series went to a game 7 while the other two weren't competitive at all.

 

Reason #6: It's More of a TEAM Game

 

NBA teams have 12-man rosters. At least that's what I'm told. I almost never see more than 8 people play in a game. Star players stay on the court almost the entire time. In the NHL, every single person who dresses will play significant minutes during the game. Why? Because you can't stay out on the ice for more than a minute or so without being extremely exhausted. You have to have at least three good forward lines and defense pairings to have a chance to succeed. Stars can't take over a game by themselves like they can in the NBA, which often seems to me to be a series of 5 1-on-1 games rather than a single 5-on-5 game.

 

Reason #7: Playoff Beards are way cooler than covering your arms in tattoos (and less permanent).

 

Reason #8: The Best Trophy in all of Sports

 

There is only one Stanley Cup. They don't make a new one each year. You don't get to keep it, even if you win it. You get to hold on to it for a very short time. You don't get to display it like you do trophies in other sports. There is one cup and if you're on the team that wins it your name goes on it forever. You get to literally drink champagne out of it to celebrate! No other sport can match that.

 

So, now I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that playoff hockey is superior to playoff basketball in every way (unless you really like commercials!). So find the Vs. network on your channel list and check out a game or two (if your'e not already). You'll be hooked in no time.

WARNING: THIS BLOG CONTAINS BATTLESTAR GALACTICA SPOILERS! YOU HAVE BEEN SPOILER ALERTED!

 

Why are there so many apocalyptic stories these days? Of course stories about coming cataclysms or the end of the world have always been with us--the Book of Revelation, Nostradamus, the Norse Ragnarok all come to mind--but it seems that a kind of apocalyptic "genre" has literally (excuse the pun) "exploded" over the past couple of decades. Here is a very incomplete list of major cultural expressions of one kind of apocalypse or another:

 

Battlestar Galactica, Terminator (1, 2, 3, 4 and TV show), Jericho (short-lived TV show), Fallout 3 (video game), Left Behind (a series with I don't even know how many parts), A World Without Humans (just one Apocalypse, er, History Channel documentary on the end--I think half their lineup is now devoted to juxtaposing Nostradamus, the Book of Revelation and Mayan Calendar doomsday prophecies), I Am Legend, 28 Days Later, every video game with a post-apocalyptic zombie theme, The Postman, Waterworld, and....you get the picture.

 

But the real question is WHY all these stories and why now? While the obvious interpretation would be to say that these stories are depictions of our worst fears, projections of our inner demons and manifestations of our cultural nightmares, I think that there is more to it than that. I think these shows actually manifest some of our deepest held desires, hopes and dreams. I think we actually are experiencing a kind of lust for the apocalypse. Why?

 

The answer came to me as I was watching the Battlestar Galactica finale last night. After an epic, mind-blowing first hour chalk full of special effects and explosions and high-tech wizardry, the show concludes with humanity arriving at a pristine, natural and technology-free Earth. And instead of trying to rebuild their civilization with the scavenged remains of their spaceships which can recycle water indefinitely and even one-up Einstein by traveling faster than light, they decide to abandon it all and start over.

 

As I watched the picturesque scenes of wide open grasslands and rolling mountains and clean oceans and immense herds of wild animals of every kind, I couldn't help but wish I was there with them. It's a striking thought, isn't it? An Earth without cities, roads, pollution, traffic, cell phones, schedules (or even clocks!). An Earth with about six billion fewer people. And here you are, a human being from a highly technological civilization that had lost its soul and brought about its own annihilation in this great big open world with no rules and no bills to pay and no Cylons chasing you anymore and real wind across your face and the heat of a real sun shining down on you. How would you feel? I realized that I would feel...free. And I think that this final sequence of what I still think is in the top 5 TV shows of this decade (and maybe ever) gives us a glimpse into what most of us feel so much of the time these days but we are too afraid to utter because...well because it's irrational, isn't it?

 

Yes, I said irrational. What do you think is going to happen to them now? They've left behind most of their tools and weapons and gadgets and gizmos. How many of those 30,000 or so people are going to survive the next year? The next five years? What would be the life expectancy of little three-year-old Hera? About thirty years? She better start having kids early to become the geologic "Eve" the ending proclaims her to be. Human life without all this technological magic is by no means easy. I had a brush with this the other day at the dentist. I was lectured for not having been in a few years and underwent a very painful hour of scraping and water blasting and whatever else they do in there. And I thought...well what the hell did people do when there were NO dentists? Is this all really necessary? And of course the answer is people lost a lot of teeth. They might even die from various infections of the teeth and gums. But they wouldn't have a dentist bill.

