I didn't really want to, but somehow ended up watching Obama's speech on Libya last night. What has me thinking this morning isn't about what he said, but how I perceived his speech.
Unless I've missed it, I don't see others (at least on the Web) who share my perception of Obama's speech. Has my perception of the speech been influenced by a deep mistrust and ingrained negative perception of Obama himself, or is my analysis of his speech accurate?
Time to describe the speech and my interpretation: Obama was the angry stepfather scolding all of us for being too stupid to understand his greatness.
Throughout the speech, it seemed his attitude and bearing came across as angry, defensive, condescending, and superior. His main point was that Gaddafi was a bad guy who was killing his own people, therefore we have a moral responsibility to step in to protect those innocent victims. The point was delivered with an air that said, you're all such idiots for not understanding this and forcing me to be here to explain.
Then lest anyone have the temerity to point out his naked hypocrisy based on the similar case made by Bush for Iraq, he made sure to petulantly point out that unlike (the evil) Bush, he successfully convinced the United Nations to sanction the effort and created a coalition with NATO and a couple of Arab countries.
The natural follow-up question to his attempt at moral superiority over his predecessor is, what if you failed to get the UN to go along? (Actually, his success was in getting the dissenting members of the security council like Russia and China to abstain rather than vote no). Would that make the mission still morally imperative, even if the United States had to stop Gaddafi from killing his own people by ourselves?
But asking silly questions like that of the Narcissist-in-Chief is beside the point. He failed to even try answering the main complaint about Libya, which is that he's bound by law to ask Congress for their approval before beginning such a foreign military adventure.
Please tell me, does the perception I get from this President as a spoiled brat narcissist whining at his detractors on National Television instead of making a sober and reasoned case for his Libyan war accurate? Does anyone else perceive him the same way, or have I somehow been blinded by my opposition to his other policies?
My own conclusion is that yes, I am sometimes influenced by my strongly negative opinions of Obama's policy priorities, nearly all of which I couldn't be stronger in my opposition. On the other hand, I have to believe that any honest and unbiased analysis of the speech would have to agree with my own assessment.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Monday, March 28, 2011
Final Four is Set
This is an historic final four in many ways, most of the firsts due to Butler and VCU. That's just part of what makes it fun. Saturday's Butler regional final game against Florida had to be put on hold (via DVR) while we went to church. Florida looked like they were poised to blow the game wide open, but somehow Butler was able to recover and catch up within a point at halftime. So I felt somewhat hopeful as I set the DVR and headed out.
Then I came back home, had a bit of dinner, then headed back to watch the second half. I was able to avoid any news on the game, and could pretend I was watching the second half live - except for the ability to blow past commercials.
Once again, things looked grim midway through the second half, as Florida once again seemed to be taking over the game. But out of the blue, Brad Stevens sent in Crishawn Hopkins, a freshman who I don't recall having played in any of the previous games. Hopkins contributed energy to help his team, as well as a steal, a great assist, and a 3 pointer. He also turned the ball over on a bad pass and was taken out of the game, but the boost he gave the team was evident.
Matt Howard probably would have sealed the victory by winning his second free throw at the end of the game, and it surprised me that Florida chose not to try feeding one of their big men under the basket for the win where they'd been so dominant most of the game.
Instead, the semi-desperate 3-point shot at the buzzer bounced off and the game went to overtime. Butler looked fresh and feisty in overtime, and played like they sensed a victory. The clock was winding down within 30 seconds with a 1-point Bulldog lead when my DVR recording ended. Of course! Overtime went well past the scheduled end time for the game, so I wasn't going to see the last half minute.
Dad called at that precise moment when the recording stopped, asking what I thought about the Butler game. I told him I thought the game was very exciting, but I just wish I knew what happened in the last 30 seconds of overtime. He threatened to leave me in the dark, but then sort of filled me in on the Butler win, sealed by Mack.
I didn't mean to be disrepectful of Virginia Commonwealth in the previous post, and now they're Butler's opponent in the national semifinal game next weekend after shutting down Kansas. I saw that game, and my overall impressions were these: VCU clearly played with more energy and desire than Kansas, they shot the lights out from the 3-point arc, they played fast and didn't allow Kansas' shooters good looks from outside.
Kansas looked sluggish and bewildered as VCU ran out to a huge first-half lead, but seemed to right themselves early in the second half as they closed the gap to 2 points. I thought VCU would fold once Kansas caught them, but they managed to recover enough to stay ahead, fending off every Jayhawk run until they were in position to shoot free throws to seal their Final Four berth with a 10-point final margin.
It seemed that Kansas may have taken the game for granted, and just didn't have enough gas in the tank to fight back from that stunning first half.
It seems to me that Butler can and should beat VCU. My first hope is that VCU gets a case of nerves as they experience the awe of actually playing in the national semifinal game, while Butler's already been there and should know better how to deal with the situation.
VCU is a team that lives on an emotional energy, and the way to beat that energy is to play tight defense and frustrate them into turnovers early. If Butler can get ahead of VCU early, turn them over a few times and beat them on the boards, I think they can get VCU to begin giving into the pressure with more turnovers and bad shots. That could allow Butler to gain a runaway win.
But that also might be wishful thinking.
Based on what I've seen of the teams on the other side of the bracket, my pick for the final game from that other semifinal is Kentucky. If we get Butler and Kentucky into the championship game, anything can happen. Everything could also go exactly opposite of my predictions.
It's part of the fun of this tournament.
Then I came back home, had a bit of dinner, then headed back to watch the second half. I was able to avoid any news on the game, and could pretend I was watching the second half live - except for the ability to blow past commercials.
Once again, things looked grim midway through the second half, as Florida once again seemed to be taking over the game. But out of the blue, Brad Stevens sent in Crishawn Hopkins, a freshman who I don't recall having played in any of the previous games. Hopkins contributed energy to help his team, as well as a steal, a great assist, and a 3 pointer. He also turned the ball over on a bad pass and was taken out of the game, but the boost he gave the team was evident.
Matt Howard probably would have sealed the victory by winning his second free throw at the end of the game, and it surprised me that Florida chose not to try feeding one of their big men under the basket for the win where they'd been so dominant most of the game.
Instead, the semi-desperate 3-point shot at the buzzer bounced off and the game went to overtime. Butler looked fresh and feisty in overtime, and played like they sensed a victory. The clock was winding down within 30 seconds with a 1-point Bulldog lead when my DVR recording ended. Of course! Overtime went well past the scheduled end time for the game, so I wasn't going to see the last half minute.
