Mi Caca Su Caca

Non-Government Solutions to Healthcare: Possible?

2009-08-12T12:22:00.002-04:00

Just a little while ago, a friend of mine posted a new blog entry on his Geeky Political Musings site that threw out some free-market solutions for reforming our health care system in this country. Currently, as you know, the President and Congress have their own idea(s) about how this should be done and have crafted nearly 2000 pages of legislation in order to handle the reform. I'm with most Americans in that I want reform, but not that kind of reform.

Here's his post, "Geeky Political Musings: We can't do ObamaCare, but we SHOULD do something", but I'll take each one of his ideas and offer my thoughts on them below, and then follow up with some other ideas I have or have heard. I am not necessarily in total favor of any of them, and no one idea will be the end-all be-all solution. My goal here is to take these ideas, allow them to be critiqued in the open, and refine them into potential solutions that could be enacted in the ultimate goal of reform. Let's not mince words here: ALL AMERICANS should want their fellow Americans to enjoy the best health they can. NO AMERICAN wants their fellow American to go without proper health treatment or to have to make a decision like, "Should I get this test done or should I eat next week?" So if we all have those basic underlying goals, and we can come up with ways that the free-market can solve the problems without excessive government intervention, then why shouldn't we investigate their soundness?

Ok, here are his proposals:

Remove the restrictions on health care insurers that prevent them from selling out of state policies. This has been touted by many, and should lead to more competition, and the ability for people to purchase health care from many other sources.

I think this is an excellent proposal. There are many examples of people that live practically next to each other, but in different states, that have to pay drastically different health insurance premiums. Why is that? It's because there is no competition between the two states' insurance providers. Think about it: if neighbor A in New York could purchase the same insurance as neighbor B in Connecticut, the insurance providers in New York would necessarily have to reduce their premiums to remain competitive. This, as Tim said, is just common sense. Incidentally, this is how it works for automobile insurance, and it works quite well.

Stop insurers from denying people based on pre-existing conditions. However, this is a two-way street. Why did the original insurance carrier all of a sudden dump someone who was in dire need of care? If they dumped them because of their condition, the should be liable to pay a premium to their new carrier. Too many people have paid long and hard into insurance policies only to have the rug yanked out from underneath them as they developed a life threatening condition.

On this one we differ a bit, but by his own admittance he's unformfortable with his own idea as well. For me, I'm uncomfortable forcing a private business to cover someone they would not ordinarily cover. However, I'm OK with them coming up with their own plans to spread the liability among those with conditions, thus allowing them to cover those people with minimum risk to the company. Look, they know that they will lose money on someone with a pre-existing condition, and in the end they are running a business. If you're against paying for those people as a taxpayer then you should be against forcing a business to pay for them. Without creative solutions in the insurance company (which they are capable of making on their own), every other 'well' customer is going to be impacted by every 'known-unwell' customer.

Tim brings up an obvious problem with how health insurance is handled today - if a person was to develop a condition during the year, then when they renew their insurance at the end of the year, their rates would either skyrocket or they would just be refused coverage. This is unfortunate and is a side-effect of how the system is structured. I think that a simple tweak to the structure would help in this, and is already used successfully in life insurance. Why don't they just make the terms longer? Think about it - if you buy a 20 year term life insurance plan, but then take up smoking or drinking, enter a high-risk line of work, or any other number of factors that would necessarily increase your rates at that point, it doesn't matter because you're locked in to set rates for a period of time. I think the same thing could work for health insurance. I will say that one key difference between life and health insurance is that your need for life insurance typically goes down as you age (since your debt typically goes down), but your need for health insurance typically goes up. This is where something like catastrophic insurance would come in (more on that later).

Tort reform. Yes, some lawsuits are legitimate. However many are not. Our doctors and hospitals are drowning in the costs of their own insurance protecting against lawsuits. We need to punish those who are in the practice of frivolous lawsuits.

I agree with this, and its unfortunate that there is no mention of tort reform in any of the legislation being proposed today. It is ESSENTIAL to put as many barriers as possible to frivolous lawsuits in place in order to reduce the fear doctors have of being sued. The result is that they have to pay loads of money in liability insurance, they overprescribe medication and tests 'just to be safe', and scumbags work the system because they know that the doctor's insurance will pay out rather than fight the suit since it's cheaper.

I think a simple solution here would be to simply make the loser pay. If the loser was going to pay all court costs for the winner, then the insurance company has a reason to fight a frivolous charge if they feel the doctor is in the right. If they win, the loser will pay their court costs and they are out no money. If they lose, then at least the judge or jury felt they were in the wrong. Everybody wins (except scumbags). Scumbags would be less eager to sue if they knew the insurance company had an incentive to fight back.

Tax breaks for employers based upon the total number of employees they employ that are also insured.This could be percentage based. I believe this would not only help employers give employees insurance, but may help them hire more workers.

Technically, this is already done. Health insurance benefits that come from your employer are not taxable.

Employers should be liable to carry a persons insurance exactly the same as it was during their employ for a prorated amount of time, or until they find a new job if that employee is laid off. For each year of employ the employer should be responsible to carry that persons insurance for 1 month. Fully covered by the employer. This cost will be offset by tax breaks. This should help people who get laid off until they can get back on their feet. If the employee finds a new job with health care then the employer can at that time cancel the coverage.

These might be nice steps, but I prefer a different tack. I would like employers to remove health insurance as a benefit altogether. I would prefer the employer to take the money they are paying for your health insurance and instead just increase your pay by that amount. They only gain by this by reducing paperwork on their end and hassle in dealing with a group provider, and the burden is placed on you to find the best health care plan for your family or place in life, which is where it should be. How many employees are trapped by their employer offered healthcare that may not offer the benefits they want/need?

Now, in addition to my comments on Tim's suggestions, I have some others that I've either come up with or have heard others mention.

Health insurance is (or should be) a very customized thing. When you open a program to any number of people that have any number of conditions or end up getting into any number of situations requiring healthcare, you necessarily reduce the effectiveness for each person that does not have the condition or does not get into a situation. What if there was an insurance plan out there that offered some basic plans, but you could add certain benefits a la carte? Say you have a child with speech problems; why not add the Speech Therapy package? What if you have asthma? Better add the Respiratory Illness package.

How about a plan similar to automobile insurance? You pay a little each month and you have to weigh each time you ding your car if you want to get it fixed for free (and have your rates rise) or deal with it (and your rates remain the same). That puts the power of decision in your hands, requiring you to be responsible for yourself. People don't typically drive their car recklessly unless they're OK with not getting it fixed. People DO live recklessly (unhealthy diet, no exercise), and most are secure in the knowledge that their health insurance will cover them if something turns up bad.

One of the things I don't like about how we purchase health insurance is that we essentially are pre-purchasing healthcare. It's not solely 'insurance' that we rely on in cases of tragedy, but instead it's a bucket that we routinely put money in so that we don't have to pull money out when we go to the doctor. When you go to the doctor and they say, "You should probably run these tests," (probably because they don't want to get sued) you don't hesitate because it's not coming out of your pocket. The doctor knows it and in everybody's mind, nobody gets hurt. The doctor is safer from prosecution, the insurance company is making loads already off of you and others, and you get 'free' healthcare. Technically you've already paid, but the direct association is lost, so you don't care.

Here's an experiment for you: next time you go to a doctor, tell them you're paying in cash. I guarantee you they will offer the same services to you at a cheaper rate than they would bill your insurance provider. It might still be a large sum, but it will be FAR cheaper than your insurance is charged. It will also be cheaper than they would end up receiving from your insurance provider in the end. When a doctor accepts cash from you, that removes so many headaches from their billing department that the lost hassle more than makes up for the lost revenue. Many doctors are switching to 'private-pay' (i.e. cash) only for this very reason.

A doctor in New York has a few practices open across his area and in all of them they offer a healthcare plan that is truly unique. It costs $79 per month (think: gym membership) and patients can come in at any time. They do pay a modest visit charge per visit, but other than that, their healthcare is free. It's not just visits that are free, but also basic tests and preventative care as well. His business is flourishing and patients love the system. If such a system were employed nationwide by many doctors, and the patients secured catastrophic insurance to cover major illnesses/tragedies, then they could rest easy knowing they were covered.

I heard this one on the radio the other day, and it seems very reasonable. How about offering tax deductions for doctors that treat unable-to-pay patients? If a patient comes in and needs care, the doctor can elect to charge cash, charge insurance, or do the service(s) for free. If they do so for free, they can deduct what they would have charged in cash. This would free up people from worrying about having enough money to see a doctor, and it would probably encourage doctors to shift to a more 'non-profit' role. This would, in turn, put pressure on insurance companies to act fast in order to increase their usefulness. This, in turn, would probably open more doors for people to get covered, which would in turn cause more doctors and patients to utilize their service, and...well, that's the free market at work, baby.

I also like Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). These are essentially a savings account that you can direct payroll funds into in order to have a stash of money specifically keyed for paying your health expenses. You will typically utilize very little of this when you're young, and will need more as you age. Likewise, you will earn more as you age and thus contribute more. On top of this, it will have been earning interest your entire life. Anybody who has even remedial knowledge of how compounding interest works can immediately see the potential benefits of such a plan. Their obvious problem is that they are effectively closed to non-income or even low-income people, but using components of some of the other proposals mentioned above would help there. As I said in the beginning, there is no one solution for everyone, which is yet another reason why a universal health care plan can't work; at least not fairly or efficiently.

President Obama mentioned a story a few weeks ago during a press conference. He said, "This is about the middle-class college graduate from Maryland whose health insurance expired when he changed jobs, and woke up from the emergency surgery that he required with $10,000 worth of debt." Sounds like a sad story, doesn't it? It should, because it is. But let's look at this scenario: the man is in between jobs and is not covered. He has an emergency and ends up owing $10,000. So?!? HE'S ALIVE. I guarantee you that if he were to have been asked on the operating table, "Look, son, I am 100% sure you will die if we don't operate, but because you're uninsured, you'll owe the hospital $10,000. Your call.", he would have ABSOLUTELY said to go ahead. Who wouldn't?!? He's not going to say, "Uh, gee...well, I wanted to really get a new apartment next month, and I've been checking out this sweet car down at the lot for the past week. Hmm..." NO! So he owes $10,000? Does that suck? Yes! Do sucky things happen to otherwise non-sucky people? Yes! Should every other sucky and non-sucky person have to foot the bill for every sucky thing that happens to someone else? Your call.

Look, I know there are free-market solutions to our health care problems. I know we can find a way to help everyone out that wants to help themselves. I know that we don't (and shouldn't) have to depend on the government to solve our problems for us.

I'll leave you with one final thought. Yesterday, in a town hall meeting, President Obama himself released the single most damaging statement against a direct government involvement in healthcare (like a public option). When defending against a common attack that a government option would eventually crowd out and eliminate private insurance, he said, "My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining…then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Wow. So the two possible scenarios here are 1) it's like every other government program ever enacted and offers no substantial competition to private insurance because it's ineptly run and managed and consistently is over-budget, or 2) it's very successful and effective as designed, so private insurance goes the way of the dodo.

Sign me up.

You Gotta Give It To Republicans

2009-08-06T19:11:00.002-04:00

I'm no natural fan of either party based on their representation in Washington, though I certainly align myself with more conservative principles, which is generally aligned with Republican stated values/goals. I say stated because they've tended to drift from that path considerably over past years.

That being said, they have just played a deft move regarding Cash for Clunkers (or CARS). As you may or may not know, the program is being reviewed in the Senate for continued funding. They're looking to expand it by 2 billion and it looked yesterday like it was full steam ahead. However, a new amendment proposed by Tom Harkin (D-IA) is throwing it for a loop. Ironically enough, it is playing right into the Republicans' hands. Let me explain.

Harkin's amendment wants to limit participation in the program to those earning $50,000 or less; basically making the program a low-income handout. In ordinary world, Republicans would oppose based on conservative principles and Democrats would approve based on social justice principles. However, in this case it's exactly the opposite. Republicans are totally in favor of this, but Democrats are opposed to it because they don't want any amendments. Amendments at this point would mean a new vote in the House, and the House is adjourned for August. They won't be back for weeks. If the Dems throw their weight behind this, it will pass and they will have to suspend the program until the House can re-adjourn and vote. They don't want that, so they have to oppose the amendment in order to keep the program alive *now* rather than *later*. However, by doing that, the Republicans are the champions of the poor and the Democrats come off looking like they don't care about the poor.

I don't know who came up with this plan, but it's frickin' brilliant, politically speaking. I doubt Harkin is in on it because he has always been for the program, even months ago, and even then was talking about it being able to help the poor. However he is against rushed votes and regrets TARP and the like. It doesn't really matter, and while I don't approve of political games at the expense of citizens, I don't feel any citizen is being maligned by continuance of this program. Perhaps cooler heads can prevail after a month of recess.

Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. IV

2009-07-03T23:35:00.003-04:00

No time to do this one justice, but I did just receive the most retarded thing I've ever seen in the ol' Inbox a few minutes ago. It's crazy enough to carry this WWTF all by itself.

W....T....F?!?

Read all about it here.

(Another) Open Letter to My Representative

2009-06-24T16:02:00.004-04:00

Time for another round of contacting the powers that be. Please take the time to read, and if you agree, copy and change accordingly, then send to your own representative. They are trying to get a vote together by Friday. Time is short if you want to let them know how you feel.

You can write them here.

Congressman -

I have come to understand that you and your colleagues will likely be voting on HR 2454 (the "Climate Change" bill). I would like to express my wish that you vote "NO" on the passing of this bill when given the opportunity. Over the past several months I have seen several pieces of information come to light only to be quickly buried by major media outlets. It is seeming more and more like this is a highly politically charged bill being rushed through to a vote with very little regard for honest debate. Again, I strongly urge you to consider your vote when it presents itself, or, if you are so inclined, push for more exposure to these other views so that you and your colleagues can execute a more informed vote, and not a simple 'party-line' vote.

The latest piece of news has come out today and centers around certain EPA emails that were sent in March of this year. I'm including the link to the emails, but the essence is that one of their researchers wanted to submit new evidence that did not support Endangerment. This researcher was essentially silenced and his information was not passed on for consideration. It is now coming to light and I encourage you to at least view the emails in question.

You can find them at:
http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/Endangerment%20Comments%206-23-09.pdf

I wanted to also enumerate some of the other exposed information which has led me to infer that the House is simply not doing their due diligence in voting on this bill.

- The primary sponsor of the bill, Henry Waxman, was unable to answer basic questions about his own bill.

- The Democratic Majority hired a speed-reader to read through the bill - an utter MOCKERY of our legislative system.

- UK's Lord Christopher Monckton was first invited to debate with Al Gore in April, but was then barred from the debate after landing in the U.S.

- More than 700 scientists have signed on to a Senate report disputing claims that man is primarily responsible for global warming. As an aside - this is over 13 times the number of scientists who authored the IPCC 2007 report; the major report cited by those claim the opposite, and a primary source document for this bill.

- Senator Barrasso revealed a 9-page White House internal memo that showed that the EPA's Endangerment decision was primarily political and not scientifically based.

- There is a real risk that businesses will move offshore as a direct result of this bill and continue to emit the same levels of carbon that they do today. It implies that Congress is apparently OK with the carbon emission as long as it doesn't occur on our land. I remind you that the claim is 'global' climate change, not American climate change.

- In Sections 425-427, it is spelled out that workers who are displaced will receive THREE years of compensation, plus healthcare coverage, job search funds, and moving assistance. That is the single best severance package that I've ever heard of. One almost *hopes* that his job is displaced because of this bill.

- 'Fuzzy math' was used to imply that the average American household's cost for this bill would be 800/year. I say 'fuzzy' because this calculation assumes that the 'average American household' will benefit from other government services paid for by money raised from credit auctioning. In essence, the Republicans are more correct with their $3900/year estimate because the household will still be put out by that amount; they'll just be receiving other 'benefits' for it. Energy companies *will* pass on these costs to consumers; anyone who thinks otherwise is simply mistaken. Furthermore, due to the credits outlined in sections 431 and 432 to low income families, this will disproportionately affect the middle class.

- Carbon dioxide *is* a greenhouse gas. Greenhouse gases *do* trap heat. These are scientific facts and are not in dispute. However, did you know that most environmental reports only take into account those greenhouse gases that humans primarily contribute to (namely, CO2 and Methane)? They always seem to omit the one greenhouse gas for which we have practically zero control over: water vapor. As a matter of fact, when taken into account, human contribution to greenhouse gas emissions drops from 5.5% to about 0.28% when you factor in water vapor! Don't you think that's rather significant? With regards to just CO2, man-made contributions are only 0.117% of the entire Earth's greenhouse effect, i.e. INSIGNIFICANT.

You get the picture. Where is the upfront and public discussion about these (and more I didn't mention) items?

Taxing coal companies and forcing us out of SUVs is *not* going to have a significant effect on the global climate, though I would hate for you to come to the conclusion these facts support after you've already cast your vote to the contrary. What it will have a significant effect on is the average American's energy expenditures and the American job market.

