Anyway, I'm really proud of Paul and he is an inspiration to anyone who thinks they can't do it.
Thursday, October 26, 2006
Way to go Paul
I'm posting a link to a story about my buddy Paul. Paul and I go way back to the mid eighties as in the Mick's Quail Inn eighties. About two years ago Paul and I started riding together. I wish I could keep up with him on his schedule and do some of these events but a)I just can't keep up with the training and b)I damned near drowned doing the Spud Triathlon and have been gun shy ever since. I did finish but I was dead last in the swimming event. I'm just not a strong open water swimmer. I can swim laps until the cows come home but I get in the open water and I freeze up. I'll stick to running and biking, thank you very little.
Anyway, I'm really proud of Paul and he is an inspiration to anyone who thinks they can't do it.
Story Here
Anyway, I'm really proud of Paul and he is an inspiration to anyone who thinks they can't do it.
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Bodymore
Baltimore has been a liberal stronghold for over 150 years, with democrats dominating every facet of its government. No Republican has been elected to the state legislature from the city in more than 50 years. No Republican has served on the City Council in more than 60 years. With that kind of rule, shouldn't Baltimore be a liberal utopian city providing quality education, neighborhoods free from crime and free health insurance for all? Shouldn't they be a beacon of economic light for both manufacturing and service jobs providing some of the highest wages in the country? The reality is quite the contrary.
Since the 70s the city's approach to their economy has emphasized a state sponsored capitalism that relies almost entirely on federal and state subsidies as opposed to market investments as the key to economic growth. Annapolis and the federal government provide a full 40 percent of the cities funding. Due to this kind of reliance, Baltimore has lost control of its once city controlled entities such as the jails, the courts, the port administration, the airport and the community college. Throughout the 90s, while other formerly industrial cities saw renewal, Baltimore's economy sagged, losing 58,000 jobs to the suburbs.
Education is no better. The high school graduation rate is an abyssmal sub 40 percent, worse than every other city save Detroit. State education officials recently labeled six Baltimore City public schools as persistently dangerous. Unfortunately, Annapolis democrats appear unwilling to reform the schools as they approved a measure to delay state takeover of the 11 worst schools and overrode Governor Ehrlich's veto of said legislation.
City Crime Rankings rank Baltimore second again only to Detroit among the most dangerous cities. In 2005, there were 269 murders in Baltimore. Although this is lower than its 1993 high of 353 murders, the current murder rate is nearly seven times the national rate.
For a party that prides itself on providing health care for all , a 2003 study showed that Baltimore has massive amounts of uninsured and and long delays for public assistance. The study, sponsored by the Open Society Institute-Baltimore (OSI-Baltimore) and the Baltimore Community Health Consortial concluded that more than 80% of Baltimore's low-income, poor and homeless families reported being uninsured.
The mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley has had six years to grasp at least one of the aforementioned quality of life issues and attempt to make a name for himself with democrats and republicans. The truth is Mayor O'Malley has been making promises to do for Maryland what he was unable to achieve during his six year run in Baltimore and democrats from Baltimore, PG and Montgomery County are ready to hand this man the governorship. While Governor Ehrlich's record during his short run as governor may be far from remarkable, it is far from damnable considering he is up against an uncompromising liberal general assembly who is more concerned with recapturing their political hold over Maryland. Are we ready to return to the one party rule of government that has proven time and again that it can't provide an economy or healthcare or a life devoid of crime or quality education?
At what point will liberals begin to question their own policies? Show me a city that is so historically dominated by any other party and fails so miserably, as our own inner cities have failed, and I swear I would NEVER vote that party again. Ever!
Since the 70s the city's approach to their economy has emphasized a state sponsored capitalism that relies almost entirely on federal and state subsidies as opposed to market investments as the key to economic growth. Annapolis and the federal government provide a full 40 percent of the cities funding. Due to this kind of reliance, Baltimore has lost control of its once city controlled entities such as the jails, the courts, the port administration, the airport and the community college. Throughout the 90s, while other formerly industrial cities saw renewal, Baltimore's economy sagged, losing 58,000 jobs to the suburbs.
Education is no better. The high school graduation rate is an abyssmal sub 40 percent, worse than every other city save Detroit. State education officials recently labeled six Baltimore City public schools as persistently dangerous. Unfortunately, Annapolis democrats appear unwilling to reform the schools as they approved a measure to delay state takeover of the 11 worst schools and overrode Governor Ehrlich's veto of said legislation.
City Crime Rankings rank Baltimore second again only to Detroit among the most dangerous cities. In 2005, there were 269 murders in Baltimore. Although this is lower than its 1993 high of 353 murders, the current murder rate is nearly seven times the national rate.
For a party that prides itself on providing health care for all , a 2003 study showed that Baltimore has massive amounts of uninsured and and long delays for public assistance. The study, sponsored by the Open Society Institute-Baltimore (OSI-Baltimore) and the Baltimore Community Health Consortial concluded that more than 80% of Baltimore's low-income, poor and homeless families reported being uninsured.
The mayor of Baltimore, Martin O'Malley has had six years to grasp at least one of the aforementioned quality of life issues and attempt to make a name for himself with democrats and republicans. The truth is Mayor O'Malley has been making promises to do for Maryland what he was unable to achieve during his six year run in Baltimore and democrats from Baltimore, PG and Montgomery County are ready to hand this man the governorship. While Governor Ehrlich's record during his short run as governor may be far from remarkable, it is far from damnable considering he is up against an uncompromising liberal general assembly who is more concerned with recapturing their political hold over Maryland. Are we ready to return to the one party rule of government that has proven time and again that it can't provide an economy or healthcare or a life devoid of crime or quality education?
At what point will liberals begin to question their own policies? Show me a city that is so historically dominated by any other party and fails so miserably, as our own inner cities have failed, and I swear I would NEVER vote that party again. Ever!