Dad called at that precise moment when the recording stopped, asking what I thought about the Butler game. I told him I thought the game was very exciting, but I just wish I knew what happened in the last 30 seconds of overtime. He threatened to leave me in the dark, but then sort of filled me in on the Butler win, sealed by Mack.
I didn't mean to be disrepectful of Virginia Commonwealth in the previous post, and now they're Butler's opponent in the national semifinal game next weekend after shutting down Kansas. I saw that game, and my overall impressions were these: VCU clearly played with more energy and desire than Kansas, they shot the lights out from the 3-point arc, they played fast and didn't allow Kansas' shooters good looks from outside.
Kansas looked sluggish and bewildered as VCU ran out to a huge first-half lead, but seemed to right themselves early in the second half as they closed the gap to 2 points. I thought VCU would fold once Kansas caught them, but they managed to recover enough to stay ahead, fending off every Jayhawk run until they were in position to shoot free throws to seal their Final Four berth with a 10-point final margin.
It seemed that Kansas may have taken the game for granted, and just didn't have enough gas in the tank to fight back from that stunning first half.
It seems to me that Butler can and should beat VCU. My first hope is that VCU gets a case of nerves as they experience the awe of actually playing in the national semifinal game, while Butler's already been there and should know better how to deal with the situation.
VCU is a team that lives on an emotional energy, and the way to beat that energy is to play tight defense and frustrate them into turnovers early. If Butler can get ahead of VCU early, turn them over a few times and beat them on the boards, I think they can get VCU to begin giving into the pressure with more turnovers and bad shots. That could allow Butler to gain a runaway win.
But that also might be wishful thinking.
Based on what I've seen of the teams on the other side of the bracket, my pick for the final game from that other semifinal is Kentucky. If we get Butler and Kentucky into the championship game, anything can happen. Everything could also go exactly opposite of my predictions.
It's part of the fun of this tournament.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
NCAA Basketball Update
My bracket's busted, and I suspect those who seem to be winning right now must have cheated. Who except Kentucky fans had them beating Ohio State? That was a surprise to me.
Who figured Duke would get shot down so convincingly by Arizona?
The only teams still alive for me are Butler, Kansas and UConn. At least I picked one upset right, but only because I'm a Butler fan.
Today Butler's going to have to beat Florida if they want to get back to the Final Four. It would seem to me that they're going to need a healthy Andrew Smith to have a chance. If he's hobbled by the ankle sprain he picked up against Wisconsin, it's going to be very tough for the Dogs to contain the Florida bigs.
Even if Smith is hobbled, it would be a mistake to write them off. I think Donovan knows that as much as anybody, and he won't let his team take them for granted. My pick was BYU to beat Florida, and it would have been fun to see a Butler-BYU matchup because I think they're similar teams. But so far Butler's been able to find a way to win, and my hope is they can do it again, whether or not Smith's ankle cooperates.
Since Ohio State's gone, I'm not even going to try to pick the national champ. Most everybody in the Elite 8 seems capable, although I'm not completely sold on VCU yet.
It's been a fun tournament. I've been missing the Hoosiers, though, and am still a little upset with them for all the bad decisions they've made in the years since the sham firing of Bob Knight that turned them from one of the top basketball schools in the country to a mediocre also-ran.
Who figured Duke would get shot down so convincingly by Arizona?
The only teams still alive for me are Butler, Kansas and UConn. At least I picked one upset right, but only because I'm a Butler fan.
Today Butler's going to have to beat Florida if they want to get back to the Final Four. It would seem to me that they're going to need a healthy Andrew Smith to have a chance. If he's hobbled by the ankle sprain he picked up against Wisconsin, it's going to be very tough for the Dogs to contain the Florida bigs.
Even if Smith is hobbled, it would be a mistake to write them off. I think Donovan knows that as much as anybody, and he won't let his team take them for granted. My pick was BYU to beat Florida, and it would have been fun to see a Butler-BYU matchup because I think they're similar teams. But so far Butler's been able to find a way to win, and my hope is they can do it again, whether or not Smith's ankle cooperates.
Since Ohio State's gone, I'm not even going to try to pick the national champ. Most everybody in the Elite 8 seems capable, although I'm not completely sold on VCU yet.
It's been a fun tournament. I've been missing the Hoosiers, though, and am still a little upset with them for all the bad decisions they've made in the years since the sham firing of Bob Knight that turned them from one of the top basketball schools in the country to a mediocre also-ran.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Final Four
This year's NCAA tournament has been fun to follow, mainly because of Butler's second straight bracket-busting run.
Even without my kid who's now a Butler alum, I still would be a fan. Partly because they're from Indiana, but mostly because it's the sort of team I can admire. These guys aren't the types who went to college for only one year and only pretended to be students while they auditioned for the NBA (see Kentucky).
They're solid students and solid citizens who just happen to play basketball really well. Look at guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard and Ron Nored, who seem to be both great basketball players and great guys. Look at their coach, Brad Stevens, and you'll understand the truth about how great teams are a reflection of their leaders.
Can they make it back to the Final Four? Sure.
Will they make it back? Who knows.
But to get this far the second year in a row when everyone still wrote them off as a fluke has been really fun to watch. If they lose to Wisconsin tonight it won't take away from what a terrific achievement it's been for them. I believe they've overachieved this year to an even greater degree than last year, because this year everyone they played knew better than to take them for granted.
But they still win every game by a whisker. I'll have to stay up late to catch every minute of the game, and hope they dispose of Wisconsin and move on to meet BYU (my pick) for the opportunity to play in another Final Four.
Even without my kid who's now a Butler alum, I still would be a fan. Partly because they're from Indiana, but mostly because it's the sort of team I can admire. These guys aren't the types who went to college for only one year and only pretended to be students while they auditioned for the NBA (see Kentucky).
They're solid students and solid citizens who just happen to play basketball really well. Look at guys like Shelvin Mack and Matt Howard and Ron Nored, who seem to be both great basketball players and great guys. Look at their coach, Brad Stevens, and you'll understand the truth about how great teams are a reflection of their leaders.
Can they make it back to the Final Four? Sure.
Will they make it back? Who knows.
But to get this far the second year in a row when everyone still wrote them off as a fluke has been really fun to watch. If they lose to Wisconsin tonight it won't take away from what a terrific achievement it's been for them. I believe they've overachieved this year to an even greater degree than last year, because this year everyone they played knew better than to take them for granted.
But they still win every game by a whisker. I'll have to stay up late to catch every minute of the game, and hope they dispose of Wisconsin and move on to meet BYU (my pick) for the opportunity to play in another Final Four.
Notes on NFL
Those who know me also know I'm a pretty big sports nut. I've been a Colts fan since before they moved from Baltimore (when Ted Marchibroda coached them the first time around), and even kept tabs on them during their horrible years in Indy.