You're probably going to be asked to vote on this bill this week. Again, I urge you to consider these pieces of information when deciding how to vote. Look, nobody is saying we don't want clean air. Nobody is saying we should intentionally destroy our planet. What I *am* saying is that this bill seems as though it's being rushed through the system, and any voice of opposition or public discourse about the bill seems to vanish almost as soon as it comes up. If you have considered the items I mentioned, please let me know your thoughts, your intended vote, and how you have arrived at your decision.

Thank you very much for listening.

How About I Call You Rude, Instead?

2009-06-19T10:04:00.005-04:00

Senator Barbara Boxer (D - CA)is now on my feces list. A few days ago she was in a hearing with Brigadier General Michael Walsh when she asked him a question. In his reply, he called her "ma'am". At that point she rudely interjected with:

"Do me a favor; could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am'? It's just a thing, I worked so hard to get that title, so I'd appreciate it, yes, thank you."

ARE YOU FRICKING SERIOUS!?!? It seems ~~Mrs.~~ Senator Boxer has got her ~~panties~~ boxers in a wad. What a -

...well you finish the sentence.

If you haven't clicked on the link above - go ahead so you can see for yourself.

Look, I've never met a decent person that was so wrapped up in their title that they would actually interrupt someone talking to them with a snide request like that. I've talked with CEOs, Presidents of companies, senior executives, and even politicians, and NONE of them have EVER stopped me mid-sentence if I said "Sir" or "Ma'am". Maybe over in California they don't consider "ma'am" a sign of respect, but that's nothing to hold against this BRIGADIER GENERAL. I just can't believe the absolute nerve she had to act this rude! How full of herself is she?!?

Apparently a lot.

Sometimes, of course, 'titles' are important and should always be demanded. How about Dad/dy and Mom/my? I think those should be used by children for the duration of their lives. As for non-parents, children should always use "Mr." and "Mrs/Miss/Ms" (for those senior to you, whether in age or rank) unless that person has told them they don't need to. For myself, I still call older adults that I knew in my childhood with those titles, and I always will. You may think this one is generally a Southern thing, but the "sir" and "ma'am" should always be appended as well when answering.

Maybe it's just me.

Look, you may live somewhere where "sir" or "ma'am" are not used, and you may not have been raised to say them, but I ask you this: can you honestly deny that hearing them is at least just a teeny weeny bit more respectful sounding than just "Yeah" or even "Yes"? If you can deny that, then I think you need to lighten up. It is a universal sign of respect, and this Senator decided to assert her high-and-mightiness by denouncing this general's respectful address and demanding to be referred to as "Senator".

You know, I don't recall her addressing him as "Brigadier General" when she asked her question. I mean, if we're going to be so respectful to each other and pay attention to the hard work employed in earning titles and everything, should the door swing both ways? I'm pretty sure he worked just a little bit harder in earning his title.

Just sayin'.

Travelocity: How Gay

2009-06-14T22:36:00.009-04:00

I was just perusing the interweb and decided to go to Travelocity to see if any cheap summer vacation deals were on there. We're looking to go somewhere sunny, and I've had good luck in the past getting deals on that site. Imagine my surprise (shock? bewilderment? confusion?) when I saw the following screen:

(Click to enlarge)

Top four desination themes: Mountain, Romance, All Inclusive, and...Gay Travel? "Gay Travel" is a top four destination theme?!? Couldn't that technically be lumped under "Romance" or are gay people not romantic? I think the LGBT community should complain about this here - either Travelocity is claiming gay couples can't be romantic, or maybe they're singling out only single gay people (pun most definitely intended), or they are just simply patronizing you. You think they would put "Hetero Travel" on there?

It's like they're saying, "Go to the mountains and enjoy the view while hiking on trails, or go on a romantic getaway and get closer to that special someone, or, apparently if you're gay, go somewhere and, uhh, just be gay?" Yep, if you're gay you can't go to the mountains or anywhere else. They've got a special category just for you.

I just don't get it. How about, oh I don't know, "Fishing", "Hiking", "Sailing", etc. Those are pretty basic 'themed' vacations.

Oh, one more thing... (which happens to be what I was looking for...)

HOW ABOUT THE FRICKING BEACH?!? IT'S THE FRICKING SUMMER!!! PEOPLE GO TO THE FRICKING BEACH IN THE FRICKING SUMMER!!!

Maybe it's just me?

(Semi) Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. III

2009-06-14T01:46:00.005-04:00

Ok, ok. So I'm too busy apparently to do a WWTF. So it's been a while. So what? You made it ok...sheesh.

OMG. San Francisco (that bastion of progressiveness) has now deemed it unlawful to throw away food scraps. Under penalty of fine, the unfortunate citizens of that fair town will be forced to separate their trash into 3 groups, 1 for recycling, 1 for food, and 1 for plain ol' trash. The idiocy was complete when I read "Food scraps sent to a landfill decompose fast and turn into methane gas, a potent greenhouse gas". I'm sorry, first the problem was throwing things away that never decomposed; now it's a problem that they decompose too rapidly? Look, if you want to compost, by all means. I'm thrifty enough that I was considering it sometime this year. But a law that forces you to do it is just crossing the line. Let me clarify - a federal law forcing you to do it would be crossing the line; San Fran can have fun with that. It's just another reason to keep it at the bottom of my 'most desirable cities to live in' list.

Oh - and if you're sooooo worried about our effect on the levels of greenhouse gases, take the time to look at a perspective that's always overlooked by the zealots. This link lists greenhouse gas numbers along with human contributions, but includes the Earth's most significant greenhouse gas: water-vapor. Omitting that from reports can change the numbers by as much as 2000%. Seems kinda significant, don't you think?

[sigh] A judge in...waitaminit...San Francisco?!? What a coincidence! Anyway, a judge over there has determined that a convicted terrorist can actually sue one of the lawyers that drafted the legal memos/documents that OK'd the use of the so-called EITs (enhanced interrogation techniques). I had a big blog article all planned out on this whole torture thing but never got around to it. I thought it had died out, but I guess now the embers are being stoked again. This isn't about justifying torture or not, it's about the law. Is he an American citizen? Yes. HOWEVER, the second he was declared an enemy combatant by the state, which he was, he loses any privledges that may have afforded him. He was essentially taken from the field of battle. It was never a police matter; it was always a military matter, and therefore not subject to the same kind of scrutiny that civil matters are.

Iran had their presidential election and it was more of the same, apparently. It wasn't really close, but many are complaining of rigging. They must have learned a thing or two from Florida 2000, since they've apparently arrested the loser. Wouldn't want to be taken to court or anything...

Paul Krugman decided to blame conservatives, most specifically Fox News show hosts, for the recent attack at the Holocause Museum in DC. Idiot. The best line? "Now, for the most part, the likes of Fox News and the R.N.C. haven’t directly incited violence..." So I suppose, in the non-most parts, there have actually been show hosts and RNC peeps that have directly incited violence, hmm? Gee, I didn't really see that show...

Finally, Glenn Beck's Common Sense was released this week. Get it. Read it. Think about it.

Racism Is Alive And Well

2009-05-27T20:21:00.006-04:00

When I heard about this story I just couldn't believe it. In this day and age I can't believe that there's an instance of racism as blatant as this. You may have heard about it but for those who haven't I summarize: There's a police district in Little Rock, Arkansas that recently had a large number of slots to fill in the "upper" roles of captain and lieutenant. The higher ups decided to conduct a test to determine the most qualified people because, after all, wouldn't you want the most qualified people in that field leading the task of protecting citizens?

Of course you would.

To that end, they rigorously planned this test out so that it would be racially neutral. They didn't want to disparage anyone, so they even went to the trouble of hiring an outside firm that specialized in creating politically correct tests (to the tune of about $100,000).

When the results finally came in, the white test-takers did very poorly, while the Hispanic and black recruits excelled. Many of them had worked long hours, quit second jobs, even dealt with learning disabilities in order to pass this test. When the powers-that-be got word of the test results, they decided to throw them out to avoid lawsuits. Unfortunately for them, it produced exactly the same outcome. The odd twist of irony is that the council who decided to throw out the results was comprised of 3 blacks and 1 Hispanic; the only groups that performed well enough on the tests to be promoted.

Now black and Hispanic policemen are suing, saying the results were thrown out simply because they are black. They played by the rules, they studied hard and scored high enough to make the promotion cut, yet that promotion was denied simply because of the color of their skin.

Like I said before - can you believe this is happening in this day and age? I mean, in the past affirmative action and social engineering has been utilized to "equalize the playing field", but this is ridiculous. The council's defense is that they are not promoting anyone based on the test score, so they are not discriminating; they're simply throwing the scores out. To make matters worse, this happened a few years ago, and since then they have been rotating people in and out of those positions in order to be fair, thus placing in some cases the non-qualified whites into those positions just for the sake of equality.

Sufficiently riled up?

Ok; I have a confession to make...the above story is not true. Well, at least not entirely true. They weren't policemen, they were firemen. It wasn't in Little Rock, it was in New Haven, Connecticut. And finally, it wasn't blacks who excelled on the test while whites failed miserably, it was the other way around.

Still think it's a travesty? The sad truth of our nation is that if the above situation would have happened that way, there is no way they would have held back the recruits from their rightful promotion. As a matter of fact, I would venture to say the NAACP and other minority organizations that have chimed in on this case would have touted the fact that the most successful test-takers were non-whites. It would have been entirely acceptable to promote deserving minorities, but deserving majorities? Not a chance.

I understand there is political pressure (at every level) to promote people evenly distributed among the various races, or at least proportional to the numbers available in each race, but this is not some job that requires little skill. This is a job that directly affects peoples' lives. It affects the lives of the firemen and of the people they're trying to save. I guarantee you one thing: If my house was burning down, I wouldn't care who or what came through my door to save my children or try and save my property.

I bet the vast majority of Americans feel the same way.

So why did they do it? Well, in this case it was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The minority groups were threatening to sue if the tests were not thrown out and the ones who passed were threatening to sue if they did. Despite the political backlash, the council showed bad judgment. Thankfully, this case has finally wound its way to the Supreme Court, who should be layout out a verdict any day now.

If you'd like to read about this case and its history, this website is very thorough.

What Are They Thinking?

2009-05-20T09:40:00.006-04:00

The Credit CARD (Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure) Act of 2009; what a clever name! I wonder how much the guy in Congress who has the unofficial title of Bill-Namer gets paid? Whatever it is, it's not enough. Anyway, it's only a few closed-door meetings and a President's signature away from becoming a legislative reality. But this is a good thing, right? Senator Harry Reid felt pride because the Congress "stood up for consumers and stood up to abusive credit card companies". Senator John Kerry chimed in that Americans were "[getting] whacked with unfair credit card fees". So we should all thank Congress, right? Everybody wins, right?

Hardly. Nothing Congress ever does allows everybody to win. It's an impossible goal. For someone to win, another has to lose. That's the nature of the world, though there's a chunk of the population that honestly feels that nobody should ever lose. Unless of course, you're talking about the evil corporations. Of course they should lose.

Many of these provisions have me thinking: Are these really things that need to be into a law? Look, if you've ever gotten a credit card, you know you get all this verbiage that you never read. Somewhere buried in there is something that looks like this (pulled from an online Citi application, 5/19/09):

First they specify the variable rate specifications:
--Your APRs may vary each billing period.
--The purchase and balance transfer APR equals the Prime Rate plus 9.99%.
--The cash advance APR equals the Prime Rate plus 16.99% (never lower than 21.99%).
--The default APR equals the greater of (1) the Prime Rate plus up to 23.99% or (2) up to 29.99%.

Then, in the footnotes they clarify it:
How do we calculate variable rates?
For each billing period we use the Prime Rate published in The Wall Street Journal two business days before the Statement/Closing Date.
When can we change the rates, fees, and terms of your card agreement?
We will not voluntarily increase your rates and fees or change other terms of your card agreement until your card expires, typically in two years. At that time, we will review your credit history and general market conditions. If we decide to make changes after our review, you will receive advance notice and a right to opt out. If you opt out, we will close your account. You can then pay the remaining balance under the old rates, fees, and terms. Of course this paragraph does not apply to the automatic default APR and Prime Rate changes. It also does not apply to changes required by law, our regulators, or our network providers.

Does that sound unfair to you? Is it their fault that you didn't read it? I know I never read them, but I don't hold them liable for my laziness. President Obama said last week, "You should not have to worry that when you sign up for a credit card, you're signing away all your rights. You shouldn't need a magnifying glass or a law degree to read the fine print that sometimes doesn't even appear to be written in English." Excuse me? Exactly which rights were infringed by those rules? And a law degree? Is our educational system that bad that it is assumed a law degree is required to understand what I just pasted above? On second thought, don't answer that.

Let's take a look at some of the key provisions of the bill:

Credit companies can no longer raise interest rates on existing balances until after those balances are 60 days past due.

Why 60? It sounds so arbritrary. Why not 30? 90? 120? It's just a number, and you're not going to solve anything. You will still have people not pay. TODAY most may pay by 60 days (I don't know this; just trying to think of why they picked 60), but if the deadline is 60, then most will probably pay by 90. Then what? Just keep pushing it out? Eventually, don't we all have to just realize the cutoff is there, it's detailed in the agreement, and call it a day? You can't push it out because people don't read.

Consumers will be notified 45 days in advance of any rate increase.

Again - another arbritrary date.

Statements will be forced to be mailed 21 days before the payment due date.

Uh...how exactly is this supposed to help, and why is this being legislated again? Look, consumers, if you are using a credit card, you do realize that at some point you'll be required to pay the debt off, right? They're going to come knocking at around the same time every month for at least a portion of the debt. I'm not really sure how legislating that you find out so early suddenly offers the consumer more protection. This is an unnecessary clause.
Actually, you know what? I just thought of a potentially ever-so-slightly-harmful side-effect of this. I already get my Discover statement via email around 29 days BEFORE it's due. It basically comes right after it closes for the previous month. I then promptly forget about it because, after all, it's not even due for another month. For ME, this legislation is potentially harmful. My point is that any legislation will hurt some and help others. Those that are lazy and forgetful, who don't set up reminders and stay on top of debts will be harmed because they will be notified too soon and it will fall off their radar. Those who are diligent will take the opportunity and set up the payment ahead of time, regardless of when they are notified. Net effect: NOTHING.

It will be harder for companies to issue credit cards to people under 21.

Yet another case of the government acting like parents. Look, this is and should be a business decision of the credit card companies. They probably shouldn't even hassle themselves with 18-21 year olds. They should jack up rates on them and in general make it difficult for them to obtain their product. They should consider that age group a high credit risk and treat them as such. Wait a minute - if they did that, then...[gasp]...they'd be implementing a form of age discrimination! Why isn't the government stepping in and forcing them to reduce restrictions! Oh yeah, it's because the government wants to absolve anybody, even those legally considered an adult in practically all other matters, of personal responsibility. How about a pro-active attempt to curb financial ignorance? How about an introduction of financial education into our American primary/secondary education system? Instead of accepting stupidity, why don't we work to avoid it in the first place? The government shouldn't be a parent (though they try), but it's in the country's best interest to have a financially educated public.

Rates can't be increased in the first year, with two main exceptions: 1) variable interest rate increase, and 2) promotional rate period end. In line with that, all promotional periods must be at least 6 months.

Great. Now we have the government specifying how long a sale or discount can last for a business. Imagine a government stipulation that stores be obligated to offer last week's sale prices up to 3 days after the sale ended? In effect, increasing the length of sale? That's essentially what they're doing. Why should the government come in and specify business practices? THIS IS MARKETING! They didn't lie, they didn't cheat. As a matter of fact, they didn't even have to offer a promotional period at all - they do so in order to entice customers to use their card rather than others.

The list goes on and on, covering gift card expirations, etc., and even going so far as to specify the date time of day deadline for bill payment! Really? The time of day??

It's not all bad, and some of these things will benefit the average consumer. Unfortunately, most of the effects of this will be negative for exactly the wrong people. If you divide borrowers into two categories, those who pay and those who don't, then those who don't pay are subject to fees, penalties, rate increases, credit problems, etc. (Yes, I realize that some(most?) who don't pay have just fallen on hard times with job loss, etc. and physically can't pay. They didn't necessarily do anything wrong at all. With this in mind, businesses can choose to have a heart and handle accordingly or be a hardliner and collect. It's a business decision; likewise it's our decision as a consumer to choose a hardliner credit card company or not.) This is a fact of life. If you do what you should and when you should do it (i.e. pay on time), then you shouldn't be unnecessarily penalized. When these rules go into effect, the credit card companies will not sit idly by and watch their profits dwindle with an, "Aw, shucks." NO. They're going to find some way to keep the revenues coming in, and if they're not allowed to "pick on" the bad payers, then they'll be forced to raise fees/rates across the board to cover the balance. This will likely reduce usage by good payers, which will cause their customer base to become lopsided toward the bad payer side. Now call me crazy, but I don't think that's good for business.

My final thought on this is simple: This is yet another case of the government stepping in where they don't belong, in the interest of "the people". When will we stop this bailout mentality that it's not OK to fail? This will have unintended side-effects, and only time will tell what those are. Do I think that the credit card companies should be restrained and should act ethically in regards to business practices? ABSOLUTELY. Do I think the government should create laws in order to control business direction? NO. I would much rather see a public effort toward the credit card companies to force them to band together and create an agency/group/board/something that would set industry standards they would all abide by. As a consumer it is our right to protect ourselves, and we shouldn't depend on the government to protect us from us.