 

But don't get me wrong here. I'm not trying to rain on the lust for apocalypse parade. I think the very point of the Galactica finale and the very point of so many of these shows is that our deepest meaning and value will never be found in the rational. There is a part of us that longs for a life that IS challenging and mysterious and wonderful and painful and strange. There is a part of us that wants there to be angels who walk among us and lead us towards ends that we can't even fathom. There's a part of us that feels dead inside in a world where we've pushed death away to the margins and even hide away those who are too old in homes built just for that purpose.

We want to capture something of a freer, simpler, more invigorating life. Would it be a loss to lose five years off my life if I spent five fewer years at places like the Department of Motor Vehicles? These images of technology run amok in many ways show our utter frustration with the highly technical systems which we've locked ourselves into. Think about it. The last time I was at the DMV, I got in a huge argument with one of the workers about some stupid fee or other that I apparently hadn't paid but had to and couldn't appeal except to so and so who works in the whatever but they are only in on these days and...you get the picture. And the lady explaining this to me was very apologetic and I was very apologetic for getting angry, because I wasn't angry at HER, and I just kept asking to be given a direct number to the person I SHOULD be angry with, but no one seemed to even know who that was. I just kept getting passed along from one person within the system to another, all of whom shared my contempt for the system, didn't know anyone who could change it, said it was "just their job" and yet they "couldn't do anything" to help me even though they thought MORALLY and HUMANLY it would have been the right thing to do.

 

And I just wanted to shout at the top of my lungs that WE created this system (why I don't know?) and WE run the system and WE can change the system. Can't we? Shouldn't we? And yet, even as one massive system after another fails us--my problems at the DMV pale in comparison to the current financial mess--it seems like NO ONE can do anything about it. Sure, we're pissed that AIG paid those bonuses and boy we'd really like to get that money back but golly gee shucks there's nothing we can do! The system of complex, convoluted laws and practices we've somehow strung together has our hands tied!

 

And we leave it up to people like John Stewart, a frakkin' comedian, to call the CNBC's of the world on the shit that they constantly pull. And maybe that's because deep down we realize that so much of this massive convoluted complex bureaucratic nightmare we've created is a joke, and the joke's on us. We've created a world that feels so unreal and so inhuman that we retreat to violent video games and fantastical television shows and more and more extreme music in order to try and connect with anything.

 

The "system," whatever system it is, is just too big and too complex and too entrenched and too powerful for any of us to do anything about it. Even the president (whom I voted for and happen to like and happen to think really is a good guy) and his team look powerless as they go up against it. Even Congress and all these Wall Street CEOs and masters of the universe offer little more than the woman at the DMV who said "I'm really sorry but I can't do anything about it."

 

So we actually long, I think, for some apocalyptic catastrophe to wipe it all away. Not because we want people to suffer and die or even out of rage and hate. We want it all wiped away so that like those ancient astronauts of the Battlestar Galactica we can start again. We want to believe we could do it better this time. This time we'd discover antibiotics but we wouldn't create HMOs. This time we'd all share the work and wouldn't put up with someone in our small little group taking all our resources for himself. This time we wouldn't pave paradise and put up a parking lot. This time we'd get it right.

 

But what stops us from simply making the changes we want to make right now? People created HMOs and DMVs and SUVs and WMDs and AIGs. Why can't we un-make them and re-make them and create new systems that work for people and not against people? Is it that the world is just too big? Are there just too many people? Do we have these complex systems of rules and regulations because the personal ways we have of dealing with problems just don't work on a massive scale? Is it simply a necessary evil of living in a world where pretty much everyone is anonymous that I have to have a piece of laminated paper to prove I'm 21 before you'll sell me that drink?

 

Could we split up into smaller, more personal communities that keep in touch via the internet but that remain intact so that personal interaction really could rule the day again?

 

Could we give up some of our "standard of living" for a cleaner and healthier and wilder planet? I know that the Obama administration encourages us to move beyond the "false choice" of either growing our economy or creating a greener society. But at some level, isn't the problem really that there are too many of us consuming too many resources?

 

The one thing I'm sure of is that if we don't find a way to un-make and re-make many of our systems then those systems will be un-made for us and at the same time by us. We're living in a world that cannot stand. But how long until it falls down?