So you might be surprised to find out my attitude on the current contract dispute between the NFL and the players. I don't really care.
Not that I won't miss the NFL if they don't play in the fall, of course that would be disappointing. But I don't expect that to happen. There's too much money at stake for both sides, so it seems silly and stupid for them to lose a season arguing over their respective slices of the pie.
If you've been reading my posts about the union fights happening in various states, I hope you didn't make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-union, and therefore somehow favoring the NFL owners over the NFLPA. Not at all.
The players are certainly free to form a union to bargain for the best possible deal for their members. Since nobody forces me to pay for their salaries and benefits, I don't care how rich their contracts get. Forces of basic economics will be applied if the package is too rich - people will simply quit buying tickets and merchandise if the prices get too high, and if the NFL network charges too much in subscription fees, even big fans like me will simply choose not to subscribe.
Owners want to set specific terms for the contract that have nothing to do with actual revenues. In other words, they want to fix the costs they must pay out to their players rather than have to share a percentage of revenues. That's understandable, and they have every right to make such demands.
Players want to guarantee a baseline of compensation, then get a cut of revenues on top of that. They want the owners to assume all the downside risk, but make sure they share in the upside. That sounds like a pretty good deal for them if they can get it, and they did get it in the previous contract. They have every right to make such demands.
What makes it harder to get an agreement in the NFL as opposed to pretty much any other private business concern is the fact that the NFL is a monopoly. Players have a short shelf life, and the NFL's the only game in town. So if there's any leverage in these negotiations, it would seem to rest with the owners.
If the stalemate gets really bad, I suppose the players could all chip in and start a pro league of their own. Wouldn't that be interesting?
If the two sides refuse to budge and there isn't a 2011 season, it will turn off the fans. People will get disgusted with both sides, seeing billionaires arguing with millionaires over a game. They'll find other sources of entertainment for the lost NFL season, and may not come back when the league finally opens for business next year.
Sure, I'll miss the NFL if the lockout stretches through this coming season. But all I have to do is switch my attention to other things, like high school and college football, which are much more deserving of my attention anyway.
So you might be surprised to find out my attitude on the current contract dispute between the NFL and the players. I don't really care.
Not that I won't miss the NFL if they don't play in the fall, of course that would be disappointing. But I don't expect that to happen. There's too much money at stake for both sides, so it seems silly and stupid for them to lose a season arguing over their respective slices of the pie.
If you've been reading my posts about the union fights happening in various states, I hope you didn't make the mistake of assuming I'm anti-union, and therefore somehow favoring the NFL owners over the NFLPA. Not at all.
The players are certainly free to form a union to bargain for the best possible deal for their members. Since nobody forces me to pay for their salaries and benefits, I don't care how rich their contracts get. Forces of basic economics will be applied if the package is too rich - people will simply quit buying tickets and merchandise if the prices get too high, and if the NFL network charges too much in subscription fees, even big fans like me will simply choose not to subscribe.
Owners want to set specific terms for the contract that have nothing to do with actual revenues. In other words, they want to fix the costs they must pay out to their players rather than have to share a percentage of revenues. That's understandable, and they have every right to make such demands.
Players want to guarantee a baseline of compensation, then get a cut of revenues on top of that. They want the owners to assume all the downside risk, but make sure they share in the upside. That sounds like a pretty good deal for them if they can get it, and they did get it in the previous contract. They have every right to make such demands.
What makes it harder to get an agreement in the NFL as opposed to pretty much any other private business concern is the fact that the NFL is a monopoly. Players have a short shelf life, and the NFL's the only game in town. So if there's any leverage in these negotiations, it would seem to rest with the owners.
If the stalemate gets really bad, I suppose the players could all chip in and start a pro league of their own. Wouldn't that be interesting?
If the two sides refuse to budge and there isn't a 2011 season, it will turn off the fans. People will get disgusted with both sides, seeing billionaires arguing with millionaires over a game. They'll find other sources of entertainment for the lost NFL season, and may not come back when the league finally opens for business next year.
Sure, I'll miss the NFL if the lockout stretches through this coming season. But all I have to do is switch my attention to other things, like high school and college football, which are much more deserving of my attention anyway.
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
If I Were Liberal
I'd be extremely upset with my president right now.
He failed to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison.
He failed to raise taxes on the rich.
He passed a disastrous healthcare bill that failed to deliver universal, medicare-style healthcare for every citizen.
He took his sweet time winding down the Iraq war with policies undistinguishable from the evil Bush.
He failed to push through Card Check, and now newly elected Republican state governors and legislators are moving to destroy what's left of our labor unions.
He failed to pass meaningful environmental laws, especially Cap & Trade, and with $4 gas returning it may be too late.
He failed to naturalize the 12 million or so illegal immigrants and open the border, and now there might not be enough votes out there to keep Republicans from taking over completely next year.
He failed to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Now the economy is destroyed and he's being blamed, but things would be getting much better if only he'd just been bolder with our agenda.
Now the Republicans just might succeed in defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and maybe even much of the EPA, which will be a horrible disaster for us.
Worst of all, he just committed us to war against Libya without even asking Congress for their opinion. At least Bush went to Congress for permission before he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (even though as a liberal I would still believe he lied to them to get that permission).
Must be tough to be a liberal these days.
He failed to close the Guantanamo terrorist prison.
He failed to raise taxes on the rich.
He passed a disastrous healthcare bill that failed to deliver universal, medicare-style healthcare for every citizen.
He took his sweet time winding down the Iraq war with policies undistinguishable from the evil Bush.
He failed to push through Card Check, and now newly elected Republican state governors and legislators are moving to destroy what's left of our labor unions.
He failed to pass meaningful environmental laws, especially Cap & Trade, and with $4 gas returning it may be too late.
He failed to naturalize the 12 million or so illegal immigrants and open the border, and now there might not be enough votes out there to keep Republicans from taking over completely next year.
He failed to make gay marriage the law of the land.
Now the economy is destroyed and he's being blamed, but things would be getting much better if only he'd just been bolder with our agenda.
Now the Republicans just might succeed in defunding NPR and Planned Parenthood and maybe even much of the EPA, which will be a horrible disaster for us.
Worst of all, he just committed us to war against Libya without even asking Congress for their opinion. At least Bush went to Congress for permission before he invaded Iraq and Afghanistan (even though as a liberal I would still believe he lied to them to get that permission).
Must be tough to be a liberal these days.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Redistricting
Some recent stories have helped explain why the Indiana Democrats still won't return to the statehouse. Apparently their tactic is focused on more than union issues; they also are seeking a way to stop the Indiana assembly from completing their once-a-decade job of redistricting the state's congressional seats.