Me On The Glenn Beck Show - 5.19.09

2009-05-18T11:55:00.002-04:00

I called into the Glenn Beck Radio Show this morning and (after staying on hold for about an hour) finally got on. If you've never called into a radio show (and I've only called into a few), you can sit on hold for quite a while. It's ok though, because you get to listen to the show through your phone...

Anyway, here's my question and his answer. If any clever state legislators (not just Georgia) are out there and have an idea for how to have control of the money that goes to Washington from the state (more specifically how to avoid having it go to support a failing state), please do so!

$900,000 To Prove A Point? Priceless.

2009-05-15T15:25:00.005-04:00

We learn today of yet another colossal failure in the world of ~~global warming~~ climate change initiatives. (forgot the name change...) Students at the Lawrence Technological University and DTE (Detroit power company) came together to create a work of art. Actually, if you were going to look at it as a work of art alone, then it wouldn't be so laughable. However, this house was supposed to be a full-fledged demonstration about how a "green" house could perform. It is entirely solar powered and has no electric or gas hookups. Seven months ago, it was unveiled to the public at large as a glimpse into the future of our lives; or at least a proposed future if we would all just go green.

You could go see it today and marvel at its wondrous achievements, but you wouldn't be allowed to go inside. You see, some idiot forgot to flip the breaker during the winter that would have powered a heater and, as (un)luck would have it, the pipes froze and burst, causing $16,000 in damage. I should note the other 'official' story is that the heater drew too much power and the batteries drained which caused the system to back down. So, for now, the house is closed to avoid human safety issues. (rotted floors kinda suck when you walk on them...) So far, nobody is forking over the repair costs. I guess $900K is ok to spend, but $16K is just pushing it too far!

In a way, the official story is even more disturbing. If that's true then how can they expect to be taken seriously when the water pipe heaters drew too much power with absolutely zero other drain from people living in it?!? This thing was designed to support a home office and an electric car. If it can't even support water heaters...FAIL.

But let's just say, for a moment, that this was simply human error (which it was either way; either an idiot or a poor designer). Let's say the idea is sound and we'd really have something useful here had the pipes not burst. I don't know of anyone that would argue that such a house could be built. I mean, any person with a bit of sense would know that if you throw enough solar panels at something, you can power it. That has never really been the critical blocking point for widespread adoption of solar power. So, from that perspective, the house proved absolutely nothing by simply claiming to be "grid-free".

In order to be a true public-shifting piece of work, you have to factor in cost, marketability, ease of construction, and a slew of other factors. You can't just say, "Guess what? This house is grid free and it's the wave of the future! Jump on board!" People like me (and most of America) will tell you to have fun with that house; we'll buy a normal house that costs 1/5th the amount this one did.

Oh - you didn't catch that? Yeah, this beauty cost NINE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. Cha-ching! What do you mean you don't have a million bucks to drop into a house?!? Don't you care about the environment!?!?!

It gets better.

The average American home is about 2400 sq. ft. So you would think that any rational person/organization that was trying to make a point would at least build a house that was somewhere in that neighborhood. Wanna know how big (small) this house is? 800 sq. ft.

EIGHT HUNDRED.

I'm sorry, but if you've got 900K to drop into a dwelling, it ought to hold more than a chair and table. This is just another indication that the green movement 'pioneers' are just plain out of touch with common America.

Now, in Troy at least, they're out of house and home too. Though, really, those words are stretching it a bit, don't you think?

The Problem With Gay Marriage Isn't The Gay Part

2009-04-22T17:04:00.006-04:00

Gay marriage is a huge, polarizing issue. The crux of the issue isn't homosexuality, oddly enough. It's the anachronous, illogical entanglement of church and state concerns in the institution of marriage as we know it. Marriage, as a concept, has different implications depending upon the context in which it's being discussed. It has religious aspects as in the joining of two souls under God and it has the legal implications of binding many of the responsibilities of two people in a sort of contractual joining of two individuals under the State. One's credit affects the other, the burden of debts are shared, insurance coverage spans between them, etc. These are two very different facets of the institution which would be extremely complicated to manage simultaneously in the best of circumstances. When the fact that one is a religious matter while one is a state matter are considered, that alone is enough to warrant a separation of the two into separate arrangements entirely, to say nothing of the practical complications that arrise due to their comingling.

Upon separating the two aspects of marriage as per one of the founding principles of our nation, the problem then becomes somewhat easier to discuss and manage.

If the legal facet of marriage is reduced to a contractual comingling of responsibilities and benefits as currently connoted by the institution of marriage, the emotional and moral offenses incurred by those who resist the concept of gay marriage so strongly, would seem to be removed. Even if homosexuality is not condoned by a person's religion, what would they care if two people would like to share responsibility for each other's debt? I'm sure they would still condemn the lifestyle as a whole, but legalities of the situation would no longer be encumbered by the moralities of it. As an aside, under this new separate model, there doesn't seem to be a logical defense for outlawing polygamy. Who cares if 10 people want to all be responsible for each other. The concept would need its own nomenclature, a la Civil Union, and would have to be executed by an agent of the government, Justice of the Peace, County Clerk, whathaveyou.

Marriage then, would be a purely religious concept having no legal implications. It would be carried out by a religious agent.

People who currently object on religious grounds would have no basis to object when discussing the legal implications and now that the religious piece would be its own separate concern, homosexuals would have no basis to object.

Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. II

2009-04-17T17:00:00.000-04:00

Sorry, but I was out of town on vacation last week, so this one actually covers two weeks. Lucky you!

New York decided to impose a so-called Millionaire's Tax that somehow not-so-surprisingly affects a lot more people than just those that make a million bucks. The tax increases start for those making $200,000 ($300,000/couple). This officially keeps New York as the highest taxing state, with California on their heels. Reports say actual rich people like Trump and Limbaugh are moving out of town to avoid the new taxes.

Glenn Beck started selling a Dashboard Obama...uh...if I don't agree with Obama, then I'm not buying one of these, and if I did agree with him, I wouldn't buy one of these...so who's the intended buyer here...?

Once again, Congress has passed a law that has unintended consequences. This was done last year, but just went into effect recently. You'll remember Congress passing a law that banned/recalled any products designed for or sold to children that contained lead. Well, children's sized dirt bikes and mini-ATVs contain lead, so... Well, you get the picture. You know, if your kid is caught sucking on one of the battery terminals, eating a brake handle, or swallowing a tire stem (some of the offending items), then your child is going to need a lot more than a law to protect them from the world. The worst part is that this may in fact increase child mortality because parents will likely purchase more powerful models in order to be able to get their kid a bike/ATV. Models they have no business riding, which is why the less powerful child models were created in the first place...

Obama decided to release certain memos that detailed the interrogation techniques utilized by the Bush administration against terrorists. It is noteworthy that he did so in the interest of transparency, yet did not feel the urge to release any memos that detailed the results of those interrogations. So he shows us memos that detail techniques we already knew about, but won't show us memos about results we already knew about. Hmmm....

Some tool named Derek Piazza, who's a professor at the College of Alameda, decided late in 2007 to throw a hissy-fit and try and get two students suspended from their school for praying for a sick teacher. Apparently, he considered it to be "disruptive behavior". Look, I've never seen anyone praying that actually disrupted anything. Thankfully, the students have filed suit, and I wholeheartedly agree with them. They are only asking for a public apology and only enough money to cover legal expenses. If this guy has enough time to get all bent out of shape over someone praying for a fellow teacher to get well, then he is obviously not using his time wisely enough for his job and should be let go. C'mon, Mr. Piazza, do something productive with your life!

Janine Garofalo decided to make an ass out of herself, and I say more power to her. It just further serves to alienate her and her ideas (and indirectly the people who feel the same way). In case you missed it, she declared that all attendants of the tea parties that occured on Tax Day were racist rednecks who were upset that America elected a black president. She even went so far to bring eugenics into the mix, stating that conservatives have a brain defect that cause them to think...conservatively. What an idiot. You know, I'm not sure how long they're going to keep up this ridiculous "this is because Obama is black" thing for anybody that criticizes the president. Being a black president (even the first black president) does not automatically buy you the "Get out of Public Critique" Community Chest card in the game of Americopoly.

CNN's Susan Roesgen "reported" on the Chicago Tax Day Tea Party that it was "anti-government, anti-Democrat, and...not really family viewing". She obviously had an agenda and went on to prove that she (and the left in general) really have no idea what these tea parties are about. She actually even became a sort of salesman when she brought up the $400 tax credit (woo-frickin-hoo) and the billions coming to Illinois as part of the stimulus bill. What she doesn't get is that those payouts are part of the reason those people are there.

Brown University will be celebrating 'Fall Weekend' instead of Columbus Day this year. Apparently, the university feels that because Columbus was such a meanie to Native Americans, he doesn't jive with Brown's values they try to emphasize. Oh that's swell; so now we have to worry about celebrating any holiday at all that honors a person who doesn't subscribe to values present today, regardless of whether or not those values existed then. Mistreating Native Americans did not define his life, and is obviously not the reason we have Columbus Day.

Good grief. Apparently Obama decided that the monogram "IHS", a common Christogram for Jesus, was too offensive, controversial, or whatever for a recent speech he gave at Georgetown University. The White House had the university cover up the monogram because it was going to be visible behind the president during his speech. Oh, the horror.

The Representative Replies

2009-04-15T11:43:00.005-04:00

If you'll remember a few weeks ago, I sent a letter to my U.S. Representative that represents my district. To my surprise, I actually got a letter back! Now, I'm not naive to think that he specifically took note of my letter and decided to reply back, but I do feel that my letter must have been one of many that voiced a common concern regarding the AIG bonus legislation. There must have been so many that he (or at least his staff) felt the need to respond to the criticism.

An even bigger surprise was that he actually agreed with me.

His letter was two pages long, but the nut of it was on the first page. Here's what he wrote, with emphasis mine.

Thanks for contacting me in opposition to H.R. 1586, the AIG bonuses legislation that I now call the "take-it-back-with-a-tax" solution. With hindsight, I should have not voted for this bill.

As you probably know, the AIG bill was brought up hurriedly because of the public outcry over the bonuses. It had broad, bipartisan support. The vast majority of the House voted for it, both Democrats and Republicans. Most Members understood the bill was meant to recover outrageous sums paid with the help of US taxpayers to the very AIG traders who were responsible for AIG's incredible financial mess. And although I recognized possible constitutional problems, I thought we should leave these for the courts to decide because mounting public anger over coddling Wall Street was eroding the ability of Congress to properly meet the huge financial challenges facing the country.

Democratic governments both lead and follow their electorates. Congress might have done a bit more leading on this one. At the least, we might have slowed the rush to judgment.

He then goes on to say how he now understands the situation was a bit more complicated than initially thought. He understands that the stimulus bill they passed contained verbiage specifically allowing these types of bonuses. He understands that most of the targets of this bill have no blame for AIG's financial mess. In fact, he said, "They are no more guilty than anyone else working on Wall Street for outsized pay."

In other words, he admitted that it was wrong for them to rush to a decision in this matter without fully weighing their options or repercussions. While I am glad that he fully admitted their error (after all, they are only human), I was a bit disappointed at his almost casual reference to ignoring what he thought to be a breach of constitutionality. I didn't appreciate him having the attitude that, 'Oh well, we've got to do something, and even though I know this goes against the Constitution, the courts can figure it out in the end.'

I also didn't like that they knowingly and intentionally wrote this law to directly attack a specific group of people. That is regrettable, and won't be forgotten soon. However, in regards to that, he had my favorite line of the entire letter:

[This bill's] take-it-back-with-a-tax solution should die in the Senate and be relegated to the dust bins, just further evidence that the Senate is adult supervision for the House.

Indeed.

I'm not going to harp on it any more this time, but I will wait and see what comes down the pipe. If another senseless bill gets passed with similar attitudes (act-first-to-look-busy), then I will bring it back up. For now, I will assume the lesson is noted and learned and he will try to do better in the future, appreciative that in the end his viewpoint steered toward a more rational and reasonable direction.

One Lump Or Two?

2009-04-14T22:58:00.005-04:00

Well, tomorrow is Tax Day. The day when some of us have to grudgingly write a check to the government(s) to atone for a lack of taxation the prior year. It's also the day when thousands of Americans across the country will get out of their comfy chairs and attend various Tax Day Tea Parties. My wife and I will be two of them, and will be attending the one in Atlanta.

Over the past few weeks, as this movement has gathered steam, I've noticed the decidedly absent reporting of these events by pretty much every major media outlet. Of course, as one would expect, Fox News has been covering them heavily. Several of their talk show hosts will actually be attending a Tea Party themselves. I think the other outlets basically decided to ignore the whole concept hoping it would go away.

Well, it didn't.

So, without being able to avoid the issue any longer, they have increased their reporting of the protests over the past week or so.

Boy have they ever.

The only problem is that they just don't seem to get it. Part of that is the fault of the attendees themselves, displaying signs at the Tea Parties held earlier this year. These were sporadic and disjointed, lacking the full cohesiveness of the movement's events tomorrow. Most of these had attendees holding signs blasting Obama specifically, blaming Democrats for everything bad, or some other misguided notion they felt compelled to shout. I think it's because of these actions that the major media outlets and the left in general have dismissed these rallys as right-wing events designed to target Obama and his party, mostly as a way to vent their frustration at losing the election last November.

What a ridiculous notion.

Don't get me wrong; those people will still be there, and those voices will still be shouting. However, over the past weeks as this has grown into a full-fledged movement, the message has been clarified and solidified. Just as the media outlets finally decide to cover it, they cling to the exact wrong things, misunderstanding the message these protests are supposed to send.

If you're still on the fence, not knowing what to think, allow me to educate you.

These protests, while they are on Tax Day, are not primarily about taxes. April 15th was chosen for several reasons, most of which revolve around spending, not taxation specifically. The problem is that the government can only get money from three places: taxes, debt, or printing. All three present very negative outcomes for the average citizen, the taxes hit home the most. Besides, April 15th seemed to be a good date on the calendar that sat far enough in the future for the movement to have enough time to get coordinated and focused.

The left (and other media outlets) just do not get it. They claim this is about taxes and are quick to point out that, uh oh, no taxes have technically been raised yet. They also jump to the conclusion that this is solely about Obama and the perceived notion that the people in the right are just sore losers, just itching at the chance to complain about the current administration any time they can.

This is NOT about those things. This is about us, the People, protesting what we believe is an injustice, just as the people from the Boston Tea Party felt the British taxes were an injustice. This is about not wanting our children to have to cover debts that we are incurring and have been incurring for nearly a decade. This is about knowing that the only way the government is going to get out of this debt (if such a thing is even possible) is by raising taxes to unholy levels or by printing as much money as they can get away with. This is about a Congress that takes it upon themselves to selectively punish corporate executives (i.e. AIG bonus recipients) that followed the letter of their law, while ignoring other execs that did the same thing (Fannie/Freddie bonuses). This is about suffering through the last six months of goverment bailouts of companies deemed 'too big to fail', without letting the market sort it out. This is about a government that graciously bails out the auto companies with money it doesn't have, then dictates to those companies how they should run their business. This is about a federal government who grows larger and larger while making the state goverments' roles in their own affairs smaller and smaller. This is about Congressmen who continue to inject earmarks and unnecessary spending into every bill they write. This is about a government who signals they will print money to pay for programs because nobody will lend it any more money, thus devaluing our currency bit by bit. This is about BOTH parties straying from the values that made our country so unique in the beginning. This is about officials who think that The Constitution is a dated document and should be ignored because the conditions of that past day no longer exist, rather than seek to amend it as was originally intended.

This is not about taxes.

This is about just how far we've gotten from where our Founding Fathers wanted us to be.

This is Step 1 of the effort to get us there again.

Weekly Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - Vol. I

2009-04-02T13:11:00.010-04:00

This is the first of what will hopefully be a weekly blog post on things throughout the week that just made me think, WTF?!? Maybe it'll do the same for you.

Apparently, it has now been decided it'll be cool to publicly show porn on a public university campus. BYOT, I'd imagine.

The tobacco tax passed back in January went into effect this week, raising federal taxes on cigarettes from $0.39 to $1.01, chewing tobacco from $0.195/lb to $0.50/lb, and, get this, loose tobacco from $1.10/lb to almost TWENTY FIVE DOLLARS/lb. ($24.78/lb). Now, I'm a huge opponent of tobacco in every form, but HOLY CRAP. That cigarette tax is the single largest increase ever, and is more than ALL prior increases combined! The kicker is that these taxes are designed to pay for SCHIP - which is a federal program that provides funds for child health insurance (uninsured children). As an aside - this is designed to cover kids whose family makes too much for Medicaid, but are still uninsured. So what's the point of having a Medicaid limit then? Anyway, what's ridiculous about this is that funding for SCHIP was expanded and these taxes are designed to cover that expansion...only the real effect will be that smoking will decrease but the spending most definitely will not, so rest assured that we'll see another tax on something else to cover the shortfalls in the projected revenues. So much for that promise that "nobody under $250,000 would see one penny of tax increase." Maybe they didn't know that most smokers are in that bracket...?