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Kite Tube
Okay, so I'm posting two blogs today because I've been so far behind. I get tons of watersport catalogs and on the back of one was an ad for a tube that you pull behind a boat that actually flies. It was called the Sportstuff Kite Tube and it had been named the sports product of the year. I was intrigued but something about the ad looked phony or doctored. The next day I went to the company's website and was able to see people using and flying the kite tube. I've been so bored with regular tubing that I rarely did it anymore and had spent the past few years only riding wakeboards. Needless to say, I was hooked and bought one on the spot.
While at the lake, the CPSC recalled the tube because of 2 deaths and 39 injuries attributed to the kite tube. I'm not surprised in the least. In the wrong hands, this tube is dangerous and I could easily see deadly. Does that mean, I'm the right hands? No it doesn't. However, I can tell you that I have fallen off of tubes being pulled behind a jet boat doing 50+ mph in a turn. Its not fun and it down right hurts. Anyone who has ridden a tube knows that in a turn the tube is actually going faster than the boat. I have also face planted on a wake board so hard that I was unconscious for a brief spell and that was only at about 25 mph. My point is water will hurt you at any speed, when you factor 
height into the equation, disastrous results can occur. The most important thing that we learned from watching the instructional dvd was; there is no difference in ride between 1 foot off the water or 20. Our intentions from the beginning were to keep the flying heights at a minimum. With that in mind, we rode the tube for 7 days straight at the lake (logging well over 12 hours total ride time), rode it on the river twice, and have had 11 different riders, all with no injuries. We have had riders who have gone over 10 feet, I'd even venture to say we have had on a few occasions hit twenty feet (some caught on tape). Fortunately, we always have slowed the boat down so the tube comes back down. We're not always going to be able to prevent someone from reaching undesirable heights but as with any watersport its a risk that a person must be willing to take before deciding on riding one of these things. If you decide to take that risk, once you figure out how to control the tube, you'll know why it was named the product of the year. I believe it to be the most fun I've ever had on the water. I won't be returning my kite tube. The first picture above I believe to be Sheri on the kite tube (skull and crossbones wouldn't imply any danger would they? Nah!). The next is of my two goofy boys who donned wy waxing bonnets while I was waxing the boat and the third is of Isabel at the lake. The latter two have nothing to do with the tube, they're just some of my favorites.
Summer 2006
Where does the summer go? I'm not sure who has more things going on; me or the rest of the world. I've been chomping at the bit to write about such things as Hezbollah, the War, the upcoming elections, and most recently the ousting of Joe Lieberman. I just have not been able to sit down an put my thoughts to keyoard. You see, my work decided that my 13 years experience with debits and credits, FASB Statements, commercial audits, budget execution, and financial forecasting endowed me with the skillset necessary for planning an organizational event (company picnic) for 400+ Army Civilians and Soldiers. This event was planned for late June and as it turned out, it was held the very first day following a period of 4 days of monsoon-like rain. As if that wasn't enough, the week prior to the picnic I was (un)lucky enough to find myself spending a week in training for Lean Six Sigma (LSS) for Service completely isolated from my computer.
Thankfully, June has come and gone. The picnic is over and thanks to an additional week of intense LSS Training (lodged between a week at the lake and a week at the beach no less) I am now a certified Lean Six Sigma Green Belt. Let's see how far that gets me. The one thing regarding the organizational picnic I wanted to mention and that I was most proud of was I invited OIF/OEF (Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom) Medical Hold Soldiers and their families from Walter Reed to attend the picnic. We had 3 wounded soldiers and 6 family members attend. I think the weather leading up to the picnic made many soldiers and family members reluctant to sign up. The ones that did come made the picnic special for everyone and more importantly earned me some accolades with our CG (commanding general) and the COO (Chief Operating Officer). Of course six months from now they won't know my name but who cares.
The organizational move to San Antonio, Texas is still on and slated for sometime in 2010. BRAC Law says we must be in SA by October 2011. I'm not really sure what that means (are they going to arrest somebody or something?) but it kind of reinforces the fact that the organization is moving. Sheri and I have scheduled a trip to San Antonio this November. We feel it would be in our best interest to at least go check the area out that we wouldn't move to when the time comes to make the decision.
Thankfully, June has come and gone. The picnic is over and thanks to an additional week of intense LSS Training (lodged between a week at the lake and a week at the beach no less) I am now a certified Lean Six Sigma Green Belt. Let's see how far that gets me. The one thing regarding the organizational picnic I wanted to mention and that I was most proud of was I invited OIF/OEF (Operations Iraqi and Enduring Freedom) Medical Hold Soldiers and their families from Walter Reed to attend the picnic. We had 3 wounded soldiers and 6 family members attend. I think the weather leading up to the picnic made many soldiers and family members reluctant to sign up. The ones that did come made the picnic special for everyone and more importantly earned me some accolades with our CG (commanding general) and the COO (Chief Operating Officer). Of course six months from now they won't know my name but who cares.
The organizational move to San Antonio, Texas is still on and slated for sometime in 2010. BRAC Law says we must be in SA by October 2011. I'm not really sure what that means (are they going to arrest somebody or something?) but it kind of reinforces the fact that the organization is moving. Sheri and I have scheduled a trip to San Antonio this November. We feel it would be in our best interest to at least go check the area out that we wouldn't move to when the time comes to make the decision.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Check-up from the Neck-up
Give psychiatry enough time and they'll find a name and a "underlying" cause for just about any behavior exhibited by modern man or modern me for that matter. I actually enjoy being a hypochondriac when it comes to my mental health. There's an article showing up in today's news websites about Intermittent Explosive Disorder (IED) that really makes me angry and as soon as I finish picking up the pieces from my shattered keyboard, I will continue.
By definition, intermittent explosive disorder involves multiple outbursts that are way out of proportion to the situation. These angry outbursts often include threats or aggressive actions and property damage. Woot! Woot! Woot! Score two points for the home team. If anyone is keeping score, I now have OCD with ADD topped off by IED (all self diagnosed of course).