The last decade's redistricting task was completed with the Democrats in charge. All it takes is a glance at the map to understand the degree of gerrymandering that took place last time around.
Districts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were designed to be "safe" Democrat districts. But the backlash election in 2010 had the effect of moving the more moderate 8th and 9th districts back into the Republican column.
What are the Republicans promising to do this time around? Eliminate gerrymandering and keep communities together, stopping the practice of splitting cities by drawing lines in the same town to maximize the possibility of creating a "safe" Democrat congressional seat.
Republicans announced a series of open meetings across the state to get people's input on the new district lines. They've hired outside consultants to help them draw the lines with the stated purpose of eliminating partisan advantage and keeping communities together in the same district.
On its face, it sounds completely reasonable, and it's certainly transparent. But Democrats are going to fight to the bitter end to stop it from happening. Apparently because they believe this approach puts them at a disadvantage.
They will argue that their gerrymandering gives their constituencies (presumably poor, minorities, and urbanites) a better chance to be represented in congress, because a partisan-blind district boundary subjects Indiana to what they see as a tyranny of the majority. In making this argument, they seem to be admitting that the majority of Hoosiers live on the Center-Right side of the political spectrum.
It's a very simple and fundamental question: Is it fair to draw districts without any attempt to engineer a desired political outcome, or is it fair to "protect" minorities by drawing districts that allow them to send one of "their own" to congress?
I'm sort of offended by the idea that anyone needs to be "protected", and especially that any group of citizens would look at things in terms of being represented by "one of their own". How paternalistic and condescending can some folks get?
Would the Democrats currently hiding out in plain sight in Illinois prefer the Republicans create their own gerrymandered districts to cut the Democrat advantage down from, say, 5 to 3 "safe Democrat" districts? Either way, they should be making their arguments from Indianapolis instead of continuing their game of hide and seek in Illinois.
The last decade's redistricting task was completed with the Democrats in charge. All it takes is a glance at the map to understand the degree of gerrymandering that took place last time around.
Districts 1, 2, 7, 8 and 9 were designed to be "safe" Democrat districts. But the backlash election in 2010 had the effect of moving the more moderate 8th and 9th districts back into the Republican column.
What are the Republicans promising to do this time around? Eliminate gerrymandering and keep communities together, stopping the practice of splitting cities by drawing lines in the same town to maximize the possibility of creating a "safe" Democrat congressional seat.
Republicans announced a series of open meetings across the state to get people's input on the new district lines. They've hired outside consultants to help them draw the lines with the stated purpose of eliminating partisan advantage and keeping communities together in the same district.
On its face, it sounds completely reasonable, and it's certainly transparent. But Democrats are going to fight to the bitter end to stop it from happening. Apparently because they believe this approach puts them at a disadvantage.
They will argue that their gerrymandering gives their constituencies (presumably poor, minorities, and urbanites) a better chance to be represented in congress, because a partisan-blind district boundary subjects Indiana to what they see as a tyranny of the majority. In making this argument, they seem to be admitting that the majority of Hoosiers live on the Center-Right side of the political spectrum.
It's a very simple and fundamental question: Is it fair to draw districts without any attempt to engineer a desired political outcome, or is it fair to "protect" minorities by drawing districts that allow them to send one of "their own" to congress?
I'm sort of offended by the idea that anyone needs to be "protected", and especially that any group of citizens would look at things in terms of being represented by "one of their own". How paternalistic and condescending can some folks get?
Would the Democrats currently hiding out in plain sight in Illinois prefer the Republicans create their own gerrymandered districts to cut the Democrat advantage down from, say, 5 to 3 "safe Democrat" districts? Either way, they should be making their arguments from Indianapolis instead of continuing their game of hide and seek in Illinois.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
When the Leader Can't Lead
There's an undercurrent surrounding the meltdowns around the world, from the literal one in Japan to the figurative ones in the Middle East and a growing number of states here at home. The underlying theme is the palpable lack of leadership from the one person we normally expect to step forward - our country's President.
In Japan, while the historic earthquake and accompanying tsunami devastated their island, our President was playing golf and thinking about his NCAA brackets. His traditional Saturday radio address was phoned in from before the disaster so he could take the weekend off, and was just about one of the Left's favorite topics - equal pay for women.
The pattern is more important than the appearance that he cares more about his tee time, getting on ESPN to share his basketball tournament picks, vacationing in Rio, and throwing bones to the left-wing base than about stepping up to help solve the world's problems. The pattern is clear and undeniable.
Egypt and Syria: He cheered the ouster of Mubarak in Eqypt, but did nothing about it other than express his support after it became apparent that the protesters would succeed. Likewise, he's stated that Gaddafi must go, but has done nothing to help make it happen. Regardless whether it was a good idea to support the rebels in Libya, he failed miserably in even the simple expression of a comprehendable policy on the matter.
Japan's Nuclear Problem: He sent the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. He promised to help with shipping relief and nuclear engineers. He expressed condolences. But Japan desperately needs help with those melting reactor cores, while the President's actions implicitly communicate that it's not his problem. A true leader would have recruited and appointed the best nuclear scientist to head up a team to go help Japan solve the problem, backed up by every piece of technology they require. He would have started building this team as soon as the disaster happened (giving up his tee time to do so), and immediately met with Japan's Prime Minister and the Power Company to pave the way for his team of experts to hit the ground running.
Growing Strife at Home: From the budget fight to the individual state battles, one might call what he's done leadership. That is, if you consider fanning the flames of protest by directing his PAC, Organizing for America, and affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org to load up busloads of folks and pay them minimum wage to go protest in what's now something like 8 states and growing. A true leader would put his partisanship aside and travel to each of these states to invite the statehouse Republican and Democrat combatants and attempt to serve as a peacemaker, trying to help find the middle ground that helps them solve their problems. A true leader would have put out a federal budget proposal that takes deficit reduction seriously, but he chose instead to send a budget that makes it far worse. Then he has been conspicuously absent from the debate, basically telling congress to give him what he wants or he'll use the veto pen.
Energy: The alarming run-up in energy cost seems to fit his agenda, as he strongly suggests $4 gas is a good thing, because it somehow will help us accelerate our transition to "clean and renewable energy". Only the far left would consider his action (or inaction) on this problem leadership. He arguably has worked hard to make sure abundant North American energy sources including oil, coal, and natural gas are shut down. It would seem he's immune or uncaring about the economic disaster these rising energy costs and associated food costs is already taking form.
We desperately need a leader. 2012 may be too late to find one.