There was [GASP] another Obama nominee reported to have tax...er...problems. Thankfully, the Senate panel overseeing her hearing avoided the issue altogether. I mean, after all, once you find out a couple nominees have tax problems, what's the big deal with one more?

Obama gave the Queen an iPod. AN IPOD. Oh, how American! Man, he's on a roll with the gift-giving thing. The only thing he hasn't yet given is a subscription to Netflix and pack of hot dogs.

An ever-so-slight error in a White House fact has now been debunked and corrected. Apparently, 90% of guns used to commit crimes in Mexico do NOT come from the U.S. In truth, it's only 90% of the guns that are possibly U.S. in origin are actually U.S. guns. The fact is that only 17% of guns used in Mexico to commit crimes actually come from the U.S. Gee, that's, like, WAY off. Oops.

The U.S. House passed the Pay for Performance Act of 2009, yet another in a string of efforts to dictate American executive salaries rather than letting the business handle it. Look, putting a criminal like Ken Lay behind bars for breaking the law is completely acceptable and is why we have laws to begin with, but having a government body determine whether or not an executive should be paid X or Y is just ridiculous. Are they greedy? Yes! Do they get paid too much? That's up to the shareholders! Sports athletes get paid a lot too - are we going to dictate their salaries by government decree too?

Hmm...what else happened?

Oh yeah.

The U.S. Government did what, until recently, would have been unthinkable. They actually fired a private sector CEO. This, as I said yesterday, takes us one step closer to fascism. Deal with the devil, and you're gonna get burned. GM and Chrysler should never have accepted Government bailout money, and I applaud Ford for not taking any (so far).

Fascism, Here We Come

2009-04-01T12:45:00.003-04:00

The other day, Obama fired the CEO of GM. Yep, a sitting president actually dictated that a public company's head would step down. Did GM ask for this? You bet. The day they decided to deal with the devil, they should have known that they'd get burned. The Government is giving the money, but dictating exactly how it can be used. Alone, that concept isn't all that far-fetched; after all, if somebody wanted money from me, then I would want to know what they were going to do with it. I wouldn't force them to spend one way or another, but I would certainly withhold funds if they were going to do something I didn't agree with.

The difference between me and the government is that I can't just create money out of thin air. If I could, then I could go around and give people tons of money just to do with it what I wanted them to do with it. If I could print money, then I could go to the struggling automakers and say, "Look, I can help you out, but I want you to start making nothing but hybrids". (Just wait...)

Do you see how immoral this is? The Government can make as much money as it needs to in order to establish and direct its agenda. So what if the majority of Americans don't buy Hybrids, the Government can now force you to buy them. So what if the financial sector is a mess and people were profiting by selling nothing but prettied-up crappy mortgages? With unlimited money anything can be ~~directed~~ fixed.

The U.S. Government is acting like a loan shark and counterfeiter rolled into one. Oh, sure, it's real money; it's just that it is backed by NOTHING. Plus, it has the not-so-cool side effect of reducing the value of the pre-existing dollars (i.e. inflation).

On top of the GM deal, Chrysler is being forced to merge with Fiat in order to also keep receiving funds. As my title suggests, it's just two more steps closer to fascism.

No, I'm not comparing Obama to Hitler and Mussolini. If you look around, you'll see that the word 'fascism' has come to be identified primarily with those two, when in fact it merely provided the building blocks for their radical viewpoints and agendas. You don't have to be a radical nationalist (Mussolini) to be a fascist, and you certainly don't have to be racist (Hitler) to support a fascist state. The definition of fascism is:

A governmental system with strong centralized power, permitting no opposition or criticism, controlling all affairs of the nation (industrial, commercial, etc.)"

Doesn't sound so dissimilar to our direction now, does it? I'm NOT saying we're there...yet. I'm saying that with moves like the GM firing, we move a little closer toward that end.

Read these statements, and see if you spot any parallels between them and the voiced viewpoints of some of our elected officials:

We ask that the government undertake the obligation above all of providing citizens with adequate opportunities for employment and earning a living.

The activities of the individual must not be allowed to clash with the interests of the community, but must take place within its confines and for the good of all.

Therefore, we demand:...an end to the power of the financial interests.

We demand profit sharing in big business.

We demand a broad extension of care for the aged.

We demand...the greatest possible consideration of small business in the purchases of the national, state and municipal governments.

In order to make possible to every capable and industrious [citizen] the attainment of higher education and thus the achievement of a post of leadership, the government must provide an all-around enlargement of our entire system of public education...We demand the education at government expense of gifted children of poor parents...

The government must undertake the improvement of public health -- by the greatest possible support for all clubs concerned with the physical education of youth.

[We] combat the...materialistic spirit within and without us, and are convinced that a permanent recovery of our people can only proceed from within on the foundation of The Common Good Before the Individual Good .

Sound familiar? I'll bet you've heard some of these very things over the years in our country. The thing is that these are not new concepts, though the source for these statements might surprise you.

They come directly from the Nazi party platform, adopted in 1920.

There's no doubt that Hitler was an evil man promoting evil actions. There's also no doubt that Obama is NOT an evil man like Hitler. However, there are striking similarities between the values and principles of the fascist movement in 1920 and the values and principles of some of our people and politicians today.

I'm sure our founding fathers are reeling from dizziness after having rolled over in their graves countless times over the past decades as we slowly eroded their own values and principles away.

Tesla's Waiting For What?!?

2009-03-27T17:56:00.006-04:00

I just read an article about the upcoming Tesla Model S sedan. It looks awesome and as I was reading it I was excited about the possibilities, despite the initial cost still being kind of high (unless you were going to buy an expensive sedan anyway). Anyway, what got me was this:

He also indicated that Tesla believes that it is close to receiving $350 million in loans from the U.S. Department of Energy to build a plant in California that would manufacture the Model S.

Whiskey tango foxtrot? The Department of Energy? Why? If this product is so destined to make a mint (as its founders obviously think it will), and will change the landscape of American (and world) automobiles, then why aren't investors lining up to drop down the dough to get this thing started? Why does the government have to come in here and essentially create a market where, apparently, there isn't one desired?

You can't tell me that there aren't enough 'green' richies out there that wouldn't love to have everyone driving electric cars. Why can't they invest in this company?

I'm left to assume that either: 1)There in fact ISN'T a market for this car, 2)Their marketing plan isn't sound and has potential investors nervous, or 3)It's just easy to get government money for anything green, and they figure it's the path of least resistance.

This same type of scenario came up in the comments of my comment on government-supported basic research, and I still am subscribing to the Field of Dreams analogy. If you can sell it, they'll come with money. It's not that complicated.

Then again, maybe neither is getting money from the Dept. of Energy.

Hannan Strikes A Chord

2009-03-27T12:25:00.002-04:00

By now, in conservative circles at least, you've probably heard of Daniel Hannan who flat out scolded Prime Minister Gordon Brown of the UK a few days ago. It's all over YouTube, and he's recently become immensely popular in the world despite being an unknown over here in the US. However, despite the distance of the Atlantic Ocean physically separating him from us, his message resonates tremendously here at home. Take a look when you get a chance and see if you don't agree with him. This kind of blasting doesn't happen too often from our own elected officials...perhaps it should.

However, mark my words: Sometime today, over the weekend, or next week, the left-wing political machine will go on the attack on this guy. He's risen too far too fast with TV appearances, the YouTube videos, and blogs galore for them to sit idly while his viewpoints go unopposed. It won't be worthwhile debate, though; no, it'll be the same kind of attacks that Joe the Plumber, Sarah Palin, and others underwent (and are undergoing). They'll find out something about an affair, a money problem, or some other nonsense and will blast it in the regular media in order to get this guy discredited and to distract you from his message. If it has substance then that's one thing, but if it's like any of the others in the past, then it's all a smokescreen.

I bet they're already working on it.

American Idol Would Have Been Way Better Than This

2009-03-25T11:13:00.006-04:00

Man, what a snooze-fest. Then again, most of these are, so can't fault him for that.

One little itsy bitsy comment though did stand out to me. The question was whether or not he would accept a budget from the Senate that didn't include his middle class tax rebates and Cap-and-Trade system in it. He didn't really provide a simple answer (not suprised at that - what politician does?), but what stood out to me though was when he said:

I expect that there's serious efforts at health care reform, and that we are driving down costs for families and businesses, and ultimately for the federal and state governments that are going to be broke if we continue on the current path.

(emphasis mine)

So let me see if I have this straight. The current plan is not working and will go broke at some point in the future. The country is technically broke now overall, and if you continue with this budget we'll be even more broke and our money will be worth less. So you're saying that you'd rather be broker-than-broke NOW, rather than broker-than-broke IN THE FUTURE??

I mean, we are 100% guaranteed to have to print money in order to pay for these programs (the health care is just one of them, but is the one highlighted in the quote above) because there's not enough money around. So he's trying to convince us that it's better to devalue our currency and definitely be broke now with the hope that it will pay off in the long run.

Hmm; guaranteed brokeness now vs. waiting to see if there's a better idea to, I dunno, maybe AVOID the whole broke situation?!?.

If the Medicare/Medicaid Trusts were going to die in a week or two, then maybe there'd be some justification for pulling out all stops and getting crazy with the currency. But it's not. Current estimates are that Medicare will go broke sometime around 2018. I'm not saying we should do nothing; I'm saying that it's not urgent we do THIS now.

Ok, I fibbed - there was one other comment that irked me. Here was the question posed:

At both of your town hall meetings in California last week, you said, quote, "I didn't run for president to pass on our problems to the next generation." But under your budget, the debt will increase $7 trillion over the next 10 years. The Congressional Budget Office says $9.3 trillion. And today on Capitol Hill, some Republicans called your budget, with all the spending on health care, education and environment, the most irresponsible budget in American history.

Isn't that kind of debt exactly what you were talking about when you said passing on our problems to the next generation?

To which he replied:

First of all, I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall, I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them.

Hogwash. Let's remember, Mr. Short Term Memory, that for the last two years of Bush's 2nd term the Democrats controlled Congress. Now don't misunderstand; while Congress was under Republican control, they were rabid spenders and went against conservative spending policies. Recently, however, Republicans seem to have recently had an epiphany about what sort of fiscal values they're supposed to have and have begun to take a stand. Now, whether it's because of determination to be the biggest obstacle they can be or because it's genuine is irrelevant to me. (for the record, I believe it is not genuine...'genuine' and 'politics' don't really work well together...) For now though, they're on my side (most of them).

However, let's pretend the actual deficit inherited was zero. It's still going to be almost $2 trillion by year's end!! With those kind of numbers, who cares what the deficit was when he "inherited" it!?!

C'mon!

Money Grows On Trees

2009-03-24T16:43:00.004-04:00

Well, technically money is made from paper, so...I suppose there is an indirect truth to that title. However, the government would have you believe that it literally grows on trees, and all we have to do is 'harvest' (print) more.

Again, technically, they're right. They can print until the cows come home and it will increase the available money supply. They've done it before, and will likely do it again; probably more this year.

To clarify, they have not yet created this money. Last Wednesday, however, they announced their intent to do so. This, predictably, created a huge spike in gold prices. Gold, as I'm sure you're aware, is typically used as a hedge against inflation, which is exactly what will occur as the Fed pumps out more money.

Let me summarize what they're talking about doing, and then I want you to ask yourself if you think it's right.

Generally, the government raises money primarily through taxes, but more funds are needed, it raises funds by selling U.S. Treasury bonds. The problem is that the rest of the world is very hesitant in purchasing more of our bonds because they lack faith in our Dollar. So if the government can't find buyers for the Treasuries, guess who it sells them to?

ITSELF.

Yep, essentially, the Federal Reserve purchases the Treasuries, then prints money in order to pay for them. They literally create money out of thin air. The government gets the money it 'needed', and the Fed gets a big I.O.U from the government in the form of the Treasuries.

This is insane!

Obama is so determined to pass his agenda (the ginormous budget) that he's essentially forcing the Fed to print the money to pay for it. Do you understand that? There is NOT enough money to pay for this budget, so the solution is to create money and get something for nothing. There is no such thing as a free lunch, and that applies to our government as well.

It would be one thing if I just disagreed with how the money is to be spent (which I do), and we actually HAD the money. Then the argument could be about more substance and debating liberal vs. conservative agendas. However they're forcing the issue even when funds are non-existent, so it doesn't even matter what philosophy you follow.

It's like this: imagine if you really want to buy something that you think will, in the end, turn a profit AND perform a charitable service to the community. Cool deal, huh? Now let's pretend that you're flat broke. No; not just broke, but "on-the-verge-of-bankruptcy" broke. The only way to purchase this thing is to rack up every credit card you have and then go get more and rack them up too. Would any sane person advise you to do this? Would any bank lend you the money based on your belief? NO, but that's exactly what Obama is doing; only their credit limit is essentially unlimited since they (unlike you) have a really nifty printing press down in the basement somewhere...

More can be said about this issue, and I was going to elaborate, but I found this article yesterday that says it for me. No need in repeating it here. Please read it and think about it. We're heading down a road that's never been traveled, and, like the old Frost poem, it's probably going to make all the difference.

An Open Letter to My Representative

2009-03-20T14:29:00.006-04:00

I just wrote a letter to my district's U.S. Representative here in Georgia, and I wanted to post it here. Obviously I don't expect a reply - they must get thousands of these every day. Still, I felt compelled to do it, and feel better for it. The full text is below.

I wanted to take a short moment to express my dissatisfaction of your vote yesterday in H.R. 1586. While I do not agree, on a personal level, that the executives in question should be receiving bonuses, I do not think the U.S. Government (i.e. YOU) should be using legislation to punish someone for following the letter of the law. As you heard time and again on the floor yesterday, the only reason these bonuses were even being paid was because of the verbiage in the stimulus bill passed weeks ago. I never once heard a valid response from the Democratic side in response to these charges, whether from Frank or anyone else.

It frustrated me to see that Georgia was split specifically down the party line, with Democrats (including you) voting Aye and Republicans voting Nay. Do I need to remind you that you're not being kept there to represent your party; you are there to represent US.

Your vote may or may not be representative of the population at large, but if so it is because they are angry, hurt, and in general misinformed about how things like this come to pass. You can't legislate things like this with knee-jerk reactions to raw emotions. This bill lasted all of a day from conception to voting. We pay you to exhibit levelheadedness and in general be non-reactionary to things that come up day-to-day.

I would have preferred that you, as a body, came out and said "You know what? We messed up, folks. We were a bit too hasty with that bill, and we fully admit that we weren't able to correctly process it in a manner that suited its complexities. We know you feel it is not fair for these bonuses to go out, and that is a sentiment we share. However, in lieu of treading on our Constitution, we have to abide by the law. We can not, and will not, craft legislation in order to punish someone for doing what we told them they could do. We should have caught it, but we didn't. We're sorry."

A pipe dream of mine would be for you to continue:
"Furthermore, in an effort to amend for our carelessness, we are voluntarily reducing our salaries by a collective amount of $165 million in order to make up for the bonus money we let get away. This is to be effective immediately. You can rest assured we will do our very best to make sure something like this never happens again."

Would that have been too hard?

Please feel free to use any of the above text in sending your own letter if you wish. (You may need to remove the Georgia part if you're not from here...) Here is the URL for writing your representative:

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Here They Go...

2009-03-19T10:06:00.008-04:00

It's official. Mob rule has won over the hearts of Congress. People demand justice without knowing all the facts, and Congress answers by attempting to pass a resolution to fix their last boo-boo. ~~Here's the link.~~

[Update: Not sure what happened, but there was a newer, shinier bill that they actually voted on. Here it is.]

From what I understand, Congress is set to vote on a resolution (~~HR1572~~ HR1586). It's not yet on their site, but don't worry; I'm sure it'll be there for 5 days for us to review. Oh wait..they're VOTING today...got it.

Anyway, the purpose is "To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to impose a 90 percent tax on bonuses paid by business that receive TARP assistance." Eh? What's that? They're going to revise the 1986 code to include TARP verbiage?? TARP didn't even exist until last Fall!!

[Update: The newer bill's text is actually To impose an additional tax on bonuses received from certain TARP recipients]

Let's review (from perspective of Congress):

AIG is in trouble - oh crap - let's save them (buy them).

Done.

Uh oh! Stimulus needed! But let's rethink that bailout stuff from last year. Y'know, not allow bonuses or extra stuff until they pay us back (the People will love that...)

Done.

Well, on second thought, let's not be too hasty. We'll say it only applies to bonuses after...uh...say...Feb 11.

Done.

Crap!! They're mad at those bonuses we protected! What do we do? Oh yeah, we're THE FRICKIN U.S. GOVERNMENT!! We can do anything! Let's get mad too! Let's tax the hell out of them! Say...100%? 1000%? Nah - we'll let them keep a bit. We'll say 90%. Besides, the state and local governments will probably take care of the other 10%. (Thank you, Mr. Rangel)

Done.

Hundred bucks says they're not "done".

Ooops - I mean 10 bucks, after taxes.

AI n't it G rand?

