In January 1983 the Social Security Administration started to intentionally build up a large surplus in the Trust Fund to provide excess revenue to help pay for the retirement of the babyboomers in the early decades of the 21st century.

I've come to realize that the reason for most of the opposition to Social Security reform is a basic lack of understanding of what the Trust Fund is.

So, I'm starting this JE to solicit reponses from the slashdot crowd. I'd like to learn what you understand the Trust Fund is, how it works, how it's intended to work, whatever other comments you have.

Thanks for your feedback.

It used to be that the legal system was meant as a safety net to protect the innocent from false charges. Now however, the legal system's sole purpose is to protect the guilty as much as possible from the consquences of their actions.

Social Security is a big issue right now. There's a lot of information and disinformation being spouted around right now. However, all agree that there will be a Social Security shortfall in the future. Senator Boxer said herself that in 2042 the trust fund will have been depleted, and that Social Security will only be able to provide 73% of current benefits. I don't know about you, but I'm not looking forward to losing 27% of my "security," when it's barely meant to be more then the poverty level to begin with. However, there are solutions, but we need to initiate them now, if we expect to depend on them in 30-40 years. To keep up with the Social Security reform, I have created a new blog. If you are interested in preserving your social security benefits in the future, I'd encourage you to pay attention the the proposed Social Security reforms now.

What is going on? I heard on the radio yesterday that Pelosi had created a 20 member Faith Committee. I thought that Democrats believed in a strong wall of seperation betweek church and state. Is the wall cracking?

The CNN article does conclude by acknowledging that the Democrats might turn people off by this approach. But the biggest risk for the party is to come off as insincere. Religious voters might like the music, but they're unlikely to be seduced by it as long as Democrats stick to their core positions.

The 2005 Libertarian Party of Minnesota Convention will be on April 9th. For /.'ers interested in libertarian issues, look at the line up of speakers:

• Libertarian Party Presidential Candidate Michael Badnarik
• Author James Bovard
• Journalist and Author Vin Suprynowicz
• Filmmaker Michael Wilson
• President of the Taxpayers' League of Minnesota David Strom
• Former Chair of Libertarian Party of Wisconsin Ed Thompson
• President of the Free State Project Amanda Phillips

The Democrats are about to appoint Howard Dean as the new party chair. This is the same guy who just proclaimed "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for." That's good for the party idealists, I guess. However, it kind of makes it hard to get *more* votes that you need to win a national race, when you start out by saying that you *hate* 51% of the American voters. Not that any Republicans are complaining, of course, perfectly willing to accept the votes of a majority of Americans that the Democratic party chair has proclaimed hatred for.

So, in light of Dean's proclamation, we have the new Democratic party theme song.

A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person.

The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless person, he decided to help.

He walked over to the homeless person and gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the Republican's pocket and got out twenty dollars. He kept 15 for administrative fees and gave the homeless person five. Now you understand the difference between Republicans and Democrats.

In Minnesota, one of the biggest health issues currently is banning smoking from public places. In the Star Tribune article on the smoking ban they end with these words.

Rep. Tom Emmer, R-Delano, questioned whether civil liberties were being damaged by such legislation.

"Where does it end? Next is it going to be cell phones? Next is it going to be computers? Peanut oils? Salt? Cheeseburgers?" he asked.

Rep. Ron Latz, DFL-St. Louis Park, one of the authors of the bill, said civil liberties were at issue; but more for those people who don't want to feel the impact of secondhand smoke.

"If we smoke in a room when other people are in that room, everyone in that room is smoking with us," Latz said.

There is the axiom. Civil Rights often compete. In MN, the question is, which persons civil rights is more worthy to protect? The smokers, or non-smokers? I'm hoping that we'll find the civil rights of the non-smoker supercede the smoker's civil rights. Why should someone have to isolate themselves from society just because they may have asthma, or other reactions to smoke. A smoker can find someplace right to smoke though.

SiliconJesus decided to write a JE that offered his view of society today, I think, one opinion being:

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability.

His opinion is fascinating, but notable misguided, as the_mad_poster pointed out:

Besides, the bigger issues with prison populations are the increasing numbers of non-violent, minor drug offenders and the situations that are causing so many black people to go to jail. If you shoot and kill someone you ought to go to prison, but if you're statistically more likely to do it just because of your skin color... THAT'S what should be studied for answers.