In Japan, while the historic earthquake and accompanying tsunami devastated their island, our President was playing golf and thinking about his NCAA brackets. His traditional Saturday radio address was phoned in from before the disaster so he could take the weekend off, and was just about one of the Left's favorite topics - equal pay for women.
The pattern is more important than the appearance that he cares more about his tee time, getting on ESPN to share his basketball tournament picks, vacationing in Rio, and throwing bones to the left-wing base than about stepping up to help solve the world's problems. The pattern is clear and undeniable.
Egypt and Syria: He cheered the ouster of Mubarak in Eqypt, but did nothing about it other than express his support after it became apparent that the protesters would succeed. Likewise, he's stated that Gaddafi must go, but has done nothing to help make it happen. Regardless whether it was a good idea to support the rebels in Libya, he failed miserably in even the simple expression of a comprehendable policy on the matter.
Japan's Nuclear Problem: He sent the aircraft carrier Ronald Reagan. He promised to help with shipping relief and nuclear engineers. He expressed condolences. But Japan desperately needs help with those melting reactor cores, while the President's actions implicitly communicate that it's not his problem. A true leader would have recruited and appointed the best nuclear scientist to head up a team to go help Japan solve the problem, backed up by every piece of technology they require. He would have started building this team as soon as the disaster happened (giving up his tee time to do so), and immediately met with Japan's Prime Minister and the Power Company to pave the way for his team of experts to hit the ground running.
Growing Strife at Home: From the budget fight to the individual state battles, one might call what he's done leadership. That is, if you consider fanning the flames of protest by directing his PAC, Organizing for America, and affiliated organizations like MoveOn.org to load up busloads of folks and pay them minimum wage to go protest in what's now something like 8 states and growing. A true leader would put his partisanship aside and travel to each of these states to invite the statehouse Republican and Democrat combatants and attempt to serve as a peacemaker, trying to help find the middle ground that helps them solve their problems. A true leader would have put out a federal budget proposal that takes deficit reduction seriously, but he chose instead to send a budget that makes it far worse. Then he has been conspicuously absent from the debate, basically telling congress to give him what he wants or he'll use the veto pen.
Energy: The alarming run-up in energy cost seems to fit his agenda, as he strongly suggests $4 gas is a good thing, because it somehow will help us accelerate our transition to "clean and renewable energy". Only the far left would consider his action (or inaction) on this problem leadership. He arguably has worked hard to make sure abundant North American energy sources including oil, coal, and natural gas are shut down. It would seem he's immune or uncaring about the economic disaster these rising energy costs and associated food costs is already taking form.
We desperately need a leader. 2012 may be too late to find one.
Monday, March 14, 2011
The Purpose of Polls
We can't watch a news program or ready an article without being fed poll results. Polls turn out not to be so much about gauging people's attitudes and opinions and more about influencing those attitudes and opinions.
It's all in the questions asked. Just look at the recent fight in Wisconsin. At issue, should government employees have the "right" to collective bargaining?
So the "pro" side on collective bargaining (read Democrats) run out and poll everyone, asking the generic question something along the lines of "Do you support a right of workers to form a union for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits, and working conditions?"
Most people, something around 80 percent if I caught the poll results right, said yes. To the specific question above, I'm part of the 80 percent as well. But when the Democrats trumpet the 80 percent as proof of universal approval on the side of the public employee unions, they're wrong. Because after careful consideration and study of the underlying facts, I concluded that Wisconsin is doing the right thing.
The other side cites similar numbers when asking the public questions about whether it's reasonable for government to ask their employees to contribute something from their own paychecks to their pensions and health insurance.
Polls are used as sort of a bludgeon to convince average people that they must support the teachers' union because if they don't, they must belong to the 20 percent of idiots who don't support a right to collective bargaining. Or the flip side will tell average people that if they support collective bargaining for teachers, their government will go bankrupt while teachers live like leeches in a cushy Florida retirement condo.
The polls themselves are highly effective tools used by both parties to influence public sentiment, ultimately so those behind the polls can gain and keep power. It leads me to think that maybe it's time for the general public to end the manipulation.
A suggestion for a new movement - the anti-manipulative pollster movement. Whenever you get called by a pollster and given a question that's obviously crafted to elicit a response that can be used to support a political agenda, just say no. Refuse to participate unless asked a relevant question.
At least it will skew the results enough that it might discourage irresponsible polling.
It's all in the questions asked. Just look at the recent fight in Wisconsin. At issue, should government employees have the "right" to collective bargaining?
So the "pro" side on collective bargaining (read Democrats) run out and poll everyone, asking the generic question something along the lines of "Do you support a right of workers to form a union for the purpose of negotiating salary, benefits, and working conditions?"
Most people, something around 80 percent if I caught the poll results right, said yes. To the specific question above, I'm part of the 80 percent as well. But when the Democrats trumpet the 80 percent as proof of universal approval on the side of the public employee unions, they're wrong. Because after careful consideration and study of the underlying facts, I concluded that Wisconsin is doing the right thing.
The other side cites similar numbers when asking the public questions about whether it's reasonable for government to ask their employees to contribute something from their own paychecks to their pensions and health insurance.
Polls are used as sort of a bludgeon to convince average people that they must support the teachers' union because if they don't, they must belong to the 20 percent of idiots who don't support a right to collective bargaining. Or the flip side will tell average people that if they support collective bargaining for teachers, their government will go bankrupt while teachers live like leeches in a cushy Florida retirement condo.
The polls themselves are highly effective tools used by both parties to influence public sentiment, ultimately so those behind the polls can gain and keep power. It leads me to think that maybe it's time for the general public to end the manipulation.
A suggestion for a new movement - the anti-manipulative pollster movement. Whenever you get called by a pollster and given a question that's obviously crafted to elicit a response that can be used to support a political agenda, just say no. Refuse to participate unless asked a relevant question.
At least it will skew the results enough that it might discourage irresponsible polling.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Arguing with a Democrat
Its rare when I actually have a discussion of politics with a Democrat, but did so over the weekend. The experience was enlightening, if painful. Enlightening not in the sense I was won over - far from it, but painful in the sense that if you want to maintain a pleasant relationship with someone who lives on Democrat Island, it's probably best to avoid the subject of politics.
First and foremost, a Democrat lives on their feelings and perceptions, and perhaps most surprising to me is fiercely loyal to their party. Democrats feel things deeply, and it seems that's the primary reason they choose to be Democrats. They believe with near-religious fervor that their party is the only hope for the poor and middle class, and Republicans are evil Barons bent on acquiring obscene levels of wealth without the slightest regard to and at the expense of their fellow man.