2009-03-18T11:19:00.006-04:00

By now you've probably heard about the $165 million in bonuses that AIG is set up to give out to its executives. When I first heard the news Monday morning I was livid. How could these executives accept these bonuses in the face of the fact that had they not been bailed out by the government, they wouldn't even be around to GET the bonuses. Had the government not stepped in and basically taken over the company, the executives in question would have long since been forced to find other work and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Thank God the government stepped in. Otherwise I'd have nothing to write about.

So, as I said, I was livid. I'm sure you were too. We have a right to be - this is an outrage. Like in the movie Network, we're "mad as hell, and we're not gonna take it anymore!" Only, in this case, I think we're mad at the wrong people. And the administration and Congress are only too eager to let us direct our anger at those execs. Who we should really be mad at is the folks in Washington who are squarely to blame for this debacle. How, you say? I'm glad you asked.

Do you remember the stimulus bill from a few weeks ago? I had a lot to say about that. You'll remember how it flew through the halls of Congress without any one member reading the whole thing. Little Easter eggs were bound to come out as time goes on, and as it happens, a couple of those directly relate to AIG bonuses. Yep, if you take a look at the stimulus bill, then scroll all the way down the bottom (kinda neat how it's just tucked there at the end, huh?), you will see `SEC. 111. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION AND CORPORATE GOVERNANCE. Once you get on that page, look at (b)/(3)/(D)(i), you'll see the following text:

[The Secretary shall require each TARP recipient to meet appropriate standards...including] A prohibition on such TARP recipient paying or accruing any bonus, retention award, or incentive compensation during the period in which any obligation arising from financial assistance provided under the TARP remains outstanding...

To translate: Any recipient of the government bailout funds can't pay out bonuses as long as their loans are still outstanding. AIG obviously received these funds, so score 1 for the government right? I mean, Holy &#@%! The big G actually got one right - this is a bona fide restriction that says you can't pay out bonuses while you're on our dime. Perfect!

If only the document ended there. Sadly, keep reading... (section iii a few paragraphs later...)

The prohibition required under clause (i) shall not be construed to prohibit any bonus payment required to be paid pursuant to a written employment contract executed on or before February 11, 2009, as such valid employment contracts are determined by the Secretary or the designee of the Secretary.

(emphasis mine)

Excuse me, but whiskey tango foxtrot? This statement just single-handedly AUTHORIZED every bonus that was stated in a contract before Feb. 11. You guessed it...that would be inclusive of the AIG bonuses in question. And guess who put it in there. Guess who was responsible for putting this little escape clause in there? Chris Dodd, the Senate Banking Committee chairman. Mr. I Think the Government Should Tax 100% of the Bonuses himself. Oh, to hear Dodd's aides tell it, he had no clue about the AIG bonuses at the time that he put that amendment in there. Sure. Not only have these bonuses been on the books since last year, but Dodd was the highest paid recipient of AIG political contributions in 2008. You do the math.

AIG tells Congress and the public at large that they were contractually obligated to pay these bonuses. In effect, they'd be subject to lawsuits if they didn't pay out the money. Yet despite this, the government seems to think that it has the authority to come in an declare a contract null and void to suit its own political purposes. It's very popular to be against big business and seeming excess among corporate executives, especially those who obviously failed in their tasks. Like I said, before yesterday everybody in Washington was ready to tear down AIG over these bonuses. However, no matter how popular it may be to come in and void these contracts, in doing so the government would be directly violating the Constitution, which explicitly protects contracts. Think of the precedents that this would set. If the government can come in and change/modify/cancel a contract because it currently suits its needs/desires, then what is a contract? Why bother establishing one? Bankruptcy laws were specifically designed to circumvent contractual obligations, since "bankrupt" basically means "we can't fulfill our contracts". Bankruptcy: wow, wouldn't that be a novel idea - getting around these contracts by allowing AIG to fail! Now why didn't they do that?!

Well, they didn't; and since they're painted into a corner between public outrage and political viability, they're grasping at straws. One suggestion (as mentioned earlier) was to tax the bonuses at 100%. Are you kidding me? 100%? Can you even imagine how the verbiage would have to be on that kind of resolution? As if they'd write a law to cover a specific instance of a specific company paying specific executives a specific bonus for a specific purpose with specific money. Great idea.

Now, don't misunderstand me; I would be happy if these execs weren't being paid a dime in bonuses, but unless there is a rational, legal, and Constitution-backed methodology for preventing such payouts, then the feds need to just back off. It sucks, it's frustrating to us nobodies, and it's unfair, but it's the law. And they're the ones who wrote it a few weeks ago. Good job, Dodd. I'd hate to be you in 2010...

One final question on this issue. Where the heck were these Washington nitwits declaring outrage when AIG was fulfilling their other contracts? I'm not talking about millions either...try that times a thousand. I'm talking BILLIONS. What? You didn't know? Oh sure, AIG has been steadily funneling money to other institutions all over the world - to the tune of around $44 billion to American companies and $62 billion overseas. (!!!) Did you catch that? Over $100 billion, distributed from our government, through AIG, to these other institutions. I bet you didn't know your tax dollars were going to Europe did you? As Glenn Beck said yesterday, it's like a huge elaborate money laundering scheme. Think not? Who owns AIG again? Oh yeah, the federal government. So who was ultimately responsible for these monies being distributed to these institutions? Bingo.

And despite all this, they have the audacity to bitch and moan about 0.16% of that amount??? The cynic in me sees these shenanigans as a smokescreen to misdirect us, the American people, from the real travesty here. The travesty that we even bailed this company out to begin with. You know, the AIG company as a whole wasn't that bad of a bad company; in fact, their insurance division was actually profitable. It's just this one division or two that has caused the problems. If we would have split them off we would have had a potentially viable company there.

Next up we can all start complaining about the bonuses Lehman Brothers is going to pay out to its execs next week. What's that? Oh yeah. They were allowed to fail, so we're NOT talking about them, now are we?

Stem Cells: Arguing About the Wrong Things

2009-03-09T09:46:00.006-04:00

There's been some recent debate about the whole stem cells thing. Once again, Obama is reversing something that Bush did during his tenure. The short version of the issue is that Bush placed restrictions that researchers could not receive federal funds to work with embryonic stem cells, however they could use existing lines (created before 8/9/01) for research.

The left clamored that this was a ridiculous restriction and would harm research potential, preventing or delaying serious progress to be made toward fighting such diseases as Parkinson's and Alzheimer's. The right complained that using these cells was akin to taking a life and is wholly unethical.

Both sides went at it, and now that Obama has brought it back up they are going at it again. The problem is that they're arguing about the wrong things. The argument should be whether or not the government should fund the research at all.

My point is simply this: when this issue came up, the question was should the government fund this controversial stem cell research, but the only angles that were debated in Congress were 1) Is it ethical? 2) Can similar research be done on non-controversial stem cells, such as adult, etc.? 3) What will the research gain us? and so on. The much simpler questions that should have been asked before any of that was, "Should we even be funding this, regardless of the ethics involved? Can't this be taken up by the private sector? If we do fund this, can we even do it more efficiently than the private sector?" The questions as to its potential effectiveness at curing diseases can be debated separately, but if there is a real chance for that, you can rest assured that some private funds will spring up to investigate further, without the need for government ~~interference~~ funding.

Both sides were incomplete in their questioning because they were using the situation to further their own political ideologies. The right voted against (and Bush was against it) because they were fundamentally against this type of research at a strictly ethical level. They didn't vote against because they thought the government shouldn't fund it at all. The left voted for it because they think the government should fund...well, everything.

I think when we confront these situations, the debate should be whether we need to stem the flow of federal money into these programs in the first place; let's leave political ideologies out of it.

Sorry, couldn't resist the pun.

I Agree With Obama...And It Hurts.

2009-03-04T16:49:00.006-05:00

Last week, the Obama administration declared their intent to reverse the so called Provider Refusal Rule, or more simply known by the "Conscience Clause". This was a last minute 'shove it in on the way out' piece of legislation from the Bush administration. It actually went into effect the day Obama was inaugurated.

Basically, what Bush's regulation stipulated is that a health care provider can not be persecuted if he/she chooses to not perform a procedure or apply a treatment that goes against their religious or moral convictions. Usually this directly relates to performing an abortion, though I don't believe the regulation is that specific.

Look, I don't agree with Obama's stance on abortion (I most assuredly do NOT), but I just can't justify this sort of rule being put in place. I can't stand when government jumps in when they have no business making a move in the first place.

If a health care provider conscientously objects to performing a procedure, then they are within their full right to refuse to do that. However, just because they choose to, essentially, disobey an order, they are at the full mercy of their employer. At the very point in time when they are given that task to do, they have a choice to make. Do they refuse the treatment, knowing that it will possibly cost them their job and, perhaps, the scorn of coworkers? Or, do they compromise their morals and do the procedure in order to preserve their job, etc.? It is by no means an easy decision, but it is that person's alone. The government has no business taking that decision out of the provider's hands and making it for them. An employer is within their full right to ask somebody in their employ to perform a task (as long as that task is not illegal); the consequences of not following through are up to them.

If someone came to me in my job and asked me to write some software that, I dunno, maintained a database of pregnant teens or something, I would be within my rights to refuse to perform the task, but I had better be prepared for the consequences. If, on the other hand, I was asked to write some illegal software, I could easily refuse that and have legal recourse if I were to lose my job.

When I first heard of the 'conscience clause' I wasn't sure if it protected the provider from being persecuted or from being prosecuted. From everything I can glean, it seems it is solely to protect from persecution. If it had protected from prosecution, then I would be in favor, since I do not believe a potential patient has the right to sue because the provider refuses to perform the procedure. However, let's make it a little grayer. If said procedure would unquestionably save the patient's life, then that should then fall under whatever regulations and guidelines were spelled out in the healthcare provider's professional organization (AMA or whatever). The provider, if he/she refused treatment, would undoubtedly face penalties from the organization, but not necessarily from a lawsuit. I don't think the government should impose laws that force an individual to perform treatment under threat of breaking the law. Let the orgs handle it however they deem fit. This same mentality could be applied to other organizations too, like Major League Baseball...

When I was discussing this with a friend, he pointed out a phenomena that he's noticed over time that is clearly illustrated by this piece of legislation. This entire issue came up when a Republican was in charge of the White House, and the solution was to pass a regulation that imposed a moral standpoint into a law. Because Republicans, in general, oppose abortion, this was an avenue to allow providers to gracefully refuse treatment under protection of the law, thus facing no consequences. Now that a Democrat is in charge, the goal is to reverse the decision because it is supposedly supressing rights of patients to treatment of their choice. (Incidentally, no such right exists...) In other words, the two sides are constantly using their power to either enact legislation that supports their view of the world, or reverse legislation supported by the other side. (Yes, this is over-simplified, but it's hard to disagree with the premise.)

Now, let's pretend for a moment that this issue would have come up sometime this year for the first time, sometime when the new president is deeper into his term. A time when this rule was never enacted by Bush. I would bet that if a case made national news that caused this whole discussion to begin, you'd have various rights groups breathing down the necks of Washington lawmakers, demanding they pass legislation to protect providers' rights to choose to perform procedures in their own best judgement. They'd look at the employers (hospitals, etc.) as the enemy, oppressing their employees and forcing them to perform procedures to which they objected. In the specific case of abortion, it's unlikely they would do anything of this sort, but the general idea of discriminating against providers refusing procedures based on conscience would likely raise their hackles. Irrelevant, really, since the die was already cast in a Republican administration. However, it illustrates how the two sides can take a single situation and try to pass legislation that promotes their own agenda for completely different reasons, despite the fact that the effect is the same.

In the end, it's just and fair that this regulation is being removed. It had no business being put on the books to begin with. So, in effect, I actually agree with Obama on this one. Ouch.

Look at the bright side - it's one fewer tentacle the government has into our lives, and who can argue with that?

Money? We've Got Plenty!

2009-02-27T13:22:00.006-05:00

Well, now they've done it. Congress has just proved that not only are they completely incapable of restraining themselves, they are also so full of hypocrisy that it's oozing out of their ridiculously inflated heads.

Only this time there's plenty of blame to spread around...among both parties.

In case you didn't know, in the words of Genie from Aladdin, just ruminate whilst I illuminate. So the House has just passed a so-called "Omnibus" bill, which basically doles out money to just about everyone but me. Losers. Apparently they didn't think there was a need for researching the effectiveness of dog saliva as a mosquito repellent, a project currently being researched by The Jasonian Institute of Alternative Preventative Restrictionary Annoyances, or JIAPRA. Just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?

Anyway, so it's around $400b and is L-O-A-D-E-D (with a capital oink) with earmarks. To the tune of, I dunno, NINE THOUSAND of them. This time around, nobody is denying they're in there, and there are plenty of earmarks from both sides of the aisle. What's interesting about all these earmarks is that we've all heard Obama say, time and time again, that he was going to remove earmarks from legislation. I say if that's his goal, he's off to a horrible start. Oh, rest assured the powers that be have been cornered about this very hypocrisy. The response?

Them: "Well, certainly we are going to do that in the future, but this bill actually started last year, so..."

Us: "But it hasn't been signed into law yet, right?"

Them: "Nooo, but..."

Us: "So you could, I dunno, NOT pass it until it was cleared up?"
Them: "But we promised those groups that..."

Us: "What about your promises to us?"
Them: "Yes, but you don't give us mon-- uh, I mean to say.."
Us: "I think I've heard enough. Thanks."

[We walk off.]

Them: "Next one! Promise! You'll see!"

I bet we will.

I'm not going to go into listing all the ridiculous things that are in this bill, you can surely find it online with VERY little effort. What I will do is post a link to the actual bill's PDF file, available at house.gov. This is a scanned document with hand written corrections all over it. I haven't looked at the whole thing (very few probably have, including those in DC), but a few things in the first few pages just jumped out at me. First, go ahead and go to page 3 and start reading the numbers. You'll quickly notice a pattern. Nearly all of the appropriations are larger than the requested amount! So some group requests a sum of money and not only do they get it, they get MORE. This is not on one or two of them - keep reading. I also noticed something else on page 3 (and others). Remember how I said they weren't denying earmarks? Check out that text - Insert Earmarks, which has been scratched out and replaced with "Table". Niiiice.

Here's another little not-very-reported note about this bill. Mr. No-More-Earmarks himself actually was a cosponsor on one of the earmarks in this bill!! Apparently, when he proposed it as a senator, it wasn't an earmark, per se. It was still porkish, so whatever (pork, earmark...all I hear is 'waste'). Apparently, in true Washington fashion the farmers filled up the trough and it in fact became an earmark. However, fret not: he's going to be squeaky clean now, since his name was just removed from it. The amount hasn't changed ($7.7m), but at least he was able to get his name withdrawn so that he can now say he never put an earmark on it. Must be cool to be the boss...

Do you see what's going on here? They don't care about the country or this financial crisis. NONE of this stuff should be in here. It has nothing to do with the government looking out for us. It has to do with legislators wanting federal monies for their own districts back home. And we're ALL paying for it.

But wait - that's not all!

Obama has also released the fiscal budget! Nearly $4 trillion! For years, everyone on the left railed on Bush for expanding our deficit after Clinton had surpluses (which technically weren't surpluses unless you use Washington accounting 'standards'), and with one fell swoop, Obama will increase the deficit that Bush created by a huge amount, no matter how you look at it. Check out this graph:

So, the budget 'suggestion' to Congress (after all, it still has to be debated/approved) is $3.6 trillion. The deficit portion of it is...wait for it...$1.75 trillion. That's right - HALF of it is deficit spending!! They're basically spending two dollars for every dollar they bring in. Only the government can get away with that. You and I would have to go to credit counseling or something...

For some perspective, Bush's last year in office we had tons of bailouts right? I remember cringing at the thought of bailing out the various companies for billions of dollars. Despite all of that, it "only" produced a somehow-not-so-big-now deficit of $455 billion. 2009's will be nearly 4 times this figure. Amazing. Toward the end of last year (Sept '08), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected the deficit to exceed $400b for the next 2 years if current policies remained in place. Well, thank God that the policies were changed! That would have been horrible!! Oh wait...

Don't worry though, Obama said. He still plans to reduce the inherited deficit by half by the end of his term. So he's saying either he or the next president will have a deficit of around $225 billion by 2013. Old Scratch better be buying a parka, cause it's apparently gonna be getting cold down there.

My explanation? Obama is striking quickly while the flames of his fiery stampede to the White House are still burning. He has put just about everything he ever dreamed about in this proposal. I think (hope) much of it will get cut, but you can bet that not all of it will. Perhaps that is a not-so-subtle intent. Throw everything he can knowing that at least some of it will get through. If he does that every year he'll eventually get what he wants.

Just yesterday, Obama said this: "We will, each and every one of us, have to compromise on certain things we care about but which we simply cannot afford right now."

No $h!t, Sherlock.

How's about you start sippin' on some of that medicine you're selling?

Rights...or Wrongs?

2009-02-13T00:01:00.007-05:00

As Americans, we have the right to enjoy life; to be happy. We have the right to obtain employ in the service of another. We have the right to decent housing arrangements. We have the right to affordable health care. We have the right to demand accommodation at a place of business of our choice.

Right?

Wrong. They are all wrong. As Americans we have none of these so-called rights.