 

And might it be true that deep down that's what we really want and can't wait for it to happen?

Can one of my computer savvy friends out there in cyber space help me!?

 

I bought the game Empire: Total War at Direct2Drive, wonderful download time, got the whole thing in like half an hour. But every time I go to install the game, it gets to the "Installing System Components...please wait" box, another box pops up that says "Microsoft C++ 2005 Redistributable" with the empty bar beneath it, it goes most of the way green, goes back to blank, I wait awhile, and then I get this error message: Setup Error: Failed to run install script

My only option at that point is to quit the installation. This happens every time.

So at least I figured how to post the info from the dxdiag file.

------------------
System Information
------------------
Time of this report: 3/4/2009, 12:14:14
Machine name: YOUR-4DACD0EA75
Operating System: Windows XP Professional (5.1, Build 2600) Service Pack 3 (2600.xpsp_sp3_gdr.080814-1236)
Language: English (Regional Setting: English)
System Manufacturer: Compaq Presario 061
System Model: EX325AA-ABA SR1950NX NA670
BIOS: Phoenix - AwardBIOS v6.00PG
Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3800+, MMX, 3DNow, ~2.4GHz
Memory: 1022MB RAM
Page File: 601MB used, 1761MB available
Windows Dir: C:\WINDOWS
DirectX Version: DirectX 9.0c (4.09.0000.0904)
DX Setup Parameters: Not found
DxDiag Version: 5.03.2600.5512 32bit Unicode

 

I checked and re-checked to make sure I met the system requirements for the game. That's not the issue. So what do I do?????

 

Introduction

 

No, I don't think that it is very likely that the Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world. But given the potential near infinite cost, the uncertainty in being able to calculate the potential risk for that cost coming to pass and the uncertainty of any benefits coming from these experiments, I think that the most rational course of action would be to keep the LHC shut down until further study can validate its safety and the public as a whole can make a more informed decision about whether or not the experiments should take place. Is that too much to ask?

 

In this blog entry I will first examine the illogic of taking even a very small risk of a potentially near infinite cost and then move on to reasons for concern that the probability of that near infinite cost is not as small as the mainstream scientific community thinks.

 

Russian Roulette

 

Most people would refuse to play a game of Russian roulette even though the odds would be in their favor and the winnings would be potentially very great. Even with a reward of $100 million, I'm pretty sure that the majority of people would refuse to put the gun to their head and pull the trigger. Why is this the case? In a good old-fashioned six-chamber revolver, your odds of winning a huge pay off would be 83.3%! All you have to do is take the minimal 16.7% risk of losing your life. Picture yourself in that situation. Would you risk it? Would you put the gun to your head and pull the trigger? You'll probably benefit immensely if you do.

 

Hesitant? Let's say I put two guns on the table and place a single bullet in one of them. Now your odds are even better. There's a 91.7% chance of success, and a nearly statistically insignificant risk of 8.3%. Still hesitant? I would guess that you are.

 

So why aren't scientists nearly as hesitant when it comes to the Large Hadron Collider?

 

No, I'm not one of those people who thinks that it is likely that the LHC will create black holes or strangelets or magnetic monopoles capable of swallowing up the Earth. My best educated guess is that it probably will not. But how sure do we have to be before taking on what even a very small risk of a potentially infinite cost?

 

Let's return to the Russian roulette for a moment. Mathematically speaking, you're comparing the value of $917 million with the value 8.3% of the value of your life. Isn't $917 million worth more than 8.3% of your life? That's about 6 years, give or take, based on current life expectancies. Wouldn't you give up 6 years for $917 million? But it's not as simple is that, is it? The reason is that most of us do not value our own life in some kind of quantifiable way. My life is of near infinite value to me. I say near infinite because I can imagine certain other "near infinite" values I might sacrifice my own life for--though at the top of the list would be to save the life of someone I love or to save multiple lives. But for the sake of the point I'm trying to make, my life is worth so much to me that no matter big a number you divide it by (or how small a percentage you multiply it by), it's still going to be worth more to me than any given quantifiable reward. Infinite divided by a billion is still infinite.