Must they diagnose every behavior? The untenable answer is yes, they must - its job security at is finest. I guess the long and short of it is; if they don't diagnose new disorders, they won't get new patients and if they don't get new patients they have no one to prescribe their meds to. Here is what this study all boils down to; "Treatment with antidepressants, including those that target serotonin receptors in the brain, is often helpful, along with behavior therapy akin to anger management". This is what they do! They invent a name for a blanket mental behavior that covers a large amount of the population, they tell you its not your fault (most likely it is your fault), and that they can control it with meds and therapy (covered by most insurances no less).
What's worse is when they convince parents that their children need meds and therapy, thus creating new generations dependent upon psychiatry, a dependence they will carry into their adult lives, ever creating the need for more psychiatrists.
More from the study; "The findings also confirm that for most people, the difficulties associated with the disorder begin during childhood or adolescence, and they often have a profound and ongoing impact on the person's life." Jennifer Hartstein, a psychologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said she had just diagnosed the disorder in a 16-year-old boy."In most situations, he is relatively affable, calm and very responsible," she said. But in stressful situations at home, he "explodes and tears apart his room, throws things at other people" to the point that his parents have called the police." Execuse me Ms Harstein, but what on Gods Green Earth does a teenager have to be angry about, anyway? If the parents are completely absolved from the causes of this kids behavior, what could possibly be the "stressful situations" at home? He has to take the garbage out? Cleaning his room? Being home before midnight? I don't get it but then I'm not a pyschiatrist either.
The reality is that most likely the parents aren't absolved from responsibility, but then how is this a problem for the child? When it comes to parents taking their kids to psychiatrists, its not the behavior of the child that is the problem, its a problem the parents have with the child's behavior. Why would anyone screw with a child's mind by taking them to therapy or giving them mind altering drugs to control a behavior that they the parents created in the first place? Some would argue because it works. If masking the behavior is one's interpretation of working then I guess it does. I don't consider masking the problem as a success, its but a mere band-aid to future behavioral problems, therapies, clinics, meds, etc.
I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise, I believe him to be another Hollywood type who has confused fame with wisdom. However, I do think he nailed it when he was on the Today show. In a nutshell, he criticized psychiatry and drew attention to its genuine flaws and failings. Tom said that psychiatry had a long history of abusing people, including electroshock. He said, “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” He said that antidepressants can only “mask the problem” and that “these drugs are very dangerous.” He called psychiatry a “pseudoscience” and suggested that there are better approaches.
You don't have to be a Scientologist to agree with him although the media made it out that way. I don't think any Hollywood star would go on a national news show and call out his interviewer as uneducated on the subject if he himself weren't educated somewhat. I actually believe TC was right, about all of it.
By definition, intermittent explosive disorder involves multiple outbursts that are way out of proportion to the situation. These angry outbursts often include threats or aggressive actions and property damage. Woot! Woot! Woot! Score two points for the home team. If anyone is keeping score, I now have OCD with ADD topped off by IED (all self diagnosed of course).
Must they diagnose every behavior? The untenable answer is yes, they must - its job security at is finest. I guess the long and short of it is; if they don't diagnose new disorders, they won't get new patients and if they don't get new patients they have no one to prescribe their meds to. Here is what this study all boils down to; "Treatment with antidepressants, including those that target serotonin receptors in the brain, is often helpful, along with behavior therapy akin to anger management". This is what they do! They invent a name for a blanket mental behavior that covers a large amount of the population, they tell you its not your fault (most likely it is your fault), and that they can control it with meds and therapy (covered by most insurances no less).
What's worse is when they convince parents that their children need meds and therapy, thus creating new generations dependent upon psychiatry, a dependence they will carry into their adult lives, ever creating the need for more psychiatrists.
More from the study; "The findings also confirm that for most people, the difficulties associated with the disorder begin during childhood or adolescence, and they often have a profound and ongoing impact on the person's life." Jennifer Hartstein, a psychologist at Montefiore Medical Center in New York, said she had just diagnosed the disorder in a 16-year-old boy."In most situations, he is relatively affable, calm and very responsible," she said. But in stressful situations at home, he "explodes and tears apart his room, throws things at other people" to the point that his parents have called the police." Execuse me Ms Harstein, but what on Gods Green Earth does a teenager have to be angry about, anyway? If the parents are completely absolved from the causes of this kids behavior, what could possibly be the "stressful situations" at home? He has to take the garbage out? Cleaning his room? Being home before midnight? I don't get it but then I'm not a pyschiatrist either.
The reality is that most likely the parents aren't absolved from responsibility, but then how is this a problem for the child? When it comes to parents taking their kids to psychiatrists, its not the behavior of the child that is the problem, its a problem the parents have with the child's behavior. Why would anyone screw with a child's mind by taking them to therapy or giving them mind altering drugs to control a behavior that they the parents created in the first place? Some would argue because it works. If masking the behavior is one's interpretation of working then I guess it does. I don't consider masking the problem as a success, its but a mere band-aid to future behavioral problems, therapies, clinics, meds, etc.
I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise, I believe him to be another Hollywood type who has confused fame with wisdom. However, I do think he nailed it when he was on the Today show. In a nutshell, he criticized psychiatry and drew attention to its genuine flaws and failings. Tom said that psychiatry had a long history of abusing people, including electroshock. He said, “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” He said that antidepressants can only “mask the problem” and that “these drugs are very dangerous.” He called psychiatry a “pseudoscience” and suggested that there are better approaches.
You don't have to be a Scientologist to agree with him although the media made it out that way. I don't think any Hollywood star would go on a national news show and call out his interviewer as uneducated on the subject if he himself weren't educated somewhat. I actually believe TC was right, about all of it.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Au Pair Mon Frere?
You may or may not know that are household has grown by one during the month of April. We have enlisted the services of an Au Pair. He’s a young Swede named Sven with blond hair, blue eyes, muscular build about 6”1. Come to think of it, I don’t know how were going to pay for him now that Sheri has decided to stay home full time and have an au pair.