Huh? But I thought--

No; you thought wrong. You do not have the right to enjoy your life or to be happy. You have the right to pursue happiness. It's an important distinction. Nobody except you can guarantee your happiness. This is a fundamental flaw in some people's minds. They either feel that somebody (usually government, but sometimes individuals or businesses) owes them something in order to appease them. They feel it is their "right", but it is most certainly not.

How about a job? Surely we have the right to work? Wrong again. It ties into the fact that nobody owes anybody anything in regards to happiness. Would a job be nice? Would it help get/keep you on your feet? Sure! But does that mean it's your right to have a job? Certainly not! This country was set up on the principle that if you bust your ass and work hard you may be able to make something of yourself and find employment. You certainly have the right to exercise your free will and attempt to better yourself. If you don't get anything out of doing that (or don't even bother attempting) then that sucks for you, but that's life. Nobody (especially the government) owes you any sort of job. As such, it is most certainly not a right afforded anyone in the Constitution.

So no right to a house? Definitely not. You have the right to not be discriminated against when purchasing a house, but that does NOT mean that if you can't pay the bill, that not selling you the house is some sort of discrimination based on class or poverty level. If you don't have the dough, you shouldn't get the digs. And nobody under any circumstances has the right to own their own home. Nobody has the right to even rent a home. I'm sure most if not all Americans want everyone to have their own home, but that doesn't make it a right.

You don't have the right to affordable health care. You have the right to not be killed, to be sure, but nobody owes you medical treatment unless you pay for it (or have pre-paid through insurance) This can be both unfortunate and sticky. While I don't support government-run health care, I do know that health care costs can quickly skyrocket for someone who is hospitalized. Most of the time, the monetary level of the person is indirectly proportional to the amount of medical costs they run up. The problem is far too complex for me to solve, but it seems to me it needs to be handled from both ends. If there are those reliant on government assistance, then they should be required to abide by certain restrictions which would ensure their health level to be as high as it can be. Otherwise the government is just dropping money down a hole. On the other end of the spectrum, insurance companies screw around with medical practices, not paying on time, refusing payment, underpaying, etc. (Yes, I speak from experience) This causes the doctors to raise prices to compensate, which then causes insurance companies to be even bigger sticklers. To top it off, frivolous lawsuits cause the doctor's malpractice insurance costs to skyrocket, which also forces doctors to raise prices to compensate. In essence, the biggest problem is that it's a continual cycle that just keeps spiraling out of control without check. As an aside - did you know that around the turn of the century (the one before the last), doctor visits cost 25 cents? House calls were 50 cents. Can you believe that? It can't possibly get back to anything close to that with our new expensive technologies, but it was still an amazing factoid.

Sorry - got off topic a bit there. Suffice it to say that while it does suck for a lot of people, it is not their right to have affordable health care. It is (imho) most definitely a privilege. Unless they amend the Constitution, then it will stay that way.

The final one I mentioned was the right to demand accomodation at your desired place of business. This is the one that seems to be most-utilized by those screaming about their rights being infringed. I wrote a post a while ago about eHarmony caving in to gay people who were screaming about their rights being infringed because they couldn't find gay partners on eHarmony's website. It was and is a ridiculous assertion that anyone should be able to demand service in this manner. You can't sue a business for having an American flag in its window just because you're from, say, Croatia, and they don't have a Croatian flag in there too. You can't force a business to sell free-range fed chicken just because you don't like hormone-infused meat. You can't demand a business owner converse with you in English, even when it's clear they cannot. I could go on, but you get the point. You, as the consumer, have the right to go anywhere you please to shop, but you do NOT have the right to have a business cater to your needs. As long as that business owner is not breaking any laws, they are within their full rights to conduct their business how they see fit. You, as the consumer, should just go somewhere else.

Far too often in this country, somebody's presumed rights trounce all over somebody's actual rights. Again, far too often, our judicial and legislative branches allow this trouncing to occur without impedement.

Can you think of any other rights that are...wrong?

Transparency. That's a joke right?

2009-02-11T21:03:00.007-05:00

If you looked carefully at the Change.gov site (that's the Obama Administration's transition website), you'd come to the following page. If you take a close look at the content of the page, you'd read:

End the Practice of Writing Legislation Behind Closed Doors: As president, Barack Obama will restore the American people's trust in their government by making government more open and transparent. Obama will work to reform congressional rules to require all legislative sessions, including committee mark-ups and conference committees, to be conducted in public. By making these practices public, the American people will be able to hold their leaders accountable for wasteful spending and lawmakers won't be able to slip favors for lobbyists into bills at the last minute.

Now, pardon me for being cynical, but hasn't this ethical mantra already been violated? I mean, here we are with the absolute biggest piece of legislation (in dollars) to EVER be passed, and they're hammering the details...where? Are they on the floor with all congressional members involved? You know, from both parties (since they're so bipartisan)?

No. They're behind closed doors. Talk about your transparency. Check this out, but here's the important part:

Reid also said he and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi met yesterday with Obama to discuss a compromise. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Budget Director Peter Orszag met behind closed doors with Democrats about a plan.

Oh wait - I just re-read the statement. It said that Obama will work toward more transparency. Oh ok...I guess we can just do that after this bill, right? Got it.

You're doing a great job of restoring my trust. Keep it up.

The icing on the cake, however, is the so-called compromise that the Democrats have reached. They reduced the overall cost, but I don't know if they think this will appease us or infuriate us. Then again, they probably don't care.

This is how it happened. No, really, it did...

Them: "Hey guys and gals and transgenders and aliens, both legal and illegal! We wanted to let you in on the good news! We reduced the bill by like, $100 billion bucks!"

Us: "Holy crap - that's awesome! What did you get rid of? That ridiculous Smithsonian thing?"

Them: "Huh? Oh-HA! That's a good one..."

Us: "The STD stuff?"

Them: "Dwellings-of-higher-powers-of-various-religions no! Try again."

Us: [dismayed] "Let me guess. All the stuff that Republicans got squeezed in there?"

Them: "BINGO! I knew you'd get it! You know, like the tax credits for homebuyers, the auto interest deductions..."

Us: "Oh, well. I guess that's to be expected."
Them: "Hey there, cheer up. We let Arlen Specter keep his $10 billion for the National Institute of Health in there! HE'S a Republican."

Us: [stares blankly]

Them: "You know...cause he, like, voted with us and stuff."

[crickets begin chirping]

Them: "Sooo..anyway. That's the good news. Later."

Us: "Hang on! Is there any bad news?"

Them: "No! Oh no no nooooo no........Yes."

Us: ?

Them: "The per-worker credit was also reduced and will essentially amount to only $13 bucks extra per paycheck. Toodle-oo!"
[Then they walk off and fist bump each other saying "One ta nuthin!"]

I wish I could say that I hope this succeeds, but I don't. I honestly hope it fails miserably. Luckily, I feel pretty safe in this happening. Don't get me wrong - I want our economy to boom again, but not at the expense of increasing the already size-gazillion government foothold over...practically everything.

We'll see...

Stimulate This

2009-02-06T10:05:00.005-05:00

Ahh...the so-called stimulus package. No, it's not a new medical device or even a clever name for someones manhood (though that is clever...[back pat]), but if it were either of those then it might be more worthy of appreciation. How about what it's actually called: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Wow. That just..sounds so impressive.

Only it's not. Well, to be fair, it's price tag is very impressive. Nearly a trillion dollars. Let me show you how many zeroes that is.

1,000,000,000,000

Can you wrap your head around that number? We've gotten so complacent in hearing billions thrown at this economic problem that we're a little numb. Unfortunately, we can't afford to be.

Literally.

Of course, to be honest, the main problem is not its size. If that trillion dollars were spent in such a manner to actually do some stimulating, then far fewer people would be complaining. As an aside, 1 trillion dollars in my wallet would unequivocally stimulate me personally. Just sayin'.

Let's call this bill what it really is: The Take Advantage of the Democratic Majority and Pay Back All Our Interest Groups Act of 2009. On second thought, that might not fit on a T-shirt. How about: The Extremely Naive Imma Get Mine Act of 2009. Even opponents would support the acronym: ENIGMA. Yeah...has a nice ring to it.

You see, the vast majority of the crap in this stinker has absolutely nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's got money going to just about every special program around, and a hefty dose of new ones for good measure. I'm not saying these groups don't need to be created, or the existing ones don't need to be funded (though I probably would on most of them); what I'm saying is that it doesn't belong in this bill!

You've got Obama at the White House telling Americans, "We need to do something NOW. Something FAST. Here, take a look at what I did. Well, actually, I didn't do it; Nancy Pelosi and Co. did it. But trust me, it's good. Listen, and listen carefully: if we don't do something it will be a CATASTROPHE!" [soundtrack: duhn duhn duhnnnn] Look, man, if it's so dang important and urgent, then why bother putting all this crap in there? Let's do some real stuff that has been PROVEN to provide stimulus. Forgive me, but I don't think that improving STD education (350m) is going to stimulate the economy.

Furthermore, did you catch how the Democrats are so forgiving of their own dissension (i.e. the Democrats who voted against this bill in the House) but so critical of the Republicans who did the same? They say, "We understand that certain members come from conservative districts and have to vote as such", then in regards to Republicans, immediately follow with, "We'll go district by district to hold them accountable." WTF? It's ok for Dems from conservative districts to vote conservatively, but not ok for Repubs to do the same?

So what has been proven to stimulate the economy? Two words: TAX CUTS. Not tax rebates, not temporary discounts, just plain ol' across-the-board cuts. This has been proven throughout history to be very effective at stimulating the economy. When did they work? Bush imposed significant tax cuts right after becoming president in 2000 that brought us out of a recession. In the same vein, in 1964 there was a cut in personal taxes, which created a rise in consumer spending. Don't stop there - what about the Mellon tax cuts of the 1920s and of course the Reagan tax cuts of the early 80s. In every case, across the board tax cuts immediately spurred growth and cause a rebound of trouble economic times. How about 'across the pond'? Ireland's economy was in dire straits in the mid-80s. They decided to significantly cut government spending and lower taxes on both businesses and individuals. Their per capital income went from being 63% of the UK's average to actually beating it in 2000.

"Hold on," you say, "If you lower taxes you will reduce revenue." Let me respond by saying, "WRONG." Historically, you can actually increase government revenue! After the Reagan tax cuts, for example, income tax revenues went from $244b to $446b throughout the 80s. Holy Hairpulling, Batman! Despite the possibility of increasing government revenue, that's not really something I care about. I'd much rather that revenue was reduced, would would hopefully force shutting down some wasteful spending programs. But regardless of whether or not revenue was increased, it can definitely be shown to stimulate the economy.

How? Well, it's actually rather simple. Like it or not, it's the rich that keep this economy going. They buy big, expensive things. They invest their money. They create businesses. When you reduce their taxes, they have more to spend, and they loooooove doing that for all those things. Additionally, there's a overlooked side-benefit: they don't feel forced to shelter so much of their income from the government. Eh? You mean you didn't know that the more you tax them the less they report as income? Ah, how naive. The rich will always look for loopholes to reduce their tax burden, but if their burden is lower, then they don't feel the urgency to look as hard. Think about it on a personal level - when you made minimum wage you paid taxes and likely deducted nothing. You just did the 1040EZ and went on with your life. Now you're older and make a lot more money, and you probably wouldn't think of using the ol' 1040EZ anymore. It's much more effective to itemize your deductions and minimize your tax burden. I'm not rich at all, but even I do this! It's all a matter of scale. When I was taxed at minimum wage, I paid next to nothing in taxes. 25% of a buck is only a quarter, after all. But 25% of $1000 bucks is a whopping $250!! Big difference, huh? It's when the tax burden becomes great enough to warrant your attention that you start thinking of ways to make it as small as possible. The reverse is true too, if the burden is reduced, then you don't feel the need to invest the time and envergy to reducing it.

What about job loss? We're losing jobs at an incredible rate - how do tax cuts help with that? I'm glad you asked. You did ask, didn't you? Well, it happens at a lot of levels:

Like I said earlier, rich people buy things. If they want to buy more than they are now, then that increases demand. When you increase demand, supply will naturally creep up to meet that demand. This means that factories have to make more widgets which means they need to hire more people. Result: more jobs.
Rich people with more money also take that money and invest in companies as anything from stockholders to venture capitalists. This causes the businesses to grow and - you guessed it - hire more people. Result: more jobs.
Finally, rich people do something else that directly creates a growing work force. They start businesses. A friend of mine heard a good line on the radio the other day, and it pertains to this fact. Think about this - you'll never get a job from a poor person. Poor people don't hire you; rich people do. Result: more jobs.

So let's review - tax cuts, while technically only applying to that portion of the population that actually pay taxes, actually dramatically improve the economy on nearly every front and would undoubtedly turn our economy around. History is on the side of tax cuts.

The problem with tax cuts are that they become an emotional issue for people. How can you tell someone who is poor that you're not giving them any money, but instead you are cutting taxes on everybody else; i.e. essentially giving them more money. It's a hard sell, and it's one that Democrats classically use to oppose tax cuts. On the surface, it seems a bit unfair. However, one could equally argue that it was unfair for that same person to not be paying taxes at all. I don't want to veer too far off here, but look at it this way: nobody argues about the sales tax and that's because everybody pays the same amount no matter how much you spend. You'll pay the same percentage if you buy a car or a box of toothpicks. In other words, it's unemotional. Unfortunately our income tax is not structured that way and as such, becomes very emotional for people. The Fair Tax would alleviate this, but that's a topic for another day.

Unfortunately, the people in power don't and will likely never support tax cuts. They will continue to play the poor card and the "economic equality for all" tag line. They will strive to remove every incentive for someone to work out of government dependency and establish themselves financially; in short, to live the American Dream. They will take this nationwide crisis and use a call for a solution as an opportunity to push their own agendas. It's a shame, too, because the right kind of stimulus could do just that: stimulate.

The saving grace in all this is that the American people, so far, arent' standing for it. At last check, the approval rating for this bill was in the 30s. It has plummetted from when it was originally proposed. The American people are thinking: "Hang on. We're not saying we agree or disagree with all this stuff, but shouldn't we be trying to get out of this crisis right now before we, oh I don't know, fix the Smithsonian up ($150m)?"

I know I am. Let's stimulate this economy the tried and true way: tax cuts. We can debate all of this special interest spending through the normal legislative process. Don't sit there and tell me there's a major crisis and the time for action is now and shove this piece of paper (actually several hundred) down my throat yelling, "Sign it! Sign it! We have to do it now!", while putting so much extra crap in the fine print that the thing just stinks. You're like a predatory lender, only you're a predatory spender.

It reminds me of another president not too long ago being criticized for basically using the same emotion, fear, as leverage for his agendas. Actions which were a campaign point for Obama and the Democrats during the past elections.

I guess it's different when it's their agenda...

An End to the Debate

2009-01-23T13:53:00.007-05:00

I was watching a video clip the other day of Obama giving some answers about when does life begin. He stated that it was something he had not fully formed his opinion on at that time. However, I'd say based on his voting record in Chicago, his opinion was already well formed, but that's not the purpose of this post.

I would say that at some time during my life, I too have felt that "my opinion was not fully formed" as well. I don't remember when exactly, but I'm certain it was before I had my own children. However, after watching that clip, an explanation popped into my head and I felt the need to express it. For me, and I would hope others as well, completely and nicely concludes exactly when life begins - and there is really no more room for logical debate (not that there ever was). A friend pointed out to me that there will always be room for illogical debate, but you can never win with an illogical thinker.

To begin with, let's think about what is involved with creating life; in this case a human baby. You have to have a sperm cell, and that cell has to fertilize a human egg cell. That product multiples and grows into what will eventually become a baby. It seems a lot of this debate centers around exactly when does that "product" become a lifeform. The question is easier than it has been made out to be.

Does life begin when the sperm and egg are created? No. Too early.

Does life begin when the heard starts beating? No. Too late.

Does life begin when the baby is born? Heavens no!

Life begins at the precise instant that the egg has been successfully fertilized. There is no question to this, and the fact there's even a "debate" is a bit ridiculous.

Let's look at an analogy. Let's say you're making a sandwich. You have the bread and you have the ham. Is it a sandwich yet? Obviously not. You take a slice of bread, put some ham on it, and then top it off with another piece of bread. Is it a sandwich? Of course it is! It didn't become a sandwich when you ate it, and it wasn't a sandwich before you put the pieces together.

How about this one: you're in a marathon. All the runners are lined up and the starting signal is given. When did the race start? Obviously, right from when the signal is given. At that exact instant, a process was begun: the process of running the race. As long as there is no outside intervention, the race will continue and will complete. Before the signal, there were just a bunch of runners milling around. If they were never given the signal, they would obviously have never run the race. The process had a definite beginning, middle, and end.

Just like life.

If you left the sperm cells alone, nothing would change with them. They can't, on their own, grow into anything. The same goes for an egg. So, naturally, life does not begin with these cells in this state. However, when they are combined and the egg is fertilized, a new entity has been created that will, barring outside influence, grow into a baby. Do you see the distinction? You can't say that life begins anywhere in that line of events after fertilization (heartbeat, brain formed, born, etc.) because those are just different phases in the process. Before there were two cells; after there was something new and completely unique that didn't even exist before.