 

Now, to be fair, it is true that I nevertheless make many choices which put this immeasurably valuable life of mine at risk all the time. When I get in my car and drive to the grocery store, I am taking a much greater than billion-to-one or even million-to-one risk of death. This suggests that there are either certain probabilities that are so small I don't consider them real possibilities at all or that there are some benefits so great that I should take the risk anyway. And in terms of mortal life, my death is assured in any event. That means I have to take some risk to procure those resources that I must have to continue living (like going to the grocery store, or risking the germs my pizza delivery man might have). It also means that no matter how careful I am, I will have to pay that immeasurable cost eventually. So maybe I should just quit now and admit that it's silly to worry about a very small probability that the Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world.

 

But I'm not going to. Why? Because the loss of just my individual life, while nearly immeasurably great, is almost insignificant compared to the potential cost of a world-devouring black hole or strangelet.

 

Back to Russian roulette. Let's make the stakes more interesting. Let's say I got to a point where you were willing and able to pull the trigger. How many chambers would it take? A hundred? A thousand? A million?

 

Let's say you were willing to take the one thousand to one chance. But now let's start upping the ante. We'll keep the odds the same, but if you unfortunately happen to pull the trigger with that single chamber that has a bullet, it won't be just your own life that is forfeit. Your spouse gets shot, too. Also, those in charge of the Russian Roulette Casino will hunt down any surviving family members. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. They will all have to die, too. Still willing to play at 1000 to 1 odds? What if I add in aunts, uncles and cousins? Still spinning and shooting? Now add in all of your friends. If you are unlucky enough to hit that single loaded chamber, they all must go. Would it be responsible of you to play? Ethical? Moral?

 

By now maybe you're asking for better odds. How about 10,000 to 1? Or 100,000 to 1? A million to one? What would it take?

 

Whatever it is, let's up the ante again. Now let's say that in the highly unlikely event that you end up getting the single loaded chamber, not only all your friends and family but everyone in the community in which you live must die. Then everyone in your state, region or nation. A few thousand dead. A million dead. Three hundred million dead. Are you still playing? What if I toss in the cost of losing every single human being on the planet? Six billion, give or take, all dead.

 

But it doesn't stop there. The world would go on just fine without people. In fact, most of the other species would probably be glad to have us vanish. But if you hit that extremely unlikely loaded chamber not only humanity will suffer. Dogs, cats, dolphins, spiders, wolves, ants, elephants, aardvarks and sharks all gone. No more roses or oak trees or kelp or poinsettias or plankton. No more amoebas or volvox colonies. No life anywhere. After a couple billion years of evolution all the millions of wonderfully diverse forms of life everywhere--gone.

 

And that's still not all. Throw in the very Earth itself. Rocks and minerals (think of all the diamonds and gold gobbled up!) and water and even the air itself. Gone. And for those interested in the pursuit of knowledge (which I assume scientists are) you have also lost any record of any of these things ever having been. For those of us who favor the humanities, not only would humans be gone but so too would all the traces of our existence. Pyramids and skyscrapers and literature and ancient burial sites all lost. No fossil record for other life forms, either. The whole history of planet Earth, along with its entire 5 billion or so year future would be swallowed up into a singularity from which nothing--not even light, not even information--can escape. So even if there is other "intelligent" life out there in the universe and they wander by this part of the galaxy some day, there will be nothing left for them to find. No hint that there was once a thriving planet with millions of forms of life. No hint that they weren't alone and the only self-aware species in the universe. Just a hole. Nothing.

 

So what kind of odds would it take for you to play for $100 million on the one hand and the total annihilation of everything that ever existed or will exist on your one and only home planet?

 

Still playing? Well now let me throw into the benefits of your choice into question. This time I don't guarantee you $100 million or long life or the mate of your dreams or peace and prosperity or ANYTHING tangible at all. Instead, all I'll tell you is that you might learn some more about the way subatomic particles behave and how the universe was formed in its early moments. But you might not. And even if you do learn these things, there probably aren't any practical applications. Oh, and it will cost you $20 billion just to play.

 

Who in the hell thinks this makes sense via any form of cost-benefit analysis? Who would vote in favor of going ahead with such a project, even at odds of 50 million to 1, which is what the CERN scientists would have you believe are the odds of some kind of doomsday scenario occurring (though they've instructed their scientists to tell the public that the probability is ZERO).

 

Just How Low is the Probability?

 

But the real truth is that we don't really know the probability of this happening or not happening. The LHC wouldn't be conducting experiments if that weren't the case. But there are several reasons to be concerned that the probability of catastrophe is much higher than the CERN scientists would have us believe even though that probability would remain relatively small. (Anyone remember the Titanic or the Hindenburg?)

