“We regret that the rank-and-file Elves have chosen collective bargaining, preventing Santa’s management team from working directly with it’s employees, however, we respect the Elves right to unionize and engage in concerted activity.”

It has been unclear what implications a union-Workshop could have on the popular worldwide holiday, some experts believe that Christmas in the United States could be severely impacted by the move.  One expert close to the situation, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stated that, “I think it’s clear that the productivity of Santa’s Workshop has decreased as a result of the unionization campaign. Both management and rank-and-file have been focusing on this issue for several months now, and it would be highly unlikely that it has not disrupted toy-production. We know that on several occasions, a significant number of elves have put down their tools, and walked out of the workshop, in an effort to get Santa to recognize the union.”

A rare shot of the North Pole Workshop

Niber Juckles, an elf who works on a toy-block assembly line, is pleased with the progress.  “I think it’s about time Santa started listening to his helpers, and that our hours and working conditions improve.  Last year between December 15^th and December 25^th, I put in 239 hours, with no bonus or overtime pay.  And that’s even after Santa slashed the piece-rate from two crusts of bread per thousand blocks to one crust of bread per thousand blocks.”

Other Elves are not so sure, one elf, speaking on the condition of anonymity, was concerned.  “I’ve witnessed the evolution of the Santa model over the years.  He’s really decided to move away from the production side of Christmas.  I’m seeing it more and more each year; Santa serving as a consultant to parents, or outsourcing production of high-tech electronics such as the iPod or Wii, to Apple and Nintendo.  I’d like more money too, but I think we’re going to see a significant number of jobs moving away from the North Pole if Santa is forced to pay higher wages.”

Although the union has been recognized, the first collective bargaining agreement has yet to be ratified.  Some of the issues being negotiated include working hours, workshop safety, and profit-sharing, specifically, a percentage of all Christmas Cookies left for Santa.  Sangi Bittersnack has been particularly passionate about the latter issue for years, “I know he wouldn’t be so fat if he shared some of those cookies.”  Although Santa was not available for comment, insiders claim that he is considering changing Christmas to a bi-annual holiday, and ending St. Nicholas day.  An expert close to Telthorst.net had this to say, “Clearly there are going to need to be changes for Santa’s operation to remain economically viable.  I’m not saying what is right or wrong, certainly a union contract will help the elves that do keep their job, but unions don’t make companies more efficient.”

*This is a satirical post.*

Officials gather in Copenhagen this week for an international climate summit, but business leaders are focusing even more on Washington, where the Obama administration is expected as early as Monday to formally declare carbon dioxide a dangerous pollutant.¹

The Obama administration has also determined that humans, along with many other animals, exhale this dangerous pollutant, CO2.  Therefore, in addition to widespread taxes on heating, air conditioning, electricity, and other comforts, there will be a cap on how much CO2 an individual will be able to exhale.  Individuals that exceed the quota will be fined.  However, not all businesses or people are upset by the new legislation.  Climate change prophet Al Gore and several of his acolytes have developed a wearable CO2 mask (pictured below) that will trap and store exhaled CO2.  Gore is hailing the legislation as “long overdue,” “what must be done,” “good for business,” and “convenient.”

The mask themselves will cost $1,000, and capsules that store the CO2 will cost $50, these capsules should last approximately 22 hours under normal operating conditions.  When asked if profiting from a global “crisis,” was unethical, and perhaps even capitalistic, the multimillionaire, Gore had this to say:

“I am very happy to be able to offer these masks at a such an affordable rate.  Much of the proceeds will go towards global climate change awareness initiatives, such as when I fly around in my private, fossil fuel burning plane and give PowerPoint presentations.”

The removable storage capsules for the masks, when full, can be returned to Gore’s temple for CO2 storage and capsule recycling.  When asked why Gore did not wear the mask, he stated that he was rich enough to purchase climate indulgences, also known as carbon credits, so that he offsets his carbon exhalation, adding that his firm also sells these indulgences, the proceeds of which also go towards raising global warming awareness initiatives.

*This is a satirical post.*

However, the quote from the Wall Street Journal is real, and Al Gore has profited a  great deal from a “climate change hysteria.”