When that sperm cell fertilizes the egg cell, a process has begun.

That process...

...is life.

There is really no room for logical debate.

A Journey Through DirecTV Hell

2009-01-14T11:42:00.004-05:00

I recently was notified by DirecTV that HD locals were now available in my area, and I (of course) readily agreed to an upgrade. I had been waiting for this before I made the switch to HD. I got a free DVR out of the deal as well as a new free dish, plus the free installation to boot. Yippee.

So everything is awesome until the new free receiver in the bedroom starts acting up. I'm a reasonably technical guy, but I couldn't get it to keep working. A restart always worked, but that's rather annoying, to say the least. I finally called and after some "technical" support, she agreed with my assessment. As an aside - I wish there was some magic code word you could tell tech support that would get you past all the BS they make you go through.

"Ok, sir, let's try restarting the device."
--As if that's not the first dang thing I did.

"Now what I want you to do is unplug it, wait 30 seconds, and then plug it back in."
--DUH. That was my natural step next too.

...and so on. But I digress.

So the solution was to send me out a replacement, which I would receive in 3-5 days, and I would return the defective unit. Case closed.

Only it wasn't.

Fast forward a week and I have no replacement. I call and they say it hasn't shipped. They say it'll ship out the next week, after the holiday. I wait.

A week passes. No replacement. I call again; now it's the 8th of January. After some initial tracking down of the problem, her supervisor informs her that they are out of stock and it will ship as soon as they get more. Meanwhile, she lets slip that "That's why you haven't received your R16."

Eh? R16 you say? But no ma'am, I have an R22. Why are you sending me an R16? She has no answer, hence she forwards (dismisses) me to another rep. The next guy understands my plight but is unable to assist. I offer to go to Best Buy to buy the model I need and have them reimburse me. No bite. He forwards me on to Tech Support, which, according to him, is the only division allowed to create orders. Perhaps they can request a specific model number. This lady was a little bitchy right from the get go, and was flustered at my request. I again offer to go out of my way to make the purchase, but am denied again. I offered to have one of their local installers bring one out or I could go pick it up from them, but again, denied. Finally, she somehow she was able to place an order for an R22 and have it shipped overnight. Finally, I thought.

Turns out I think too much.

The next day I see that my order has been created and right next to the order it plainly lists "ERP_R15C_R Group".

Notice anything odd? That's right: R15!! Not even an R16 they were going to shaft me with before! This one is an even EARLIER model!!

So, I get the box the next day and lo and behold, it's a damn R15. I call them Monday (that's this past Monday, the 12th), ready to curse them into submission. I'm met by a clueless CSR to whom I recite the entire story again. I again offer to go to Best Buy. Denied. I again offer to meet with an installer. Again, denied. She forwards me on to Tech Support (haven't I been here before..?) where I actually get a nice lady. I again make my same offers of appeasement. She rejects them all, saying they can't do that. She says they can't request a specific model number, but they used to be able to. I'm cursing the frickin person who made THAT brilliant executive decision... She tells me that I'm going to need to talk to a resolution specialist to get this problem solved. She tells me she has marked it urgent and I should get a call within 2-3 hours.

I couldn't believe it, but 2 hours later they called!!

I lied; the bastards didn't call. I got no call all night, and none the next morning either. So I call back, at what is now 24 hours since I was supposed to get a call back. I speak with someone who is the most clueless of all, so she forwards me on to equipment, where I get to speak with an installation expert. Yeah, that's exactly who I need: someone to troubleshoot my receiver installation...oh wait - I don't have one yet!!

So this girl is the most bitchy of anyone so far. She is already having a bad day and apparently I didn't improve matters. For what it's worth, ditto for me. I make the same offers to her. Can you send me an R22? No we can't. We just tell the warehouse to send a DVR. Can I go to Best Buy to get an R22 and you apply a service credit? No, we're not going to pay you back for you going to a retailer. Can you have an installer meet me with that equipment? No, we can't specify installation equipment.

Well then, Miss Sunshine, we have a problem here. I say, "I am NOT going to give you a SUperior piece of equipment for an INferior piece of equipment. That doesn't even make sense."

Silence. Dead frickin silence for 45 seconds. I am not exaggerating. "Hello?" I say. "I'm still here sir, but nothing has changed. So, what do you want to happen here?" I tell her I'd like to talk to the resolution department and get this matter resolved. She tells me they have no such department. "Well then," I say, "I'd like to speak with whoever was supposed to call me yesterday." She tells me that the notes say a supervisor was going to call. THEN LET ME TALK TO A SUPERVISOR. (I didn't yell, but I sure felt like it...) "Hold on, let me see if I can find one."

So a supervisor comes on, and Angie, thou holiest of DirecTV Angels, comes to save the day.

A - "Sir, how can I help you today?"
J - "Well, I'm sure your CSR has probably caught you up, right?"
A - "Yes, she has. I understand you'd like a specific receiver sent to you?"
J - "Well, yes. I'd like my receiver to be replaced with the same model that I'm returning."
A - "I understand, sir, but we really can't specify particular models for equipment replacement."
[Ugh...here we go again...]
J - "But that doesn't really make sense, does it? I'm giving you a new model, albeit broken, for an older, discontinued model? How's that right?"
A - "We can only specify the type of receiver, and the R15, R16, and R22 are the current models in that particular line-up."
J - "But.."
A - "If I could make a suggestion, sir. If you'd really like to get the particular model you're looking for, you might want to go to Best Buy or Circuit City and purchase that one, then I'll just apply a service credit to your account to cover the lease fee you'd pay at those retailers."

[....Did I just hear that correctly?]
That's right, folks. The very solution I had proposed to EVERY SINGLE REP FROM EVERY SINGLE DEPARTMENT I SPOKE WITH was just PROPOSED TO ME. I was dumbstruck.

J - "That's absolutely what I'd like to do. I have suggested it to everyone and been denied every single time. I wasn't trying to be difficult, and was offering to go out of my way to make everyone happy."
A - "I understand sir, and I'm sorry this wasn't cleared up way back in December. I will inform the rep you just spoke with of this solution, and let her know that it is a viable solution in the future."
J - "Well, just so you know, you might want to send out a memo or something to every other rep I've been in contact with, because they didn't know either."

And that was that. I got the credit applied to my account within 5 minutes and I got the receiver that very night. To be truthful I actually got an upgraded receiver for twice the cost, but since they had reimbursed me for half, it was like I got it for half price.

See, here's the thing most people don't know about DirecTV's newest receivers, including, apparently, the reps that service them. The price you pay at Best Buy is NOT an ownership fee, but rather a LEASING fee. That's right, you don't own the boxes at all; they are leased equipment. If you were to cancel your service, you'd have to return them. If you were to buy the equipment, it would cost much, much more. So that's why I even proposed this solution, because I knew I wasn't actually paying Best Buy, I was paying the same as I would at their website, only it should/would be free since they were going to send me a replacement.

So, all in all I spoke with 9 reps and 1 supervisor across 3 departments, all in the quest of getting the same model I was returning, which I had no idea would be an ordeal to begin with.

Lessons learned? Be persistent. Don't get pushed around. Get names. It didn't particularly help in this situation, but it never hurts. Finally, know your stuff. When the really bitchy lady suggested there's no real difference between the different models, I was ready and rattled off every difference from their tech specs. She responded with muted silence.

Advice for DirecTV: 9 out of 10 people would probably be just dumb and happy with whatever model they got, but my techy mind just couldn't allow a model degradation to one with reduced features/disk space. Save those R15s and R16s for the people who don't know any better For those that do, just give them a damn R22 and save everybody the hassle.

To eHarmony: Grow a Pair

2008-11-20T22:18:00.005-05:00

In case you didn't hear about this, someone sued eHarmony.com a few years ago for not catering to his particular taste of partners. He couldn't find suitable partners on the site and thus declared the site was discriminating against him. I'm sure you've already assumed, but I'll clarify here: the man is gay. He was complaining about not having the option to be matched with other gay men.

Fast forward to this past week. eHarmony has settled this case. That's right - they sold out. The end result is that they have to pay the legal fees and other expenses of the attorney general's office ($50,000) as well as $5,000 to the man himself - let me guess - for pain and suffering. In addition, the business has to create a new website that solely caters to the gay and lesbian community; they're calling it Compatible Partners. They're giving the first 10,000 users free accounts and will be kept completely separate (database, etc.) from their regular site.

Now, on the surface, this issue seems like a gay issue. Don't be fooled - it's not. In a very real sense, this is just one more case of a company being trapped into making a so-called politically correct decision simply not to offend anyone. I contend that their decision was weak-kneed and will only set a precedent that need not be set.

Let's just forget about the whole gay aspect. It's not relevant to what happened. What essentially happened here is that an individual decided to go to a business and be served, only to discover the business didn't serve anything he liked. Normal people would go to another business that does serve what they like. Not so with Mr. I'm-a-minority (be it religion, race, sexual orientation, language). Mr. I.A.M. feels put down and trounced upon and wants every place he chooses to do business with to cater to HIM. Unfortunately for us without a minority mindset, I.A.M. wins more and more in our court system.

In this particular case, the charge was ridiculous. eHarmony.com is a private business. As long as it doesn't break any laws it can do whatever it wants. And - here's the kicker - both the company and even the attorney general agreed that no laws were broken! So why settle?!? It baffles the mind. At least - the normal mind. Let's take this analogy. I'm a carnivore. I love meat. Let's say I'm walking in a shopping center and I see a vegan market store. We'll suspend reality here for a second and say I walk in to this store to purchase some meat. What do I find? Steaks? Hamburgers? Pork Chops? NO?!?!? How could they! They are discriminating against meat-eaters! I'LL SUE!!!

(You see how ridiculous it is when you remove the I.A.M. slant?)

Here's a thought: Let's say that eHarmony.com doesn't give in. I don't call that discrimination - I call it a business opportunity! If there are that many people interested in finding a gay partner online, then there should be websites devoted to it! If I were gay that's where I'd go! You see - that's one of the benefits of our country; if someone sees a need for a product/business/idea, then they can fill that void with something that consumers will purchase. In some cases they can create a market where none existed before.

I wish people who felt disenfranchised didn't always look to the courts to solve their problems. I'm not saying the courts are never an option, but it's not like there weren't other alternatives for the dude - there are websites that cater to just about every type of partner-interest one might have. Nobody was forcing him to use eHarmony. He chose to implicate this business - this private, law-abiding business - in his own little "I'm a victim"-mentality-induced crusade, and the company just gave up. The real crime here is that he should have never been allowed his day in court. That would have saved everybody some dough.

The real scoop - the real reason this was even pursued - was because eHarmony has long been the bane of the gay community. The site/company was founded by a former affiliate of Focus on the Family - an evangelical Christian, Dr. Neil Clark. He designed the site and their formulas specifically to match heterosexual couples. Since this suit in 2005, at least one more was launched last year in California. Same concept - same goal - same I.A.M. mentality. By the way - this one is a class action lawsuit, and even the attorney for the plaintiff says,

This lawsuit is "about changing the landscape and making a statement out there that gay people, just like heterosexuals, have the right and desire to meet other people with whom they can fall in love."

I don't agree with his comment about "everybody has the right...". Nobody has the right to meet anyone. They may have the desire, for sure, but they definitely don't have the right. I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the Constitution does it say, "We all have the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and to meet our future lover." Maybe I missed that day in Civics class. To be sure - it would be nice if every company you wanted to do business with catered to you, but that's just not how it works in this country. If enough people want a business to change, the business will change. Obviously, eHarmony didn't feel the need to change to cater to the gay community and were staying as is. Could they have made more money had they done so? Probably. But again, not enough people wanted that service from them, so they didn't feel the business need to change.

The irony of this is that now that eHarmony is in the game, they will undoubtedly take business away from existing sites that specifically designed themselves to cater to the gay community. They have been so successful with the hetero market, who's to say they won't be just as successful with their new venture? What one hand giveth, the other taketh away...

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go sue that damn vegan store for not selling sirloins.

Bastards.

Obama's no fool...

2008-11-13T14:48:00.001-05:00

Earlier this week Obama met with Bush to discuss transition issues, etc. These type of talks are typically not public affairs and tend to be more private in nature. In other words, the media is not present behind these 'closed doors'. I say this because Obama staff broke that unwritten rule and leaked details to the press about the visit. However, this was a very clever move, even though it pisses me off.

During their talks, the issue of the auto-bailout came up and it was said that Obama pushed for the bailout to be passed, and Bush (who apparently is being resistant) asked for some things in return for his support; namely Democrat approval of the trade pact(s) with Columbia. Tough call for Obama - he backs (and is backed by) unions and labor forces which directly oppose said trade agreements with Columbia. They say of course that it is because of mistreatment of workers down there, but in reailty it has a lot more to do with fear of losing revenues, etc. to Columbia. Anyway, turns out it's not so tough a call for Obama after all. In a brilliant political move (whether by him or by a staffer) it's leaked that Bush is trying to horse-trade behind the scenes. What's the fallout?

1) Bush is made to look like he is not supportive of American laborers.
2) Obama can say (rather honestly), "Look I tried to get the bailout money and help the American work----SNORE...insert rhetoric here...SNORE--, but you know Bushie, he's stonewalling me until he gets what he wants."
3) Obama can bide his time if need be and wait until he's in office and then do whatever he wants anyway, while looking like he tried to 'cross the aisle'.
4) Bush's approval rating can dip even lower.(Is it at absolute zero yet?)

No, Obama's no fool, but the American people are. Most out there probably have no clue how politics work and that this 'horse-trading' is done each and every single day in Washington. It's how 'pork' even gets added to bills in the first place. You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours; either now or later. How else can you explain NASCAR racing track owners getting millions in the much-talked-about bailout bill after it went through the Senate? I love NASCAR, but it has NOTHING to do with the financial meltdown in the banking industry.

Bush played the same game he's learned to play since entering Washington, but the public at large will despise him for it.

Brilliant move, Obama. Check and Mate.

Am I in the Twilight Zone?!

2008-11-13T14:24:00.001-05:00

A few days ago I wrote a nice little fairy tale that most certainly did not have a fairy tale ending. It portrayed the current attitude in Washington toward corporate bailout, etc. It used the analogy of the money being candy, and that if you give in once, then everybody will come knocking.

Enter American Express. Yep, now they're knocking at the door. Though their requested amount is a "paltry" 3.5 bn dollars, they actually had to change their business definition just so they could qualify for bailout money. Yep, after an emergency ruling, the Fed now considers AMEX a "bank holding company" which entitles them to bailout dough. Which brings me to my first point, I now wish to be a bank holding company.

However, that's not the main thing I wanted to vent about. I wanted to vent about the very high probability that we will bailout the auto industry as well. Actually, that's not precisely accurate. We will only bailout the 3 automakers which happen to be in Detroit. And happen to be employed by union workers. And happen to be losing money by the truckloads. And happen to make crappy cars. That's right - Toyota, Nissan, Honda, etc. are doing just dandy other parts of the country and there's nary a union worker in sight.

So the "Big 3" want bailout money (or more in the case of GM and Ford, who have already received 25 bn that they burned through in a couple months), and it seems at this point e they will likely receive it. But should they? Should we bail out every failing industry? How about the film industry? It's been hurting for a while; perhaps they're entitled to some help as well? After all, there are hundreds of thousands of jobs at stake in that industry as well. I'm not heartless. I do understand that many jobs will likely be lost if any or all of the Big 3 would go bankrupt. But let's play devil's advocate: if they DO get the bailout money, will they still be able to keep all those jobs? The answer may surprise you: probably not.

Rewind nearly 30 years ago to another government bailout of Chrysler. There is a common myth that this government bailout gave the company a leg to stand on and they bounced back from near death to become successful yet again. However, let's look at the facts. Despite the money being intended to keep the company from going bankrupt and laying off workers, they STILL laid off nearly HALF of its employees. Estimates at the time figured that these losses were comparable to what would have happened had the company actually gone into Chapter 11. So the bailout essentially failed at its main intent. How about bankruptcy? It's true that it never went into Chapter 11, but it essentially went through all the motions, completely screwing creditors in the process. In some cases it was able to pay off hundreds of millions of dollars of loans at 30 cents on the dollar. Sweet deal for the shareholders which would have lost everything had they gone bankrupt. Here's a great article that details the ordeal from a 1983 perspective (isn't the Internet great?).

http://www.heritage.org/research/regulation/bg276.cfm

The two quotes I especially liked that are very pertinent today are:

Confronting the Chrysler myths with Chrysler facts reveals Chrysler's true financial condition and the real impact of those federal guarantees. It shows that if the bailout is indeed the model for an American industrial policy the consequences could be disastrous.

and

When Chrysler was on the verge of bankruptcy in 1979, the marketplace was signaling that the slackening automobile market would only support three U.S. car manufacturers. By granting the Chrysler loan guarantees, Congress ignored that signal. If Chrysler survives, it will probably mean that the shrinking automobile market will be shared by four ailing domestic automakers, rather than the two or three relatively healthy car manufacturers that would have emerged had Chrysler been allowed to go into formal bankruptcy.

