Full Moon 08.01.2012

::::::::::::

Orion StarBlast 4.5

15mm w/Barlow 2x

Lunar Density Filter 13%

iPhone 4S

:::::::::::


This was a very exciting moment for me. For years I have been wanting to get a decent telescope to be able to observe the moon and planets. I finally have had some time and opportunity to do so. Last night was my first full moon observed via telescope. The picture above does not do justice to the actual view. I hope to be able to rig the telescope for my Nikon to get some clearer photos to share in the future.

Already I have learned so much just by staring at this lunar body. It's really amazing to actually see it moving when viewing this close up. Probably the most exciting aspect of observing the moon and stars these last few weeks is that I'm starting to see the pattern of movements in the sky. I knew that was the case, but when I've actually stood there and really focus on the locations, I have found that I can feel the earth moving, as if I were above the planet. When I first felt this, it was almost an awakening of sorts. I hope I'll be able to share this enlightenment with my two young daughters soon.

If you have even a little interest and some time (and a little money to spare), I think it is very important to explore the natural wonders in our sky and beyond.

Priorities

One F15-E fighter jet down in Libya = 469 American students 4-year tuition costs.

What happened to our priorities?

Busy bee pollinating

Moving into the future requires new concepts to old ideas

This is an example:

Best use of tax dollars...

2010 Census participation rate

Pretty difficult piece of legislation

Passing the health care reform legislation was so hard that it took the most powerful person in the world and the most powerful governing body in the world 425 days to pass and sign it into law.

Or if you want to take it back further, it took the most powerful country in the world over 36 years to reform health care (not considering entitlement add-ons such as Medicare Part D).

This was a difficult task.

Random Thoughts - Shutterflies

shutterflies from Michael Anderson on Vimeo.

Why Does a Salad Cost More Than a Big Mac?

Source

Bottom line: The federal subsidies (which are paid for by our taxes) should reflect the nutritional recommendations pyramid. Lowering the cost of healthy and raising the cost of unhealthy foods will do wonders for the health of our nation that no health care reform (which is still needed) can match. The costs would be unchanged, its just a shift of priorities.

The HOMESTAR Initiative

This proposed legislation (pdf) is a policy trifecta.

• Incentives for homeowners/businesses to invest in home improvement products
• Implementation of improvements aimed at cutting down energy costs and waste
• Recovery of the long-term employment sector by training the workforce for green jobs

This is a strong idea. I hope it becomes a successful action.

UPDATE: The White House fact sheet

Common Sense?

The Pennsylvania State spends around $40,000 per state prisoner and $18,000 per county inmate per year. (Source) 6.2% of Pennsylvania's general funds was focused on corrections, (Source pdf) while the state appropriates $8,950 per student. (Source)

Obviously there are more costs associated with inmates (living quarters, medical costs, etc) but for the amount of time and money we invest in those who have broken the law, it seems we have the priorities backwards. If we can provide three meals a day for an inmate, why shouldn't we be doing this for all students? Our children should have the best run facilities in the country for them to learn. The prisons should be run as a basic facility that does not sacrifice security or basic human rights. (Get rid of the exercise equipment and television entertainment; books only!). It's supposed to be punishment. If the taxpayers pay for health care for criminals, shouldn't every student have access regardless of their parents financial and employment situation?

The common sense of it all has been lost. Our children's future will be next if things don't get re-prioritized.

Goofing around with a microscope lens filter

From the trenches

This weekend I had a brief discussion with a friend of mine who happens to be an actuary for an insurance company. Her position has her right in the middle of the health care debate and seeing things from a perspective that is not distorted by the media or politicians. Because of this, her take on things has an incredible amount of weight that bloggers such as myself could never have. (I just need to convince her to start writing on my blog).

The discussion was about the "controversial" premiums hike that Anthem Blue Cross was implementing on some of its subscribers. When I brought this up, she was understandably annoyed about how the media and politicians portrayed this. Here's a rundown of why the increase should not be controversial.

• The media loves sensationalism and will obviously promote it (especially taking the rate increase out of context)
• This rate only applies to those with individual plans (i.e. no group policies are affected)
• The bad economy forces healthier subscribers to drop or choose smaller plans
• This makes the overall pool sicker and older and therefore more costly
• In order to maintain coverage, money has to come from somewhere, in this case individual plans to help offset the losses
• The rate increase is attached to customers who had the option of choosing a different plan that didn't
• An independent actuary body approved these rates and the rates are in compliance with California laws

There's more info on this particular story, and I think it's important to read the official explanation of the rate increase.

One positive out of this story is that is spurred some more debate (even bad debate) that has shed light on how insurance companies run. The health care reform debate has unnecessarily made insurance companies THE evil components, where there really shouldn't be a scapegoat. Every side needs to be fixed in some ways. I used to think insurance companies were some of the worst instigators of the health care crisis, but not any longer, after understanding how these companies are trying to stay in business and provide a quality service to millions of people.

This is why it is so important to learn the topics from those who know what they are talking about. The experts are called experts for a reason.