1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126013960013179181.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESecondNews#articleTabs=article

I had the privilege of going to Estes Park a few weeks past, and there I made my first legitimate foray into HDR:

There were a lot of these bluffs around, but I was enamored with this one. I took this shot outside of our cabin sometime in the afternoon.

On the other side of the valley, looking North, I took a few more shots:

On the whole I’m very pleased with these shots. I really wanted to take a picture of the historic Stanley Hotel, but it didn’t work out. Next time!

The United States has the best health-care in the world in terms of quality of care.  It’s simply a fact.  Foreign dignitaries and other elite from across the globe come to the U.S. for medical treatment.  Unfortunately, the U.S. health-care system has two major problems:

1) Not everyone is covered

2) It’s expensive

The government, led by our aforementioned rulers, are ostensibly trying to resolve these two issues.  Whether their solutions are good or bad is up for debate.  The Wall Street Journal has an article: “Ten Questions on the Health-care overhaul,” that provides a good base for understanding the issues.

One wonders how the same person that made Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars: A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, or the beginning of Return of the Jedi, also made the fourth Indiana Jones film or the Star Wars prequels?

Apparently when George saw something standing in front of a blue wall, he grabbed the nearest camera and yelled "action!"

After much thought, reflection, and study of the films, the answer came to me.  Some time during the filming of Return of the Jedi, about the time George decided that a bunch of hobbit-sized teddy bears could defeat what the Emperor calls, “An entire legion of my best troops,” George Lucas suffered from some type mental or nervous breakdown.  I mean honestly, were the hobbit-polar bears what Han and Luke were looking for when they were riding around on tauntuans in the beginning of The Empire Strikes Back?  If only the Rebel troops had rocks and sticks on Hoth, the Empire never would have won that battle. But I digress into nerddom.  Whatever happened, George was reduced to an empty shell of the filmmaker he once was.

To help visualize the downfall of George Lucas, I’ve created a “Lucasfilm Timeline.”  We can see that at some point, during the filming of Return of the Jedi, Lucas went senile.  There are unconfirmed reports that while on set he threw out the original Return of the Jedi script, the script that didn’t involve an absurd and unbelievable defeat of the empire, and decided instead to rely on his “imagination.” At this point it’s clear that he never used a script again, and the voices in his head his imagination led him to the Teddy Bear (Ewoks) idea.  Perhaps the Ewok concept came to him because he’d recently seen a “build-a-bear” commercial on TV and thought they were awesome.  Some close to him claim that George was having recurring nightmares about his wife dying and was led to believe the only way to save her was to start making horrible films.

Tired of disappointments, I’m now resolved not to watch any post-breakdown Lucas “films” again.  The fact is, “the man once was a filmaker, but lost his abilites a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away.”¹  I never saw Indiana Jones and the Lining of the Pocketbook Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and I never intend to.  George Lucas will never get another cent of my money for his silly “films.”  At any rate, we aught pity George’s unfortunate condition (not too much since he’s filthy rich).  It is sad to think what he might have created if he had not suffered a nervous breakdown, but we still have the first Indiana Jones film, as well as 2.75 decent Star Wars movies.

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv4Potdpjhw

“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.” – Adam Smith

I firmly believe that those who have more than they need have a moral obligation to share with the less fortunate. The United States, in particular, has great disparity between the rich and poor. There are many hardworking people who deserve to be rich and enjoy the fruits of their labor. But there are also the poor, many of whom suffer from mental or physical disabilities, who through no fault of their own cannot provide for themselves. Two people might agree that the less fortunate need to be aided, but could still fall into two very different camps on how best to provide this aid.

Some believe that government programs are essential to helping the poor. And indeed the government provides some assistance to the less fortunate, but would anyone really choose to rely on their food, shelter, and basic needs being provided by the same people who run the post office? Do governmental leaders really have the best interests of the poor at heart and act in the best interests of the less fortunate?

“I’ve always lived my life by the rule, ‘If you get, you give.’” – Terrance Silver

Personal philanthropy enables one to directly help a charitable organization without the bureaucratic, governmental middle-man. Rather than relying on the government to collect your taxes, then relying on the elected representatives to decide what to do with this money; individuals should directly support the charitable organizations of their choice. Does the government know better than it’s citizens how best to distribute wealth?