 

Reason for Concern #1: In-House Safety Reviews and Human Pride

 

The safety reviews for the LHC were conducted by CERN scientists themselves. While these studies were peer reviewed, they were not conducted by independent organizations that have no stake in the experiments at the LHC going forward. People who have staked their careers on the funding, building and completion of a project are not the most impartial people. Even scientists are not immune to the factors of human psychology that lead us to dismiss evidence contrary to our own beliefs and interest. See a great article on this phenomenon here:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/27/135544/492/135/542945

 

Furthermore, a New York Times article last year addressed the superior attitude many physicists have taken in response to public concerns. The whole article is worth reading, but here is an excerpt:

 

In a paper published in 2000 with the title “Might a Laboratory Experiment Destroy Planet Earth?” Francesco Calogero, a nuclear physicist at the University of Rome and co-winner of the 1995 Nobel Peace Prize for his work with the Pugwash conferences on arms control, deplored a tendency among his colleagues to promulgate a “leave it to the experts” attitude.

 

“Many, indeed most, of them,” he wrote, “seem to me to be more concerned with the public relations impact of what they, or others, say and write, than in making sure that the facts are presented with complete scientific objectivity.”

 

One problem is that society has never agreed on a standard of what is safe in these surreal realms when the odds of disaster might be tiny but the stakes are cosmically high. In such situations, probability estimates are often no more than “informed betting odds,” said Martin Rees, a Cambridge University cosmologist, the astronomer royal and the author of “Our Final Hour.” Adrian Kent, also of Cambridge, said in a paper in 2003 reviewing scientists’ failure to calculate adequately and characterize accurately risks to the public, that even the most basic question, “ ‘How improbable does a catastrophe have to be to justify proceeding with an experiment?’ seems never to have been seriously examined.” (Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/science/15risk.html )

 

One last thing I would like to mention along these lines is that the CERN website, as you will see below, barely addresses any of these concerns. Furthermore, I am not able to find anywhere a CERN response to those opponents of the project who say that the cosmic ray analogy is flawed because of the slow-down effect of opposite-direction collisions. It's always a bad sign to me when someone doesn't even address one of the major arguments of the other side--it suggests they don't have a sure-fire way of refuting it.

 

Reason for Concern #2: Arguments Against CERN's Reasons Not Addressed

 

Most physicists argue that while the LHC will likely create microscopic black holes that these will present no danger to the Earth. Here is the reasoning from their own website:

 

1. Theory - Hawking himself recognized that black holes radiate. Given the energy available in the LHC, if a black hole was created it would necessarily be a very small one - a micro black hole - the energy available in the collision of two LHC protons is not a lot on a cosmological scale. The black hole would evaporate almost immediately into a shower of particles.

 

2. Cosmic rays - Extremely high energy particles (orders of magnitude above the LHC) coming from outer space are incident on upper atmosphere where they collide with the nuclei of gas molecules. We see the showers resulting from these collisions at sea level. This is appears to be safe, so we can be confident that the LHC will be. (Source: http://lhc-machine-outreach.web.cern.ch/lhc-machine-outreach/lhc-machine-outreach-faq.htm )

 

In regards to #1, a new study has shown that the likelihood of black holes evaporating "almost immediately" has been called into question. See here:

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,483477,00.html

 

No, this new study does not show that microscopic black holes will last much longer for sure, but does imply that they could. What it really says to me is that scientists are not sure exactly how long a microscopic black hole might last before evaporating. What if their experiment shows that the duration is actually quite a bit longer than they had forecast?

 

There is a more important flaw in regards to #2, however. Cosmic rays strike the Earth at near the speed of light. The earth, by relative comparison is standing still. Collisions inside the LHC will take place between beams of opposing direction, meaning that the momentum of anything produced in the collision will be greatly slowed. This raises the concern that a microscopic black hole, if stable, would be moving slow enough that it would not harmlessly pass through the earth before it could gather enough mass to become a problem, but rather that it would be caught in the Earth's gravitational field and keep accumulating mass (either slowly or quickly) and this would eventually lead to the Earth's destruction. See a more detailed explanation of this possibility (and others) here:

 

http://www.lhcdefense.org/lhc_risks.php

 

Interestingly enough, I think you can see that the opponents of the LHC have a much more well-documented case. They even give you links to those who disagree with them so you can see the various research papers for themselves. Pro-LHC sites instead take on a "Science for Dummies" mentality and contain only links to those studies that agree with them. See this one for comparison:

 

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHc/Safety-en.html

 

Conclusion

 

No, I don't think that it is very likely that the Large Hadron Collider will destroy the world. But given the potential near infinite cost, the uncertainty in being able to calculate the potential risk for that cost coming to pass and the uncertainty of any benefits coming from these experiments, I think that the most rational course of action would be to keep the LHC shut down until further study can validate its safety and the public as a whole can make a more informed decision about whether or not the experiments should take place. Is that too much to ask?