If I believed all that, I suppose I'd be a Democrat too. But I don't because I'm intensely curious, analytical, and my life is ruled by studying the facts and making what I believe to be reasoned conclusions. And I'm not at all loyal to Republicans, which seems to be something a Democrat can't understand about me.
Some of the things my Democrat friend tried very hard to convince me:
Why we had $4 gas a few years ago? Bush taking care of his cronies in the oil companies. Why is it back to $4 now? Same greedy evil oil companies. The GOP is just making it hard for Obama to break up the oil barons' club.
What was the Iraq war all about? Bush's gift to his oil industry buddies, especially Halliburton.
Opinion of the Democrats fleeing to Illinois from Wisconsin and Indiana? Enthusiastic support. If the evil Republicans get their way, we'll be back to 80 hour workweeks in unsafe sweatshops for only a few bucks a day, maybe even child labor.
What caused the financial collapse? Greedy bankers. And Republican government giving incentives to industries to move their operations offshore.
How to solve the budget crisis? Tax the greedy bankers and greedy oil companies.
Bill Clinton's impeachment? A trumped-up vendetta orchestrated by evil Republicans who wanted payback for Nixon. (That one really blew my mind).
When I tried to suggest that these simplistic and fantastic theories were not supported by the facts, unfortunately I offended my Democrat friend. Even though this friend had just finished informing me that I have been brainwashed by some right-wing propaganda machine and there are two sides to every story, my response attempting to offer some factual evidence to refute or leaven some of these opinions was taken as condescension.
My biggest revelations in the conversation were two:
A Democrat has a self image that says something like, "I'm right, you're evil". Notice in the litany above that every belief included a reference to an evil, greedy Republican, or Oil Company, or Banker. There's this sort of black and white, us versus them mentality. I'm sure there is some of this mentality on the Right, but I haven't encountered it nearly to the level of this Democrat or those on TV.
A Democrat finds facts irritating and irrelevant. Introducing factual information as an attempt to introduce some reason to the argument was the point that induced offense. Facts are discarded as mere right-wing propaganda.
Something that is consistent nearly every time I hear a Democrat speak about an issue is that they are more likely to demonize the proponents of the other side of the issue than to present strong arguments for their side. My failure to engage any discussion of a specific issue without having my friend move immediately off the topic to demonize someone on their hit list seems to have proven the point.
The thing that concerns me after my conversation is the use of offense to shut off the conversation. Like Democrats did in Wisconsin and Indiana, when they stop communicating and charge the others with being offensive, it's impossible to arrive at common ground.
You see, this Democrat might be surprised to find we agree far more than we disagree. Is there corruption and greed in the world? Of course there is. Does that make all conservatives corrupt and greedy? Does that suggest that Democrats are never greedy or corrupt? That's ridiculous.
What I prefer is to talk about solutions. I don't want to argue about Whether Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon, or Obama more than Bush. A Democrat will defend Obama to the end, while I don't care to defend Bush except when the charge is false or unfair. I took issue with many Bush policies, but take issue with nearly all Obama policies. Those differences aren't because of party affiliation or the slant by the media, and certainly not race. They're based solely on my study of those policies which led to a sincere belief that those policies do terrible harm to our country.
The Democrat thinks it's the job of the Federal government to take care of people. I think it's the job of government to protect people from fraud and harm, but that it's the responsibility of people to take care of each other.
Such is the essence of the difference between the Democrat and me.
First and foremost, a Democrat lives on their feelings and perceptions, and perhaps most surprising to me is fiercely loyal to their party. Democrats feel things deeply, and it seems that's the primary reason they choose to be Democrats. They believe with near-religious fervor that their party is the only hope for the poor and middle class, and Republicans are evil Barons bent on acquiring obscene levels of wealth without the slightest regard to and at the expense of their fellow man.
If I believed all that, I suppose I'd be a Democrat too. But I don't because I'm intensely curious, analytical, and my life is ruled by studying the facts and making what I believe to be reasoned conclusions. And I'm not at all loyal to Republicans, which seems to be something a Democrat can't understand about me.
Some of the things my Democrat friend tried very hard to convince me:
Why we had $4 gas a few years ago? Bush taking care of his cronies in the oil companies. Why is it back to $4 now? Same greedy evil oil companies. The GOP is just making it hard for Obama to break up the oil barons' club.
What was the Iraq war all about? Bush's gift to his oil industry buddies, especially Halliburton.
Opinion of the Democrats fleeing to Illinois from Wisconsin and Indiana? Enthusiastic support. If the evil Republicans get their way, we'll be back to 80 hour workweeks in unsafe sweatshops for only a few bucks a day, maybe even child labor.
What caused the financial collapse? Greedy bankers. And Republican government giving incentives to industries to move their operations offshore.
How to solve the budget crisis? Tax the greedy bankers and greedy oil companies.
Bill Clinton's impeachment? A trumped-up vendetta orchestrated by evil Republicans who wanted payback for Nixon. (That one really blew my mind).
When I tried to suggest that these simplistic and fantastic theories were not supported by the facts, unfortunately I offended my Democrat friend. Even though this friend had just finished informing me that I have been brainwashed by some right-wing propaganda machine and there are two sides to every story, my response attempting to offer some factual evidence to refute or leaven some of these opinions was taken as condescension.
My biggest revelations in the conversation were two:
A Democrat has a self image that says something like, "I'm right, you're evil". Notice in the litany above that every belief included a reference to an evil, greedy Republican, or Oil Company, or Banker. There's this sort of black and white, us versus them mentality. I'm sure there is some of this mentality on the Right, but I haven't encountered it nearly to the level of this Democrat or those on TV.
A Democrat finds facts irritating and irrelevant. Introducing factual information as an attempt to introduce some reason to the argument was the point that induced offense. Facts are discarded as mere right-wing propaganda.
Something that is consistent nearly every time I hear a Democrat speak about an issue is that they are more likely to demonize the proponents of the other side of the issue than to present strong arguments for their side. My failure to engage any discussion of a specific issue without having my friend move immediately off the topic to demonize someone on their hit list seems to have proven the point.
The thing that concerns me after my conversation is the use of offense to shut off the conversation. Like Democrats did in Wisconsin and Indiana, when they stop communicating and charge the others with being offensive, it's impossible to arrive at common ground.
You see, this Democrat might be surprised to find we agree far more than we disagree. Is there corruption and greed in the world? Of course there is. Does that make all conservatives corrupt and greedy? Does that suggest that Democrats are never greedy or corrupt? That's ridiculous.