Some might argue that allowing people to keep more of their money will only result in people keeping more of their money, and not passing more of it along to charitable organizations. They believe that only through taxation by the government can we ensure that critical social programs are funded. Certainly there are some people with no interest in helping others. However, the simple solution to this problem is tax deductible giving; in which charitable donations can be incentivized to a large degree.

Personal philanthropy allows an individuals to participate in charitable acts to a greater degree than tax-funded government programs. It stems from the belief that empowered citizens, not government bureaucrats, are the best agents of social change.  But some people believe that government bureaucrats are best equipped to sharing wealth.

“The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.” – Michelle Obama

By making this statement, Michelle Obama is assuming that wealth and prosperity is a zero sum game, or a distributive bargaining situation.  In other words, in order for person B get 1 extra dollar, they are going to have to take it from person A, it’s negotiating over a fixed pie.  In reality this is not the case.  The truth is, wealth can be created.

For example, lets say that person A has an Apple Orchard with 20 trees, and person B does not.  We could tax person A and demand they give 20% of their apple harvest to person B.  However, person B will always be reliant on person A, and person A will have control over how big the harvest is.  Let’s say that person A is no longer wants to maintain 20 trees so they only water, care for, and harvest from 10 trees.  Person B’s supply of Apples has just been cut in half.  In response, the government taxes person A twice as much to try to offset the drop in production.  But this just makes person A mad, and they decide they aren’t going to work just to have their apples taken away and given to someone who doesn’t work.  Person A abandons the orchard.  Now person A and person B both get nothing.

It would be much better if person A voluntarily gave apples to person B, that way they would control how much of their produce they give up, and they won’t grow disgusted by someone always taking their apples away.  Also, person A could teach person B how to run their own orchard, so that person B could control how many apples they would get.  Michelle Obama wants to take away apples from people who own an orchard and give them to those who don’t own anything, reducing person B to a beggar.  I want everyone to own an orchard.  We need to help the less fortunate through education and empowerment, not handouts.

“Laws for the liberal education of youth, especially for the lower classes of people, are so extremely wise and useful that to a humane and generous mind, no expense for this purpose would be thought extravagant.” – John Adams

Instead of providing the poor with fish (or apples), we should teach them how to fish.  Empowering people to help themselves and help others is an ideal that can be accomplished through education.  Income is directly correlated with education level (see graph below), and as a result, the best way to escape poverty is through education.¹

The education system of the United States is by no means perfect, but it does provide our young citizens with the opportunitiy to work hard, receive a high school diploma, and move on to college.  It is critically important for the future of the country to develop and maintain a top-quality education system to empower our young people to become productive members of society, so that they can provide for themselves and for others.

1. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=4&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.census.gov%2Fprod%2F2002pubs%2Fp23-210.pdf&ei=4YoMSsCXOZKwMp7_hbIG&usg=AFQjCNFeWjsCVxY8rfD3rrYRYb2SnO7jow&sig2=H6RHRZulmXPgDfA-gQtoIw

Carlos (right) is a C student, but he knows that even if he fails his next test, Ernesto (pictured left, an A student) will make up the difference

Therefore, it is important to distribute grades to ensure fairness and equality amongst students. It will also prevent good students from capitalizing on their good grades and unfairly being offered higher paying jobs than those who received lower marks, or failed out of school.

For example: Susie gets a 97 out of 100 on a test, an A, but Bobby, a poor student, gets a 78 out of 100, a C! Two of Susie’s points should be distributed to Bobby so that he gets an 80, a B, and Susie still has an A. Everyone wins.

Another example: lets say that Gertrude receives a 98 / 100 on a test, while Billy and Fredrick get a 52 and 60 respectively. Billy has an F and Fredrick has a D. Gertrude can distribute 28 of her points, which bumps her down to a 70, a C, and using those points, she can give Fredrick 10 points, bumping him up to a C, and she can give Billy 18 points, which will bump him up to a C as well. Everyone gets a passing grade!

Having read these basic examples, it’s easy to see that everyone is better off when grades are distributed from students receiving higher grades, to other students with lower grades, so that everyone gets by. It’s time for the “straight A students” to start showing a little school spirit and helping out their fellow classmates in the form of sharing their grades.

*This is a satirical post.*