Prepare for Impact!!!

The time has finally come to really consider reducing our use of fossil fuels, especially oil. There are several reasons including: impact on national security, impact on environment and impact on the wallet!

DocBrain always believes in pressing the easy button. What can be done today to reduce fuel use by cars? Here are a few simple solutions.

1. Encourage work at home days. As a physician, there is no reimbursement for telediagnosis and treatment, but patient assessment and management is actually quite easy (except for procedures) to do remotely and is very accurate. If insurers would pay for this type of activity, it would result in a significant savings and would improve access to specialty evaluations in remote communities.
2. Intelligent traffic signals. Do you realize that 40 cars idling burn 1 gallon of gas/minute? Think of how much gasoline could be saved by intelligent traffic systems! Below is an example of one system. This is probably current state of the art, but improvements based on current technology could probably significantly increase this benefit.

http://www.scoot-utc.com/Toronto.php?menu=Results

3. Staggered work start and end times. Why does it have to be 9 to 5? Why not 11 to 7? 12 to 8? Business is largely 24/7 and work schedules could be tailored to improve traffic flow.
4. Better drivers. Have you ever been waiting at a light behind a car that did not move when the light turned green? If a light changes in 1 minute and if a driver takes 1 second to react, you will get more cars through the intersection than if a driver takes 5 seconds to react. This is mainly due to impaired attention or slow reaction time. A simple test of reaction time and attention could be administered where cars get their annual inspections. If the driver failed to react within a reasonable time (shifting foot from brake to gas or gas to brake), his/her driver's license would be revoked. DocBrain actually took this test in driver training 45 years ago, so it is not new technology. Passing could be set at 1 second, which actually is quite a long time.

A capitalistic view

It is 2008! I can buy a song on line for $0.99. Easy. No problemo! Just log on, choose, and send in my money. Giving to charity is just as easily done. I buy what I want and give to who I want. I like that! Different vendors compete for my money. I can even contribute to political campaigns on line! Seems to work. I spend my money just as I want to without anyone telling me what to do. So, here is the thought of the day: why can't taxes be collected and apportioned in the same way? Furthermore, why can't income taxes be voluntary? Give as much or as little as you want. Give it to whatever program you want in whatever proportion you want. The websites could keep a running tally showing how close they are to their budgets, so you could see if your money would be wasted (overfunded) or needed (underfunded). Each program could show its statistics on what it is spending its money on, successes and challenges for the future, and plans for spending the money you are donating. You could use a simple calculator to estimate the fair amount of total contribution that would be appropriate for you. Perhaps a minimum, but no maximum. This would enable those with money to spend it where they believe it would do the most good. Government agencies would have to compete for your dollars, and we, the taxpayers, would win from this competition. If you really liked a program or an administration, you could give even more than the minimum and be a government sponsor! Could corporations, unions, and special interest groups do the same thing? Of course! This would make government have to demonstrate value, and would limit the power of government to tax and spend without citizen oversight.

Comments appreciated!

Primary Screams

Does expressing the extent of your anger at others make your life better? Does rumination on past wrongs make the future better? Does repeatedly blaming others do more than taking yourself to the next level of knowledge, competency, positive passion, or positive action?

Current psychological theory suggests that the answer to all the above questions is "No!".

Attack politics and pulpits are not the answer to building a better future and eternity. Loyalty to the person, but not to a bad action, is the key to helping people without ignoring the truth. Hell and damnation from the pulpit should be levelled at actions, not people, places or institutions. The desire for remorse and restitution can drive you crazy, and will not make you better or very much happier.

It is a sad state of affairs that many people believe that the answer to some, if not all, the questions in the first paragraph is "Yes!" But belief does not make their answers right. Politicians must play to those who will never find true happiness in their search for reasons for their misery. But those in the pulpit should be taking us to the next level.

Reverend Wright should read the Scarlet Letter. The self righteous Reverend Dinsdale is a fictional character who should serve as a negative role model for all who would distort or dishonor the role of spiritual leader.