What I prefer is to talk about solutions. I don't want to argue about Whether Clinton was more corrupt than Nixon, or Obama more than Bush. A Democrat will defend Obama to the end, while I don't care to defend Bush except when the charge is false or unfair. I took issue with many Bush policies, but take issue with nearly all Obama policies. Those differences aren't because of party affiliation or the slant by the media, and certainly not race. They're based solely on my study of those policies which led to a sincere belief that those policies do terrible harm to our country.
The Democrat thinks it's the job of the Federal government to take care of people. I think it's the job of government to protect people from fraud and harm, but that it's the responsibility of people to take care of each other.
Such is the essence of the difference between the Democrat and me.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
Rational Conclusions
Indiana Democrats decided to follow Wisconsin's example and fled to Illinois in protest of the Republican's introduction of a Right to Work law. Indiana's issue isn't the same as Wisconsin's, even though both involve unions.
There's been plenty of time and plenty of available information for the rest of us to understand the nature of the conflict. My own evolution of understanding has followed a path which started with some agreement with both sides, but ended with solid support of the right (or Right) side.
Allow me to share my analysis of some of the arguments.
Wisconsin's budget bill features a change in the relationship between the state and the teachers union. That's why the Democrats fled to Illinois, and that's why the Wisconsin state house has looked more like Eqypt than America the last couple of weeks.
The teachers union argues that they've already agreed to the governor's proposed increases in their contribution levels to their health insurance and pension. Therefore, they argue, there's no need to "take away their collective bargaining rights".
On its face, the argument seems reasonable. If they union will agree to adjustments in their contracts to help solve the state's budget crisis, then why take the extra step of cutting back on their bargaining power?
First of all, contrary to the message most of us get from the nightly news, the governor isn't disbanding the teacher's union. Nor is it accurate to characterize the bill as "taking away collective bargaining rights". What the bill actually proposes is to limit collective bargaining to wages only, letting the state set benefits. It also allows each teacher a choice whether or not they wish to be represented by the union.
That second change, shared with Indiana and generally called "Right to Work", is anathema to unions everywhere, both public and private sector. Because the unions believe that if rank and file employees are permitted to make their own choices on union membership, many of them will say "no thanks".
According to one of the articles I've read on the subject, unions grab between $800 and $1200 per year from their members, through direct payroll deductions. Young teachers especially have a hard time parting with that much in dues, which could be 4 or 5 percent of their income. So whether or not Governor Walker and the Indiana GOP are targeting closed shops out of a clear end-game objective of killing the unions altogether, it is fair to assume such a law will make it much more difficult for union leaders to keep their organization intact.
I have never begrudged the idea that people could get together as a group to negotiate better pay and working conditions with their employer. That fundamental principle has seemed to be a positive development for folks in the past, helping make workplaces safer, wages better, and helped establish the 40-hour workweek.
But today's unions don't seem to be in business for those basic purposes. The mob moved in to make unions their own personal piggy banks, and it seems that may not have changed much. Today's major unions are the primary source of funds and political action for the Democrat party, to the point where an entire political party stands as the government representative of the union and bureaucrat class.
Why does Walker want to cut back on teacher's union power in his state? Because despite the union claims that they're willing to accept changes to their contracts to go along with his fiscal plans, their contracts aren't with the State. Their contracts are with their individual school districts. Walker's point is that the effect of the inextricable partnership between the Teacher's Union and the Democrat Party is that the school boards negotiating the contracts were put in place by the union, therefore the contract negotiation ends up the functional equivalent of the teachers union sitting down and writing the contract to fulfill its own desires.
If Walker and his GOP legislators back down and drop the union provisions from the bill, there's a high likelihood that many of the school boards still holding majorities of teachers union cronies will ignore the budgetary revisions and may keep or expand the existing contracts.
There's another way he might be able to accomplish his goals without the union bargaining provisions - just tie state education funding to local school districts to those school districts meeting the state's budgetary standards. But I understand and now basically support his goals.
Then there's the Right to Work issue in Indiana. What I suspect lots of Hoosiers don't know is the fact that that particular bill has already been pulled off the table, and apparently the governor has tried to appease the missing Democrat legislators by promising it won't be brought back this session.
So why are the Democrats still hiding out in Illinois? Because they want more. They are now demanding that 11 bills be taken down, some of which have already passed both houses. They're no longer using this tactic over the Right to Work issue, but have decided to make it a standard tactic to try to kill any and all bills they don't like. That's not good.
On Right to Work in general, my take is that closed union shops are unconstitutional. States like Indiana that permit closed union shops are in violation of Freedom of Association. I believe that if you talk about rights, there is no right for unions to force all workers in a company to join their organization as a prerequisite to holding a job with the company. Every worker should have the choice whether or not to belong to the union, and every union member should vote on their level of dues and how those dues are spent.
Those are the real freedom issues.
There's been plenty of time and plenty of available information for the rest of us to understand the nature of the conflict. My own evolution of understanding has followed a path which started with some agreement with both sides, but ended with solid support of the right (or Right) side.
Allow me to share my analysis of some of the arguments.
Wisconsin's budget bill features a change in the relationship between the state and the teachers union. That's why the Democrats fled to Illinois, and that's why the Wisconsin state house has looked more like Eqypt than America the last couple of weeks.
The teachers union argues that they've already agreed to the governor's proposed increases in their contribution levels to their health insurance and pension. Therefore, they argue, there's no need to "take away their collective bargaining rights".
On its face, the argument seems reasonable. If they union will agree to adjustments in their contracts to help solve the state's budget crisis, then why take the extra step of cutting back on their bargaining power?
First of all, contrary to the message most of us get from the nightly news, the governor isn't disbanding the teacher's union. Nor is it accurate to characterize the bill as "taking away collective bargaining rights". What the bill actually proposes is to limit collective bargaining to wages only, letting the state set benefits. It also allows each teacher a choice whether or not they wish to be represented by the union.
That second change, shared with Indiana and generally called "Right to Work", is anathema to unions everywhere, both public and private sector. Because the unions believe that if rank and file employees are permitted to make their own choices on union membership, many of them will say "no thanks".
According to one of the articles I've read on the subject, unions grab between $800 and $1200 per year from their members, through direct payroll deductions. Young teachers especially have a hard time parting with that much in dues, which could be 4 or 5 percent of their income. So whether or not Governor Walker and the Indiana GOP are targeting closed shops out of a clear end-game objective of killing the unions altogether, it is fair to assume such a law will make it much more difficult for union leaders to keep their organization intact.
I have never begrudged the idea that people could get together as a group to negotiate better pay and working conditions with their employer. That fundamental principle has seemed to be a positive development for folks in the past, helping make workplaces safer, wages better, and helped establish the 40-hour workweek.