Now I just need to convince my expert to write some blogs!

The Facts About Bottled Water (Click for larger image)

From Online Education

From the Notes: The future regulation in the past

- Are there any studies on what the effects of the economy would have been assuming regulatory laws that are currently being legislated (reaction to current financial crisis) were in place during the late 1990's - 2000 boom?

-- Would the public/Congress have been receptive to these policy changes during the boom times?

--- I assume not receptive because even after a near meltdown of the system (2007-2008), policies are still difficult to reform.

---- Why is this? (pressure from pro-business groups, status quo is comfort zone, etc?)

----- If we assume current legislated policies were in place back then, what changes would we probably see in today's economy (i.e. Would there have been a financial crisis)?

------ Would these changes convince the public/Congress?

U-3 vs. U-6

Today the Labor department reported the unemployment rate is now 10.2%, a depressing psychological barrier to a grim economy. But what I don't understand is why the MSM and the government continue to push this figure. If they wanted to be really honest about unemployment, we would have been "celebrating" the true double-digit rate back in 2008 by looking at the U-6 rate. That's the rate I hope is used more and more.

As the link states, the U-6 rate is really anybody who doesn't have a full-time job that wants one, even those who gave up looking for a job. This is what we're dealing with. It's really 17.5% unemployment.

The U-3 rate is used purely for political reasons. I see no other relevant reason why this is the rate du jour. You would think the MSM would jump at the U-6 rate since they love a depressing and dramatic story.

Early Education is the answer.

Tme.com post: Military Recruiting: The Kids Aren't Alright

How does one start a policy institute?

I have been contemplating on advancing my academics for some time now. It's been a battle between two very different directions. I won't get into the detail, but I've come to the decision. As this blog shows, I'm fascinated by public policy so it is natural that I would want to pursue something along those lines. Public Administration with a focus on public policy seems an avenue that will help me become more confident in presenting my ideas. But what excites me the most is the prospect of learning to effectively research and present data to support the policy ideas.

We all have wonderful ideas that we believe will help in some way. But it needs more than an idea, it needs a stepping stone. The foundation of that step needs to be sturdy enough to handle some abuse. In the debate arena, an idea needs to hold up against all scrutiny. Using empirical data via research is key to withstand the assaults. Thus, learning the theories and ideas about data gathering is required of me to effectively become a policy institute (can it just have one person???). Hopefully I will soon step backing the academic world to move this institute forward.

Once that becomes a reality, I'll need some fellow data miners (who love numbers and stats, obviously) who want to join together to push out common ideas. Who knows where it ends up, but I would be proud to say that I tried to make a difference in the world.

From my Notes: The Judiciary nomination process

Back in July, I Noted this during the Sotomayor nomination process:

The problem with the Judiciary nomination process is that it has now become so political with the misguided focus on the nominee's ideology versus the strength of the nominee's impartiality.

Now, I believe there is room for Senators to question a nominee's belief system as it is impossible for said nominee to be completely unbiased. A nominee is nominated because the President believes the person in question is aligned similarly with the President's views, so even before the debate begins, ideology is already at play.

Democracy at play.

Elections have consequences. When the people vote for their representatives, I would assume it is because they agree with the majority of that politicians views (at least that's what I hope is the case; they're will always be wedge issue voters though).

Because of this, the will of the voters needs to be upheld. The minority has the weaker position of a vote. So to see the minority consistently hold up the nomination process is very undemocratic (or maybe it's the rules not and the Senator is just playing the game). The focus should be on impartiality. The main criteria should be, "Can this person effectively suspend his or her own viewpoints while holding court?"

How to effectively measure this is something I'm still wondering about.

Letter to Senator Specter

Dear Senator Specter,

I am writing in regards to the 1st time homebuyers extension that is currently being addressed in the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. I understand that you are not on this committee but I would like to address a concern.

If the current form of the bill becomes law, it allows current homebuyers to receive a tax credit for purchasing a new home if they have lived in their previous home for 5 or more years.

Admittedly, this would be for my benefit, but I believe that it would be a much stronger bill if it was amended to reduce the 5+ year requirement to 3+ or 4+ years. Based on some quick research, mortgage rates were extremely low during late 2004 and early 2005 (http://money.cnn.com/2005/06/30/real_estate/weekly_rates/index.htm) & (http://mortgage-x.com/general/national_monthly_average.asp?y=2004) thus many new homeowners, including myself, took advantage of this during that time period. Because the proposed extension bill deadline is April 30, 2010 for a new home, those homeowners will not benefit under the current requirement.

I understand that this will add additional cost to the bill since it opens the door for more qualified taxpayers to take advantage of it, but I feel that it still carries the spirit of the bill in helping the housing sector get back on its feet, which translates to a stronger recovery.

If you are in agreement, could you or your staff pass this request of lowering the 5+ year agreement to 3 or 4 years to Senator Dodd for consideration to amend the current form of the bill. I believe this will create a sound financial opportunity for those consumers who knew when to take advantage of a good opportunity three or four years ago to continue the dream of homeownership.