Behold, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

--John 1:4

 

Forget the birth stories with their shepherds, wise men and angels. Forget about theological arguments concerning the possibility of a virgin birth or how a person is preserved from original sin. And forget for a moment the most often quoted passage from John's gospel (John 3:16, of course) which is just as often rammed down people's throats as it is used to inspire faith. This Christmas, forget about all of that for a moment and instead reflect on this most poetic of verses from John's gospel that, in my opinion, captures everything that Christmas is about.

 

Behold, the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

Late December is the darkest time of the year in the northern hemisphere. The night can seem almost endless, and the cold unbearable. These days we complain about how we are freezing as we have to walk from the car into the shopping mall when the temperature drops down below freezing. We complain when our journeys of hundreds of miles are delayed by a few hours because our iron birds need a bit of de-icing. Some people even suffer seasonal affective disorders because of the lack of sunlight. Imagine, then, how much more significant this darkest time of the year was to people of the ancient world who had no electric lighting or furnace vents in every room of the house. Turn off the thermostat and the lights for just one day in the winter and you'll begin to understand that this was not just a metaphor.

 

But for some reason, the pagan celebrations of the Roman Empire that centered around the solstice were not gloomy. In the darkest time of the year, people instead celebrated the rebirth of “sol invictus,” the unconquered sun. The shortest day of the year meant that the light was on the comeback and not that darkness had triumphed. And it is easy to see why Christians could easily choose this time to celebrate the birth of the one they considered to be a light shining in the darkness that the darkness could never overcome.

 

But the great thing about this time of year and this day is that whether you be pagan or Christian or both or neither, you can still appreciate the meaning of this season that is so powerfully captured in those words:

 

Behold, the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

One thing I absolutely love about that verse is that it is written in the present tense. The light shines. The darkness has not overcome. But this statement in the present tense leaves the battle unresolved. It is a statement of hope more than it is a statement of faith. The light is shining now. The darkness has not overcome it. The darkness has not overcome it...and will be defeated? Or is it the darkness has not overcome it...yet? The light shines now, it has not been overcome. But is that light brightening or diminishing? Nothing is mentioned about the vanquishing of the darkness. The light shines, but darkness is not banished. The light shines IN the darkness. It is surrounded by it. In some ways it is defined by it. But it has not been overcome by it.

 

We know the days are starting to get longer even now. But how many in those ancient times knew for certain they would survive to see the spring and summer when the sun was once again truly triumphant? Unconquered is not yet triumphant. And what better time to celebrate the birth of a new life? Each new child seems to hold the potential for anything and everything. Within those tiny little hands lies the potential for the salvation of the world. Just think of the hands that have supported you, protected you, helped you up, pushed or pulled you back to the right path, touched you or embraced you and how powerful those hands seemed at the time and then reflect on the fact that those hands were once so small they could barely grasp your finger. That's the potential in those tiny little hands and feet and being dreamed about behind those newly opened eyes. And yet, the truth remains that each new child is extremely fragile, totally dependent on its caretakers for everything it needs to survive. Each new child is so much more vulnerable to disease and sickness and injury and even death than its adult counterparts. And in those ancient times, death would claim many and in some times and places even the majority of those newborn children before they ever became adults. In each new child is the life and death of the world.

 

Like many who are politically or academically minded, I tend to spend a great deal of time pointing out all the darkness that is out there in the world. When I'm brave enough I even spend a great deal of time examining all the darkness that exists within myself. But maybe Christmas can remind all of us to remember that we couldn't identify ANYTHING as darkness without the presence of light. Without the light shining there in the center, fighting off the darkness, we would have no idea that darkness existed at all.

 

Over the past eight years it has seemed to me and to many that darkness has been on the march. That beautiful light of human love and faith and hope can often seem like a the flickering flame of a tiny candle in the middle of a thunderstorm, about to be blown out or snuffed out at any moment. And yet it still burns. It still shines. And each December we are reminded that the light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it.

 

Merry Christmas.