All seriousness aside (although you can request male au pairs) we have selected a 23 year old Bosnian Girl named Asmira. Only into her fourth week, I can say that she has surpassed all of our expectations. She has taken real well to the kids and the kids have taken well to her. Cooper is a little more reserved as he is in school all day and not around her like Ethan and Isabel but I think he’ll come around once school is out. He’ll really come around once he finds out she’ll wait on him hand and foot. I’ve been trying to break her of that habit because you know how kids are; give them an inch and they’ll work you like a dog.
I guess if that’s the worst she could do, I should be pretty thankful. I just want to make sure that my boys don’t treat her like some fancy new toy they can take advantage of. “Get me this, get me that, I’m hungry, change the channel.”
We all get the added benefit of the cultural exchange as well. She sings to Isabel in her language, she has taught Ethan how to say hello in Bosnian and she has cooked a Bosnian meal for us. She taught me how to count to ten in Bosnian and of course, I have taught her to count to 400 in satellite. You know 333 is MTV, 206 is ESPN, 360 is Fox News. I have also extolled the virtues of some of America’s most technological advances as well, such as (angels singing) TIVO. Damn if I didn’t catch her fast forwarding through the commercials on American Idol last week. My work here is done.
Asmira’s best friend Almira is an Au Pair for a family that lives just north of Baltimore. This past weekend I drove her halfway to meet the other host family so she could spend the weekend with Almira. On the drive up we were talking and I was saying how television is a great place for her to pick up more English skills. She told me that she has learned a lot from Ethan in just the short time she has been with us. That’s fine but the day she tells me that a wight bulb is burnt out or she weally weally wikes something is the day that she may be learning a bit much from Ethan.
This weekend Asmira and Almira are off to Atlantic City. I still can't believe they're going; they leave Saturday evening at 6 pm and return Sunday morning at 9 am. Apparently, these are pretty common trips where you gamble all night and come home. When I told Asmira I couldn't believe she was going, she asked me if I used to do things like that when I was her age. I was puzzled and I said what are you talking about, I am your age. Then it dawned on me, no I'm not her age and yes I DID do stuff like that when I was 23. I'm almost an entire generation ahead of her for god's sake! It only took me 4 weeks to figure it out but boy did it hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't feel that old.
All seriousness aside (although you can request male au pairs) we have selected a 23 year old Bosnian Girl named Asmira. Only into her fourth week, I can say that she has surpassed all of our expectations. She has taken real well to the kids and the kids have taken well to her. Cooper is a little more reserved as he is in school all day and not around her like Ethan and Isabel but I think he’ll come around once school is out. He’ll really come around once he finds out she’ll wait on him hand and foot. I’ve been trying to break her of that habit because you know how kids are; give them an inch and they’ll work you like a dog.
I guess if that’s the worst she could do, I should be pretty thankful. I just want to make sure that my boys don’t treat her like some fancy new toy they can take advantage of. “Get me this, get me that, I’m hungry, change the channel.”
We all get the added benefit of the cultural exchange as well. She sings to Isabel in her language, she has taught Ethan how to say hello in Bosnian and she has cooked a Bosnian meal for us. She taught me how to count to ten in Bosnian and of course, I have taught her to count to 400 in satellite. You know 333 is MTV, 206 is ESPN, 360 is Fox News. I have also extolled the virtues of some of America’s most technological advances as well, such as (angels singing) TIVO. Damn if I didn’t catch her fast forwarding through the commercials on American Idol last week. My work here is done.
Asmira’s best friend Almira is an Au Pair for a family that lives just north of Baltimore. This past weekend I drove her halfway to meet the other host family so she could spend the weekend with Almira. On the drive up we were talking and I was saying how television is a great place for her to pick up more English skills. She told me that she has learned a lot from Ethan in just the short time she has been with us. That’s fine but the day she tells me that a wight bulb is burnt out or she weally weally wikes something is the day that she may be learning a bit much from Ethan.
This weekend Asmira and Almira are off to Atlantic City. I still can't believe they're going; they leave Saturday evening at 6 pm and return Sunday morning at 9 am. Apparently, these are pretty common trips where you gamble all night and come home. When I told Asmira I couldn't believe she was going, she asked me if I used to do things like that when I was her age. I was puzzled and I said what are you talking about, I am your age. Then it dawned on me, no I'm not her age and yes I DID do stuff like that when I was 23. I'm almost an entire generation ahead of her for god's sake! It only took me 4 weeks to figure it out but boy did it hit me like a ton of bricks. I don't feel that old.
Friday, April 21, 2006
The Federalist
I can't believe it, for fun I actually bought and am reading the Federalist Papers. If you know your history you know that the Federalist Papers were really just an adverting campaign promoting the then new Constitution. I kind of always took for granted (I was so lazy in school) that the Constitution has always just been there but back in the 1780s, the states, all 13 of them, particularly New York, were scared to death of the Constitution. They were afraid that the freedoms that they had fought and died for were going to be taken away by the new Constitution. Along comes John Jay, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison who under the pseudonym "Publius" start a barrage of letter writing to sway public opinion and eventually ratify the Constitution. Above and beyond the respected statesmen of the day, these three men's philosophical legacy has stood the test of time for over 200 years and could not be more relevant today then ever.
I'm only into Federalist Paper #6, but let me lay some passages on you that I find truly remarkable. Think about each and how they could apply today;
"For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."
Proselytes meaning converts (I had to look that up).
"The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them. "
How genius is that? The pride of men will not let them think rationally or change their opinion. John Jay was brilliant.
More John Jay (they being foreign governments);
"If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government, or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves. "
Are we not a nation split over what to do about evil in the world? Is the divide in our country over the war not relevant to what Jay is saying?
Even more John Jay;
"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers"
Can I get an "Amen Brother"!