Obviously, we have a somewhat accurate figure for what's behind bars racially. What we don't really know is what that means, both socially and statistically.

Statistically, we know that one persons actions don't affect anothers. That means that if 2 of us flip a coin, your chance of getting heads is not affected by whether I flipped a head or not. If we got a long row of people together and they flipped a coin, we'd expect that even though the coins don't affect the outcome of each other, we'd end up with 50% heads and 50% tails. Furthermore, if your line was 70% black, you would reasonably expect that 70% of the heads and tails each would be in black hands. That's the point SiliconJesus was making.

The logic is flawed though when you realize that crime is not a 50-50 chance. Each person has a choice whether to break the law or not. The fact that one does choose to doesn't make the next person less likely to not to. Hence, white people tend to have the not breaking the law part of life down a little better then black people. Since black people break more laws then white people, it is not unlikely that they are incarcerated in larger numbers. And that is the_mad_posters point. This is, of course, obvious, since in a perfect environment, we'd like the ratio of crime and justice to be 1:1.

However, the most interesting statement was the_mad_poster's last sentence. He seems to think that the color of your skin might predispose you to a certain behaviour. Which, statistically we know is rediculous. But, I like the idea. I've decided that the color of my skin has predisposed me to steal car stereos. In the_mad_poster's honor, I've decreed Jan 29th as "Choose Your Predisposition" day. Please use this JE to tell the world what the color of your skin predisposes *you* to do.

PS. I know the_mad_poster is a troll. Have fun!

On Tuesday, veteran democratic Sen. Robert Byrd spoke out against those attacks while at the same time declaring his opposition to Rice`s nomination.

Well, well, well. I'm sure everyone knows about this by now. An Ex-KKK leader opposes a black woman. A tiger really can't change his spots.

Former President Jimmy Carter has been linked with a key figure in the U.N.'s oil-for-food scandal by the group leading the nationwide effort to evict the United Nations from American soil and halt U.S. funding of the U.N.

Move America Forward today will call upon Carter to provide a full accounting of his meetings and conversations with Samir Vincent, who yesterday pleaded guilty to participating in numerous illegal activities as part of the U.N. scandal.

"President Carter needs to tell the American people exactly what relationships he had with the individuals involved in the oil-for-food scandal," said Melanie Morgan, co-chairman of Move America Forward, which is running television ads attacking the U.N. on national cable news networks, conducting an online petition drive and soliciting contributions to spread the message of the TV spots.

CLICK HERE to read the complete story.

SPONGEBOB, OTHER CARTOONS ACCUSED OF PROMOTING HOMOSEXUALITY As they are used in a video promoting tolerance. (CNN) Without hesitation, the media have seized this opportunity to mock the "religious right." (LA Times/Post Standard)

Wow, who would have thought a liberal would be so offended that some might think they made a bad choice. Apparently they haven't noticed what a certain vocal minority has been calling the majority of Americans who felt that President Bush was a better leader then Kerry. Believing that voting for Kerry was merely a sincere bad choice is practically praise comparatively.

Supposedly, this is a sad day for 48% of Americans. I guess it's sad when your candidate has lost an election. I worked on a campaign last fall and the candidate lost, so I can sort of empathise. It is sad to lose. But yet when you have 2 candidates in an election, it is inevitable that one will probably lose.

It's not that Democrats are sad that bothers me though. It's the idea that seems to be promoted that this is an unusual occurance, there's never been a defeated presidential candidate before. Except for Gore, of course.

Today, in about 6 hours, there will be another inauguration. This will be an important inauguration, because it is the culmination of a fight for the heart and soul of America.

Democracy means people have a choice, and they can use that choice for good or for evil. Sometimes people sincerely make the bad choice. But they are allowed to do that, there is no checks built into your right to vote. But last November, 61 million votes chose to make the right choice.

Today, 4 more years of hope is on the way.

Elsewhere, a Democrat earned a footnote in history by casting one of Minnesota's 10 electoral college votes for John Edwards, Kerry's running mate.

Several electors said they suspected someone unconsciously mixed up the two Johns on the ticket. "I'm certainly glad that the electoral college is not separated by one vote," elector Michael Meuers said.

heh, oops! I think it was intentional, it is Minnesota after all. different, in a proud sort of way.