Get your damn heads in the game, Washington. If a company is doomed to fail, then let it fail. Don't try to prop it up with my tax dollar when it should fall. You know, there's a nice legal entity for dealing with a failing company that handles creditors, shareholders, and typically, management as well. It's called Chapter 11. Let these companies go bankrupt. The creditors will lose some, the shareholders will lose a lot, the management will be recycled, and the company can refocus and start over. The taxpayers? It won't cost us a dime.

Farmers burn their fields to replenish the nutrients in the soil so they can reuse it. Steel is tempered with intense heat to make it stronger. If these auto companies rise from their own ashes they will be better for it. If they don't, then why would we have wanted to prop them up to begin with?

A Tale of Children and their Candy

2008-11-07T02:22:00.001-05:00

Once upon a time there was a family, the Publics. The Publics had a little boy named Bear. Bear was Stearn, but boy did Bear love candy. LOVED it. Especially those gold foil wrapped ones. Anyway, Bear wasn't very good with his candy and finally got to the point where he had very little candy left.

Bear cried when he got home, "MOMMY!!! I NEED MORE CANDY!!"

Mommy came in the room. "Bear? What's wrong dear? What did you do with all the candy you had?" Bear replied, "I don't have it anymore. I had lots, and was even holding some of the other kids' candy too. But you know how I love it so much, and I ate it all! Now everyone wants their candy back and I don't have it! They're gonna beat me up!" Mommy deliberated on the issue and finally decided to give in and give Bear the candy.

A few days later, the Public twins Fannie and Freddie were found crying in their room. Mommy came running up the stairs, "What's wrong children?" "We don't have any more candy!" they replied in unison. "Let me guess," Mommy said, "if you don't get any more candy you'll get beat up?"

They looked at each other. "How'd you know, Mommy?" "How many pieces do you need to not get beat up?" Mommy said. Again they looked at each other. Fannie said, "We need 100 billion pieces of candy. Each."

Mommy (whose name was Connie, short for Congressa) shook her head and sighed. Just at that time, Daddy (whose name was John Q.) walked into the room. "What's the problem, Dear?" "Oh, John. The twins are saying they need more candy." John glared, "Listen, I'm still upset about the twins lying about how much candy they had a few months ago." "I know, I know," Mommy pleaded. "But I'm sure this time will be different, and we can trust them again." John was firm, "I still say no." Mommy grew furious, "Well, I don't care what you say! You don't care about the well-being of our children anymore! I'm giving them the candy - every single last piece!" With that, she slammed the door on him, leaving John in the hall.

A few days later John was walking through the kitchen when he saw Mommy filling their other son crAIG's backpack full of candy. "What is that for?" he asked. "I don't want to hear it, John! This is our son we're talking about!" "But crAIG hasn't even come asking for candy yet..." "This is a precautionary measure, John. If I don't give him this candy he might get beat up one day! I can't see my boy get hurt!"

The next day Daddy noticed some papers on the dining room table. Upon closer inspection, he saw that it was a receipt for 700 billion pieces of candy. "Connie! Get in here now!" She came in defiantly with her head held high. "What is the meaning of this!?!?" John said, his face turning red. She answered, "I've done what needed to be done. You'll have to trust me. I wanted to give enough candy to all the children in the neighborhood so that they wouldn't beat each other up and they would start being friendly again," she answered calmly. "But where in the world did you get the money to pay for this?!?" he said. "It wasn't a big deal, You had plenty of money in your wallet." At this point John was ready to strangle his wife. "Connie - don't you see what your rashness has done? When you give a child candy when they ask for it, they're going to ask for more. When you give them more, they're going to ask for even more. Then other kids in the neighborhood will want the same candy that you're giving the kids. Don't you see the pattern?" Connie just stood there dumbfounded.

At precisely that moment, some neighborhood kids showed up in the driveway. The triplets, G.M., Fordy, and Chryssy all filed inside. "So, uh...we heard you had some candy?"

As Connie smiled at them with a wink, John sighed and buried his face in his hands, longing for a divorce and wishing for a new wife.

Get out (of work) and vote!

2008-10-28T19:44:00.001-04:00

This is the newest message from Obama. Get out of whatever you're doing next Tueday and help him win. I guess Step 1 on the road to change is to avoid whatever responsibility you might have next Tuesday and do whatever you can to get yourself and others to vote for Obama.

The messages:

Vote next Tuesday!
...Admirable

Get out of work...
...Deplorable

Here's the ad: http://my.barackobama.com/page/s/dayoff

Why should the citizens of the US just put their lives on hold for a day just to vote him in? Let it be known I would be just as upset if McCain tried to pull this stunt...this is completely non-partisan. It kinda reeks of egotism and self-importance. In effect, his campaign is saying that working a phone bank or physically travelling to a battleground state is more important than your job/school day. Actually, that's exactly what they're saying. I wouldn't avoid work for McCain and I would hope few people would. Hell, I never even take sick days...

Another frustration stemmed from the tone - it said you can't 'make history' from your couch or while playing video games, which I agree with - who wouldn't? But then it says you can't make history from your job. Now, I don't think every single job in this country impacts history, but it definitely keeps the wheels turning and keeps us moving forward. I guess they're ok with half the country (his support according to polls) just pausing for a day.

I'm not suggesting the world will end if half the people didn't work/go to school for a day, but it's mainly the principle of the matter. It's not like someone's out there saying, "Ok, there's been a huge [insert natural disaster] and the area could really use your help. Please consider donating a day of your time to the people of this plight and let's work together to improve this situation blah blah blah." No, instead it's take a day off and help ME get elected.

It reminds me of an interview I heard about from a friend that aired on TV some time ago. The two opposing sides were represented as usual, but I don't know who they were. The Obama supporter made some statement to the effect of "Look at attendence numbers. Obama consistently attracts 15, 20, 25 thousand people at his rallys. McCain is lucky to draw half that." His implication of course was that Obama was obviously more popular with the American people and they're kicking ass. This attempt was foiled when the McCain supporter calmly interjected, "That's because McCain's supporters are at work."

'Nuf said.

I'll be working next Tuesday, but it won't keep me from voting. Where will you be?

Annoying "Facts"

2008-10-24T03:38:00.001-04:00

So; only 12 days left in the election. I thought I'd take a quick minute to throw out one of the common party-lines from Democrats and voice my frustration over it. Note that I'm NOT saying that Republicans do not also have their own party lines. They most certainly do. In politics, who doesn't?

This one just grates on me because it panders to people as if they're idiots and it is consistently glossed over by any opposition; be it McCain in EVERY debate or opposing commentators on news channels. They never respond the way I think they should. And since I'm all-knowing, then they're wrong. (or was it a know-it-all? I forget...)

So there.

Back to topic - here's the "fact"oid. Americans consume 25 percent of the world's produced oil, but our nation holds less than 3 percent of the world's proven oil reserves

The very first time I heard that it made me immediately want to get on the Internet to disprove its implication. I admit, I automatically got cynical about it, assuming (rightly as it turned out) that it was completely misleading, despite being based on facts. What irks me about this statement is that it implies that we consume 8 times what we can make. Admittedly, the wordplay is clever and has obviously pulled the wool over people's eyes, because it never gets clarified by opposition.
When someone hears it or reads it, their mind focuses on the 25 and 3 percent numbers and 25 is a lot bigger than 3, so we must use more than we make. This couldn't be further from the truth, though it's exactly what they want you to think. In actuality, when you look at the numbers, you find that our proven reserves are about 30 billion barrels. These numbers are from 2008. As for consumption, we consume about 20 million barrels per day.

So, 25% = 20 million/day and 3% = 30 BILLION. Hardly using 8 times what we can make. In fact, if we were able to extract and refine all those proven reserves today, we could subsist entirely on our own oil for almost 4 years without any imported oil.

However, the facts are that we'll never have to do that. Canada has just had revealed that they have - get this - about 180 BILLION barrels of proven reserves. They're nice to us and we trade well with them, so there's no reason we wouldn't be able to trade for some of that lovely oil. When you add in their consumption of about 3 million/day and their reserves of 180 billion, then we can now last TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. That's right - a quarter a century. This obviously doesn't take into account any increases in usage, but if we're smart we would actually LOWER consumption while we INCREASE production.

Now, if that were to happen, we'd obviously not want to sit idly and let the 25 years run out without doing something, so we'd need to use that time wisely to rapidly develop alternative fuels and power sources, as well as utilize our UNproven reserves. Cuba has supposedly found lots of oil off their shores, which by the way, is off OUR shores. I believe the facts of that find are still waiting to be verified, but remember that Brazil also found a TON of oil off their shores recently. It's more than likely there off our shore too, just waiting to be drilled and refined.Who knows, if we were able to reduce our own consumption and have a big find ourselves, WE could export oil to others...what a concept. In fact, our increased production could probably bring the price of oil so far down that there'd be little profit or money in it for anyone and entrepreneurs would look to other fuels as their next big buck.

Now, truthfully, we can't start refining all that oil we have and Canada has overnight, but we've got to start somewhere, and we should. It's not about politics, it's about common sense. Why should we rely on someone else for something when we can produce it (or purchase from friendly countries) now? You can't simply turn the country from oil to alternative fuels overnight either, but obviously advancement needs to be made in those areas as well. If we could kick all the damn lobbyists out of DC then we could probably get some things accomplished. Environmentalists lobby against any sort of oil expansion whatsoever and oil companies lobby against alternative fuels. It's got to stop!!

Sorry - got slightly off topic. My point was that statement by Dems just gets under my skin every time I hear it and NOBODY ever says anything. So consider something said.

A missed opportunity last night...

2008-10-03T15:41:00.001-04:00

Overall I thought both candidates did pretty well on the debate. Sarah definitely did MUCH better than McCain - hopefully McCain will actually prepare this time and be ready next Tuesday...but I don't want to get off topic.

I don't want to write a long review of the debate - each side will say their side won and such is the nature of politics. However, in a brief recap - she spoke direct, glossed over in a very political way when she didn't have all the information she needed, and overall she handled herself pretty admirably. Biden was very factual and threw out a lot of numbers and figures, and assuming they're all true, won on that front. He was cordial and respectful and at one point choked up a bit on a personal hardship issue. I thought he did just fine.

Despite his fact throwing, I think at one point Palin actually called his bluff. He essentially railed against McCain's claim that the surge worked in Iraq and it can work in Afghanistan. He claimed the general in charge of Afghanistan said that the surge used in Iraq simply won't work. Apparently he had said that yesterday morning. Palin fired back that in fact he said a surge could work, but it would need to be customized to Afghanistan's terrain and opposing forces. When it passed back to Biden, he changed topic, with a "Ok, you got me" look because he didn't have a comeback.

I did see one big missed opportunity with Palin last night, and it stemmed from a critism I had with her that she exhibited twice (maybe 3 times...). I don't know who was prepping her with Obama's record, but I can't rationalize why anyone would send her in there with facts about Obama's voting record about seemingly NEGATIVE votes cast, when McCain supposedly (according to Biden) made the exact same votes! You can't critize someone for voting one way, implying your running mate is 'better than that', when in fact he voted the same way. It's just not even believable.

HOWEVER, in the case of the last issue that I can remember, she missed her big opportunity. I'm paraphrasing here, but she said that Obama voted against funding the troops for some vote. Bad Obama. Biden countered with the fact that McCain also voted against because there was a timeline attached to withdrawal. This would seem to be a moot point - she failed to make her case that McCain was "above that". She just let it go. Wasted opportunity. Here's what I would have said:

"You know something, Joe? You're right. John McCain did vote against that bill, and it's for exactly the same reason you just outlined. It had a timeline attached to it. You see, folks, this is what is wrong with the current political state of Washington. You can't vote for something you truly believe in and want without compromising some part of it by voting for something you vehemently disagree with. When something is desired for a good cause, our representatives in Washington jump on it and start throwing in everything under the sun because it might go through. The problem is that it happens on nearly EVERY bill. Not even bills that are assumed to be critically important are left unscathed. Look at the most recent bailout bill that just passed the Senate. It was designed to sweeten the deal for taxpayers, which is good, but under that same umbrella various special interest groups were granted millions of dollars. Now what in the world do those have to do with bailing out the economy? Absolutely nothing. We have a major crisis here, and you can rest assured that when John McCain and I get into that White House, this kind of behavior will be reigned in. As Americans we should not stand for our representatives loading up billis with unnecessary pork just to satisfy a few people. There are people's financial futures at stake here and Washington wants to just slide these things in. It's ridiculous and we won't stand for it."

Now, of course, she would have never said the last few parts because McCain actually voted for the dang bill. I don't know whether he actually agrees with it or not, but he really had no choice. It was going to win anyway, so he had to vote with the majority. If it works, then he was as good as Obama; if it fails then he was as bad as him. It basically accomplished the nullifying of Obama's vote. But still, she could have still made the point I outlined and essentially nullified Biden's claim that McCain voted against troop funding when in fact there was a good reason, and then also that current Washington politics are frustratingly and unnecessarily complicated and pushed her issue of reform.

All in all though, good debate. Palin held her own and did very well. She didn't topple Biden, but she definitely wasn't expected to. I think she did, however, get over her rash of bad publicity lately.

Finally, you can bet that if the House votes today, which I believe they are, it will pass there too. Pelosi surely wouldn't make that mistake again...

Nancy Pelosi And Co. need a reality check...

2008-09-30T01:23:00.001-04:00

So everybody who cares knows by now that the "Bailout Bill" failed in the House today. If you were to not look at the actual numbers and just hear the various Democrats come out with a stern disapproving look on their faces, you'd be inclined to think it was the fault of all "those Republicans". Alas, Ms. Pelosi, you and your friends are a bit...misguided. But kudos to you for making the most of this opportune time to be a fricking partisan as you possibly can. Nice effort there.

I'm not going to go into detail about her silly attempt at convincing congressmen to vote for this bill by bashing the very people whose votes she needed. Why in the world would she even do that? Any reasonably intelligent person would not think to put somedown down right before a vote you hope they cast! It's like having a baseball player choosing between two teams, and the one team tells him he's been playing like crap for the past few years and is essentially good for nothing (and by the way his coach sucks too), and then getting indignant when the player chooses to go to the other team. WTF?? I think she must have wanted the vote to not pass. After all, it's keeping the economy in the forefront of the news, which is good for Obama and bad for McCain. It's not like she actually *cares* about how people's investments are being drained. (For that matter, that probably goes for the lot of them - both sides)

But, I digress. Despite her...speech, I don't think it caused the 12 people to vote the other way. I think there were things in the bill that just couldn't be swallowed. Then again, maybe her rant did offend some people, childish as that reaction may be. Whatever the reason; that didn't upset me personally. It was really what she (and, admittedly, her cohorts) said *after* the vote that got to me.

She said: "...The Democratic side more than lived up to its side of the bargain", then she talked about the numerous 'improvements' to be bill she claimed they were "bipartisan". Then, "WE delivered on our side of the bargain...clearly that message has not been heard by the Republican caucus" The others around her said basically the same thing. It boiled down to: "The President said we need to get it together and push this thing through and we did our part but those lackeys on the other side of the aisle decided to spoil the fun and go against THE PRESIDENT (gasp)." (as if they're always best buds with Mr. P.) There's only one problem with that assessment. It has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PARTISANSHIP. Let's look at the numbers shall we?

Only SIXTY PERCENT of Democrats voted for the plan!! If you didn't know the numbers, you would have assumed from their comments that nearly all of the Democrats voted for the plan. On the other side, 67% of the Republicans voted against, so a third voted for it. Even if you would have gotten the needed votes, couldn't they have come from the Democratic party?!? Why not put any "blame" on them? After all, almost HALF of the Democratic party voted "no". I would think that regardless of the issue, big or small, they have a hell of a lot easier time getting their own party to vote for it than the other party. The one guy even said "60% of the Democratic party voted to put aside their feelings/emotions/experiences and vote for the best interest of their country. 67% of the Republicans decided to put their political ideology ahead of the best interests of our great nation." He makes no mention at all of the 40% that also voted "no". I guess their "no" was not an indication of their "political ideology" and was probably a case of punching the vote card wrong or something... And while he was at it, he didn't bother to acknowledge the 1/3 of the Republicans that actually DID vote his way. One more thing - if they were TRULY united in this fight to do the President's bidding, then they could push this through without any say so of the Republican party, but of course, they're not.

Still, if those were the only numbers you looked at, you could still (weakly) argue that the vote was along partisan division lines, and that divide caused the failed vote, but let's look at the numbers that really matter. The AMERICAN PEOPLE.

60% of Americans think the government would not manage this properly
Over half outright oppose the bailout plan
28% think the government will not do enough to fix the problems that exist
(these were on the ticker during the aforementioned press conference)

If you can't get the majority of the country to be in on this, then why in the hell would you expect our elected representatives to be on board? Droves and droves of people are hammering their representatives and threatening to pull their support in the next election if they vote for this thing as it is now. I know it's not going to happen, but if the greedy little fingers up there could just keep their hands out of the cookie jars and actually try to do something positive with no side-benefits for themselves, then this thing would go through in a heartbeat. Can you believe they're putting earmarks on this thing??

Well, whenever it does go through, and rest assured SOMETHING will go through eventually, I hope it's by a bit larger of a margin than 51%/49%. And if it is just that slim, then I suppose half the country will just have to get over it.