Have I not said this time and time again? Our forefathers knew that some individual rights had to be sacrificed for the betterment of us as a whole. That we don't exist as individuals but more as members of a society. They instilled a basic level of rights that all people should have to enjoy a free life. The individual rights added later only seek to diminish us as a society.
If you can't tell, I am enjoying reading these although the pace is slow. Some words I have no clue what they mean so I have to stop and look them up. Sometimes one sentence can be a large paragraph and I lose what they are trying to say by them referring to the former and then referring to the latter. Generally speaking that's okay but sometimes the former may be an idea three or four lines above in the sentence. I end up going back and rereading to try to get their point.
Should I ever finish, my next read will be the Anti-Federalist Papers. Woo-hoo, sounds like a "barrel of monkeys" doesn't it?
I'm only into Federalist Paper #6, but let me lay some passages on you that I find truly remarkable. Think about each and how they could apply today;
"For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution."
Proselytes meaning converts (I had to look that up).
"The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them. "
How genius is that? The pride of men will not let them think rationally or change their opinion. John Jay was brilliant.
More John Jay (they being foreign governments);
"If they see that our national government is efficient and well administered, our trade prudently regulated, our militia properly organized and disciplined, our resources and finances discreetly managed, our credit re-established, our people free, contented, and united, they will be much more disposed to cultivate our friendship than provoke our resentment. If, on the other hand, they find us either destitute of an effectual government, or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves. "
Are we not a nation split over what to do about evil in the world? Is the divide in our country over the war not relevant to what Jay is saying?
Even more John Jay;
"Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers"
Can I get an "Amen Brother"!
Have I not said this time and time again? Our forefathers knew that some individual rights had to be sacrificed for the betterment of us as a whole. That we don't exist as individuals but more as members of a society. They instilled a basic level of rights that all people should have to enjoy a free life. The individual rights added later only seek to diminish us as a society.
If you can't tell, I am enjoying reading these although the pace is slow. Some words I have no clue what they mean so I have to stop and look them up. Sometimes one sentence can be a large paragraph and I lose what they are trying to say by them referring to the former and then referring to the latter. Generally speaking that's okay but sometimes the former may be an idea three or four lines above in the sentence. I end up going back and rereading to try to get their point.
Should I ever finish, my next read will be the Anti-Federalist Papers. Woo-hoo, sounds like a "barrel of monkeys" doesn't it?
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
Insurance
Healthcare in this country is too expensive. Republicans know it and democrats know it. The argument here, as is any political issue, is what can be done about it. Yes, managed care (your HMOs, your PPOs, your POSs) was a Reaganistic initiative which promised lower costs (which it did) but over the years it has been bastardized by both parties who are owned by the healthcare lobbying groups. Of course this all flows back to the need for campaign finance reform, but I digress.
The democratic solution is to have someone else pay for it, their employer or the government, anyone but themselves, because every democrat knows they don't want to pay for it because it's too expensive.
Republicans know it's too expensive to and we can tell this because, if they're an employee, they're happy to have the company pay for it or, if they run a business, they're shifting some cost to employees and/or changing to cheaper plans and/or doing without. The summary is this; democrats: Who's going to pay for it? Republicans: This costs too much. Same problem, what do we do about it?
Before addressing any solution, the question that begs to be answered is why is healthcare so expensive? One large reason is we are pathetic consumers of our healthcare. Most of us know where the best place to go to buy shoes, groceries, clothing, etc is. Does anyone know who the doctor is that gives the cheapest physical is? Probably not. We don't shop around for the best deal in medical care like we shop around for everything else because we're conditioned to paying a premium plus a co-pay and we have no incentive to look for a better deal. This has led to us a system that is rife with waste and abuse. Waste in that the doctors\hospitals try to collect on everything imaginable for a hospital stay or an office visit and they charge the maximum that the insurer will allow regardless of what the actual cost of the treatment is. Abuse in that we as consumers do not take a more active role in taking care of ourselves (extra sour cream on that burrito please or I’ll exercise tomorrow) or we go to the doctor or emergency room for every scraped knee or sniffle. “Guilty!”
Lasik Eye Surgery is a medical procedure that has operated completely outside the confines of medical insurance. In its early days this procedure was about $5,000 an eye with so-so results. Currently, two eyes can be done for under $2,500 with guaranteed results. In essence, this medical procedure, subjected only to free market forces, resulted in lower costs and better results. This is much like the world of plastic surgery but since I’ve never had a boob job (at least not yet) eye surgery just seem to fit. Since there are no “deep pockets” paying the bills and cost has become the overall driving consumer factor, providers are forced to look for ways to be more competitive, i.e. lower costs or offering better technology and better results. Does anyone know of an insurance bound medical procedure that can make the same claim?
Imagine (you know I like to live in a hypothetical world) if there was no health insurance and everyone had to pay out of pocket with our meager paychecks. Would doctors still be able to charge $100 for a 10-minute office visit, or would people either stop/postpone visits or shop around for someone charging less, thus putting the $100 doctor out of business? Would hospitals be able to charge $40 for a Tylenol, or would they have to lower their costs to a realistic figure because people would demand they do so or go elsewhere? We allow these outrageous and ever growing costs because "we" think we're not really paying them, the insurance company is paying them. And whenever the providers raise their rates, as they often do, then the insurance outfits just raise their rates, and we pay it because we are too complacent to say enough is enough (where are our leaders, our rebels, our patriots!).
Am I saying the elimination of all health insurance is the answer? Absolutely not. Heck, Cooper’s surgeries and medical care was well over $500,000 to date, 99 percent of which was paid by insurance. I do think we will always need some type of catastrophic coverage for these situations. However, I do believe the costs would be significantly lower if some of the burdens imposed by insurance were removed. My point in all this is the democratic solution of getting more people health insurance coverage plays right into the hands of the medical profession and the insurance companies. Do you think the insurance companies DON’T want to collect more premiums and up their profits, do you think the doctors DON’T want more people coming in with a runny nose? I think not. Oil company executives have to be scratching their heads thinking “how can we be more like the insurance companies”?
Health insurance through my company costs $11,098 per annum. My company pays $7,800 and I pay $3,298. Pretty good deal for me when compared to what my employer pays. I like to think that if our doctor’s offices were no longer allowed to bill the insurance companies and had to answer to my wallet, costs would go down. I believe I could be a better consumer if a significant portion of that money was given back to me and the rest went to some type of catastrophic insurance policy. Maybe I’m just stuck in the hypothetical. Maybe the democrats are right; that I’m better off as an indentured servant. God, I hope not.
The democratic solution is to have someone else pay for it, their employer or the government, anyone but themselves, because every democrat knows they don't want to pay for it because it's too expensive.
Republicans know it's too expensive to and we can tell this because, if they're an employee, they're happy to have the company pay for it or, if they run a business, they're shifting some cost to employees and/or changing to cheaper plans and/or doing without. The summary is this; democrats: Who's going to pay for it? Republicans: This costs too much. Same problem, what do we do about it?
Before addressing any solution, the question that begs to be answered is why is healthcare so expensive? One large reason is we are pathetic consumers of our healthcare. Most of us know where the best place to go to buy shoes, groceries, clothing, etc is. Does anyone know who the doctor is that gives the cheapest physical is? Probably not. We don't shop around for the best deal in medical care like we shop around for everything else because we're conditioned to paying a premium plus a co-pay and we have no incentive to look for a better deal. This has led to us a system that is rife with waste and abuse. Waste in that the doctors\hospitals try to collect on everything imaginable for a hospital stay or an office visit and they charge the maximum that the insurer will allow regardless of what the actual cost of the treatment is. Abuse in that we as consumers do not take a more active role in taking care of ourselves (extra sour cream on that burrito please or I’ll exercise tomorrow) or we go to the doctor or emergency room for every scraped knee or sniffle. “Guilty!”
Lasik Eye Surgery is a medical procedure that has operated completely outside the confines of medical insurance. In its early days this procedure was about $5,000 an eye with so-so results. Currently, two eyes can be done for under $2,500 with guaranteed results. In essence, this medical procedure, subjected only to free market forces, resulted in lower costs and better results. This is much like the world of plastic surgery but since I’ve never had a boob job (at least not yet) eye surgery just seem to fit. Since there are no “deep pockets” paying the bills and cost has become the overall driving consumer factor, providers are forced to look for ways to be more competitive, i.e. lower costs or offering better technology and better results. Does anyone know of an insurance bound medical procedure that can make the same claim?
Imagine (you know I like to live in a hypothetical world) if there was no health insurance and everyone had to pay out of pocket with our meager paychecks. Would doctors still be able to charge $100 for a 10-minute office visit, or would people either stop/postpone visits or shop around for someone charging less, thus putting the $100 doctor out of business? Would hospitals be able to charge $40 for a Tylenol, or would they have to lower their costs to a realistic figure because people would demand they do so or go elsewhere? We allow these outrageous and ever growing costs because "we" think we're not really paying them, the insurance company is paying them. And whenever the providers raise their rates, as they often do, then the insurance outfits just raise their rates, and we pay it because we are too complacent to say enough is enough (where are our leaders, our rebels, our patriots!).
Am I saying the elimination of all health insurance is the answer? Absolutely not. Heck, Cooper’s surgeries and medical care was well over $500,000 to date, 99 percent of which was paid by insurance. I do think we will always need some type of catastrophic coverage for these situations. However, I do believe the costs would be significantly lower if some of the burdens imposed by insurance were removed. My point in all this is the democratic solution of getting more people health insurance coverage plays right into the hands of the medical profession and the insurance companies. Do you think the insurance companies DON’T want to collect more premiums and up their profits, do you think the doctors DON’T want more people coming in with a runny nose? I think not. Oil company executives have to be scratching their heads thinking “how can we be more like the insurance companies”?
Health insurance through my company costs $11,098 per annum. My company pays $7,800 and I pay $3,298. Pretty good deal for me when compared to what my employer pays. I like to think that if our doctor’s offices were no longer allowed to bill the insurance companies and had to answer to my wallet, costs would go down. I believe I could be a better consumer if a significant portion of that money was given back to me and the rest went to some type of catastrophic insurance policy. Maybe I’m just stuck in the hypothetical. Maybe the democrats are right; that I’m better off as an indentured servant. God, I hope not.
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
One Party Dominance?
Today's "Howard Dean" style of politics leads people to believe that one man or one party is responsible for the ills of our nation. Tell a lie enough times, eventually it becomes the truth. The democrats have found that it is easier to deceptively convince people how bad the republicans are than it is to convince people that their way is better. Their whole campaign strategy is and has been "vote for me, I'm not a republican."
Luckily, that is not how American politics work. The two party system currently in place provides checks and balances so that one sector of citizenry doesn’t end up dominating the political system. The conservative Republicans try to get your vote by appealing to your head. They tell you that you and the majority can have it better than you would if liberal Democrats ran the country for very long. They tell you Democrats prefer "peace through compromising treaties," as opposed to "peace through military strength." They tell you America has been morally declining because of the liberals' socially engineered permissive society, where anything goes." They tell you the liberals want to take guns from everyone in order to "appear" tough on crime, when all we really need are old-fashioned criminal laws making it safer for all law-abiding citizens. Upon hearing this, a majority of Americans would think in their heads that the conservatives were right and would cast their votes for conservative Republicans. Liberal Democrats try to get your vote by appealing to your heart. They tell you that you and the majority are behind the eight ball and the rich are richer thanks to you. They tell you government would be in your bedrooms, telling you what you could and couldn't do legally in a sexual relationship, if the conservative Republicans had their way. They tell you Republicans would arm America with enough nuclear weapons to kill the whole world hundreds of times over.
The majority of Americans seem to feel they are somewhere in between, voting for liberals sometimes and conservatives sometimes, thus giving America a mixture of government working at cross purposes.
Liberalism by its definition is a philosophy that advocates the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. While honorable in its aim, the results of liberalism have been to the detriment of society as a whole. Does the ability to go out in the streets and attack your nation's policies, or betray your oaths to your government or spouse make us a better country? Liberals believe that these individual freedoms are what's most important and that we are better off as a country with freedoms of abortion, divorce, no regard for religion. That we are better off without the blanket of moral judgments that religion imposes. While I think that individual freedoms are great, the reality is that with rare exception we don't exist as individuals. We exist as members of a society, and being a member of a society requires that some individual freedoms be sacrificed for the betterment of the society. The Founding Fathers understood that, and enumerated a solid set of freedoms that every American should have for a good quality of life. It seems to me that they were on the right track as many of the "freedoms" added more recently have done little more than drag society down.
Luckily, that is not how American politics work. The two party system currently in place provides checks and balances so that one sector of citizenry doesn’t end up dominating the political system. The conservative Republicans try to get your vote by appealing to your head. They tell you that you and the majority can have it better than you would if liberal Democrats ran the country for very long. They tell you Democrats prefer "peace through compromising treaties," as opposed to "peace through military strength." They tell you America has been morally declining because of the liberals' socially engineered permissive society, where anything goes." They tell you the liberals want to take guns from everyone in order to "appear" tough on crime, when all we really need are old-fashioned criminal laws making it safer for all law-abiding citizens. Upon hearing this, a majority of Americans would think in their heads that the conservatives were right and would cast their votes for conservative Republicans. Liberal Democrats try to get your vote by appealing to your heart. They tell you that you and the majority are behind the eight ball and the rich are richer thanks to you. They tell you government would be in your bedrooms, telling you what you could and couldn't do legally in a sexual relationship, if the conservative Republicans had their way. They tell you Republicans would arm America with enough nuclear weapons to kill the whole world hundreds of times over.
The majority of Americans seem to feel they are somewhere in between, voting for liberals sometimes and conservatives sometimes, thus giving America a mixture of government working at cross purposes.
Liberalism by its definition is a philosophy that advocates the freedom of the individual and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties. While honorable in its aim, the results of liberalism have been to the detriment of society as a whole. Does the ability to go out in the streets and attack your nation's policies, or betray your oaths to your government or spouse make us a better country? Liberals believe that these individual freedoms are what's most important and that we are better off as a country with freedoms of abortion, divorce, no regard for religion. That we are better off without the blanket of moral judgments that religion imposes. While I think that individual freedoms are great, the reality is that with rare exception we don't exist as individuals. We exist as members of a society, and being a member of a society requires that some individual freedoms be sacrificed for the betterment of the society. The Founding Fathers understood that, and enumerated a solid set of freedoms that every American should have for a good quality of life. It seems to me that they were on the right track as many of the "freedoms" added more recently have done little more than drag society down.
Thursday, March 09, 2006
Swim Lessons
I guess it’s a good thing but it still kind of drives me nuts. The two boys will not get undressed in the locker room if there are other gentlemen around. It makes for a slow time in trying to get them dressed after their swim lessons. How do you teach a kid when it’s okay to be naked and when it isn’t okay to be naked in front of a stranger? I guess locker room etiquette will have to come when they are a little older. I do try to convince them that as long as I or their mother are there (you know Sheri likes to change in the men’s locker room too) its okay. I even said to them Monday after lessons “I’ll take my swim suit off, look it doesn’t bother me none. It doesn’t bother me but what did bother me was when Cooper said to the guy next to us “Ha Ha, look at my Daddy’s butt!” What makes this even funnier is the guy instinctively DID look at my butt trying to humor my kids. He thought I didn’t catch him but I swear he turned three shades of red and he was black.
The locker room is also where the song “drying my nads” (a little ditty I taught them after their baths) comes back to haunt me.
Never a dull moment.
The locker room is also where the song “drying my nads” (a little ditty I taught them after their baths) comes back to haunt me.
Never a dull moment.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Social Security (Feb 2005)
President Clinton, in a major policy speech delivered in February 1998 at Georgetown University, warned about "the looming fiscal crisis in Social Security" that "affects every generation. He also stated "if you don’t do anything, one of two things will happen. Either it will go broke and you won’t ever get it, or if we wait too long to fix it, the burden on society … of taking care of our generation's social security obligations will lower your income and lower your ability to take care of your children to a degree that most of us who are you parents think would be horribly wrong and unfair to you and unfair to the future prospects of the united states.” This was an acknowledgement of the impending doom by the highest ranking democrat of that time. Three national panels had already been commissioned during the Clinton administration to review Social Security reform options: the Bipartisan Commission on Entitlement and Tax Reform (1993-1995); the 1994-1996 Advisory Council on Social Security; and the 1997-1998 National Commission on Retirement Policy.
All three of the Clinton commissioned panels offered long-term reform plans that included individual accounts. Now, no one from the left will even acknowledge there is a problem. Their only rebuttal is that the stock market is too "risky". If the stock market is so risky, why does virtually every union pension fund in America invest the bulk of their assets in the “risky” stock market? According to the Federal Reserve, state and local government employee pension funds have nearly $3 trillion in assets, 66 percent of which is invested in corporate equities (i.e.: stocks). So if majority of us hedge our financial futures based on the stock market in one way or another, why the sudden disdain for doing the same with a portion of social security.
The theory behind Social Security is that it's a form of insurance, while in practice it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme. In such a scheme, early investors can only be paid off by adding an even larger number of participants. To keep the status quo is unacceptable, Social Security is going bankrupt and sooner or later this pyramid scheme will collapse.
Currently, we are in a situation where many people depend on Social Security for their retirement and it cannot be funded indefinitely. It is unrealistic to think that rapid economic growth will provide enough taxes to sustain benefits at current levels. Today, retired Americans get benefits two to five times greater than the amount they and their employers paid in. Whether its tomorrow or 20 years from now, it will go broke and I for one am planning my retirement on that theory.
President Bush in his address to the nation suggested something like the system currently in place for federal workers, the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). This would allow U.S. workers to shift some of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. The TSP is a $148 billion-401k type program that lets government employees save for retirement by investing pretax dollars into funds that mirror the market. Three of the funds are based on stock indexes, one is a bond index and one is government securities fund. The highest 10-year annual compound return on investment was 11 percent. Is it a mere matter of coincidence that this fund with the highest return on investment was the U.S. Company stock fund?
All three of the Clinton commissioned panels offered long-term reform plans that included individual accounts. Now, no one from the left will even acknowledge there is a problem. Their only rebuttal is that the stock market is too "risky". If the stock market is so risky, why does virtually every union pension fund in America invest the bulk of their assets in the “risky” stock market? According to the Federal Reserve, state and local government employee pension funds have nearly $3 trillion in assets, 66 percent of which is invested in corporate equities (i.e.: stocks). So if majority of us hedge our financial futures based on the stock market in one way or another, why the sudden disdain for doing the same with a portion of social security.
The theory behind Social Security is that it's a form of insurance, while in practice it's nothing more than a pyramid scheme. In such a scheme, early investors can only be paid off by adding an even larger number of participants. To keep the status quo is unacceptable, Social Security is going bankrupt and sooner or later this pyramid scheme will collapse.
Currently, we are in a situation where many people depend on Social Security for their retirement and it cannot be funded indefinitely. It is unrealistic to think that rapid economic growth will provide enough taxes to sustain benefits at current levels. Today, retired Americans get benefits two to five times greater than the amount they and their employers paid in. Whether its tomorrow or 20 years from now, it will go broke and I for one am planning my retirement on that theory.
President Bush in his address to the nation suggested something like the system currently in place for federal workers, the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). This would allow U.S. workers to shift some of their payroll taxes into personal investment accounts. The TSP is a $148 billion-401k type program that lets government employees save for retirement by investing pretax dollars into funds that mirror the market. Three of the funds are based on stock indexes, one is a bond index and one is government securities fund. The highest 10-year annual compound return on investment was 11 percent. Is it a mere matter of coincidence that this fund with the highest return on investment was the U.S. Company stock fund?
Latest Missive
Its tax time again and with it we’ll hear the pleas for tax reform. We’ll hear calls for the elimination of income taxes and converting to a consumption tax or a flat tax. While these reformists make a good case, serious tax reform in all reality is not going to happen. Serious tax reform will only occur once we eliminate the current campaign finance rules. Over the last 30 years or so lobbying has become big business in our nation’s capital. Our congressman and senators spend their time satisfying the needs of the lobbyists. The end goal of lobbying to get a specific tax rule that allows the lobbyist to justify to his clients that he is doing something for their money. Our representatives then provide the arcane rule to justify the support of the lobbyist. I thought we were supposed to be a government of “we the people” not a government of “they the special interests”.
How did our representatives become so beholden to their lobbyists and not their constituents? Many Americans just don’t see or chose not to see the relationship between our annual tax liability and the efficiency (if one can say that with a straight face) of our government. The most important feature of our existing tax policy is that the money does not come straight from our pockets. If we don’t have to write a check for it, we simply don’t seem to care how our government spends our money. We do our taxes and the most important line is the last, the amount of our refund. Talk about being lulled into complacency. Imagine for a second we eliminated withholdings and required everyone to pay their taxes in lump sum. Would we not become a nation of concerned tax payers and voters overnight? Would we not demand better accountability from our representatives?
Our progressive system of income taxes only compounds this problem. Progressive taxes breed corruption, complacency and class warfare. Believe the liberal scare mongering or not, but a small group of higher income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, this group has paid 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total. So if I pay $1.75 for a hamburger and you pay $50.00 for the same hamburger, wouldn’t you want, no, wouldn’t you demand something more in return? Maybe kickbacks like a free soda or french fries? Maybe part ownership or a seat on the board of directors? This how progressive taxes work, higher income groups pay a larger percentage of their income for their share of government than other groups. This being the case, shouldn’t they be entitled to more control? The easy answer to the liberal state of mind is no, they shouldn’t be given more control of our government. The hard part for them to swallow is the government shouldn’t be taking more either.
How did our representatives become so beholden to their lobbyists and not their constituents? Many Americans just don’t see or chose not to see the relationship between our annual tax liability and the efficiency (if one can say that with a straight face) of our government. The most important feature of our existing tax policy is that the money does not come straight from our pockets. If we don’t have to write a check for it, we simply don’t seem to care how our government spends our money. We do our taxes and the most important line is the last, the amount of our refund. Talk about being lulled into complacency. Imagine for a second we eliminated withholdings and required everyone to pay their taxes in lump sum. Would we not become a nation of concerned tax payers and voters overnight? Would we not demand better accountability from our representatives?
Our progressive system of income taxes only compounds this problem. Progressive taxes breed corruption, complacency and class warfare. Believe the liberal scare mongering or not, but a small group of higher income taxpayers pay most of the individual income taxes each year. Taxpayers who rank in the top 50 percent of taxpayers by income pay virtually all individual income taxes. In all years since 1990, this group has paid 90 percent of all individual income taxes. In 2000 and 2001, this group paid over 96 percent of the total. So if I pay $1.75 for a hamburger and you pay $50.00 for the same hamburger, wouldn’t you want, no, wouldn’t you demand something more in return? Maybe kickbacks like a free soda or french fries? Maybe part ownership or a seat on the board of directors? This how progressive taxes work, higher income groups pay a larger percentage of their income for their share of government than other groups. This being the case, shouldn’t they be entitled to more control? The easy answer to the liberal state of mind is no, they shouldn’t be given more control of our government. The hard part for them to swallow is the government shouldn’t be taking more either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)