But today's unions don't seem to be in business for those basic purposes. The mob moved in to make unions their own personal piggy banks, and it seems that may not have changed much. Today's major unions are the primary source of funds and political action for the Democrat party, to the point where an entire political party stands as the government representative of the union and bureaucrat class.
Why does Walker want to cut back on teacher's union power in his state? Because despite the union claims that they're willing to accept changes to their contracts to go along with his fiscal plans, their contracts aren't with the State. Their contracts are with their individual school districts. Walker's point is that the effect of the inextricable partnership between the Teacher's Union and the Democrat Party is that the school boards negotiating the contracts were put in place by the union, therefore the contract negotiation ends up the functional equivalent of the teachers union sitting down and writing the contract to fulfill its own desires.
If Walker and his GOP legislators back down and drop the union provisions from the bill, there's a high likelihood that many of the school boards still holding majorities of teachers union cronies will ignore the budgetary revisions and may keep or expand the existing contracts.
There's another way he might be able to accomplish his goals without the union bargaining provisions - just tie state education funding to local school districts to those school districts meeting the state's budgetary standards. But I understand and now basically support his goals.
Then there's the Right to Work issue in Indiana. What I suspect lots of Hoosiers don't know is the fact that that particular bill has already been pulled off the table, and apparently the governor has tried to appease the missing Democrat legislators by promising it won't be brought back this session.
So why are the Democrats still hiding out in Illinois? Because they want more. They are now demanding that 11 bills be taken down, some of which have already passed both houses. They're no longer using this tactic over the Right to Work issue, but have decided to make it a standard tactic to try to kill any and all bills they don't like. That's not good.
On Right to Work in general, my take is that closed union shops are unconstitutional. States like Indiana that permit closed union shops are in violation of Freedom of Association. I believe that if you talk about rights, there is no right for unions to force all workers in a company to join their organization as a prerequisite to holding a job with the company. Every worker should have the choice whether or not to belong to the union, and every union member should vote on their level of dues and how those dues are spent.
Those are the real freedom issues.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Rental Cars
Time for the Car Rental post.
Yet again another industry that's suffering from consolidation, but overall that consolidation hasn't hurt the service as much as it has the airlines. At least not so far, and not from my perspective.
All I want from a rental car company is a clean, functioning vehicle that doesn't take me too long to pick up and return.
I've used the big 2, Hertz and Avis. I also use National quite a bit, and have experience with Enterprise, Alamo, Budget, and Dollar. But the majority of my experience has been with Avis and National.
If I'm correct (I could check to be sure, but don't care that much), Enterprise owns National and Alamo. Budget and Dollar have faded substantially, and seem to be disappearing from many airports.
Recent news reports about shoddy maintenance at some of the companies notwithstanding, I have never been stranded by a rental car breakdown.
Only once did I show up at my destination to find out Avis was out of cars; they'd had a weather event that slowed returns and stopped deliveries. I was pretty unhappy at first, but just had to hang out in the airport for a couple of hours until a delivery of cars arrived, then they gave me a premium vehicle for my trouble. So in the end, it wasn't too terrible.
The best experiences with rental cars are at airports where the cars can be picked up in the parking garage right across from the terminal. Smaller airports where they're parked in a lot right outside baggage claim are preferred as well.
But many big airports, especially those with an offsite rental car facility that can only be reached by bus, make the rental car pickup painful. Chalk up another reason I don't like the northeast - Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC are the worst places in the country to have to pick up a rental car. In those airports, buses might not show up for 20 minutes, while renters crowd the sidewalk and fight for a space on the bus when it finally arrives.
In those cold-weather cities, returns often have to be made outside in the rain and snow, where returning rental customers shiver in the cold while waiting for the agent to finally get you checked in. Just my luck, when I've had to wait to be checked in the longest, the agent's likely to run out of paper on his little portable receipt printer or the battery will die. It's unspeakably irritating to have to go inside to check your car in after you've already been waiting in the cold for the agent.
The best situation I've found when on a longer-term project, where the rental agents get to know me. It seems that once they recognize me and begin to call me by name, I notice I get checked in a bit quicker, and they're more likely to give me a better upgrade. Another advantage of the smaller airports over the giant ones.
Like hotels but perhaps worse, government's favorite place to collect outrageous taxes and fees is the rental car. Just last week I was in Minneapolis, renting from the MSP airport. I got a pretty good deal on a full-size car for the week, only $205.
But wait, $205 is just the rental rate. When I returned the car, I was actually charged almost $290. The extra 80-plus dollars? Taxes and fees. Assessments from the state, the city, the airport authority, and I suppose everybody else who has a palm that needs greased. Legalized theft is the only way to describe a 40 percent tax rate. Because most of us renters are from out of state, so we can complain all we want, but we don't vote for the officials who dreamed up all those taxes and fees.
The best rental car experiences can be found at a limited number of airports around the country. In those places, you walk out of the terminal and into the garage, where you see your name on the board and walk up to your car, hop in and drive to the exit, show your drivers license to the guard, and you're off. The company automatically upgraded you to a nice vehicle that's clean, has no strong odors (neither cigarette smoke nor disgusting air fresheners), has some power on the interstate, and gets you around nicely and in relatively decent style. Then when you return to the garage, the agent's there at your door as soon as you park, scanning the bar code and giving you the receipt just as you've pulled your bags out of the trunk and are ready to walk into the terminal.
The best thing about renting cars is that best experience actually does happen now and then.
Yet again another industry that's suffering from consolidation, but overall that consolidation hasn't hurt the service as much as it has the airlines. At least not so far, and not from my perspective.
All I want from a rental car company is a clean, functioning vehicle that doesn't take me too long to pick up and return.
I've used the big 2, Hertz and Avis. I also use National quite a bit, and have experience with Enterprise, Alamo, Budget, and Dollar. But the majority of my experience has been with Avis and National.
If I'm correct (I could check to be sure, but don't care that much), Enterprise owns National and Alamo. Budget and Dollar have faded substantially, and seem to be disappearing from many airports.
Recent news reports about shoddy maintenance at some of the companies notwithstanding, I have never been stranded by a rental car breakdown.
Only once did I show up at my destination to find out Avis was out of cars; they'd had a weather event that slowed returns and stopped deliveries. I was pretty unhappy at first, but just had to hang out in the airport for a couple of hours until a delivery of cars arrived, then they gave me a premium vehicle for my trouble. So in the end, it wasn't too terrible.
The best experiences with rental cars are at airports where the cars can be picked up in the parking garage right across from the terminal. Smaller airports where they're parked in a lot right outside baggage claim are preferred as well.
But many big airports, especially those with an offsite rental car facility that can only be reached by bus, make the rental car pickup painful. Chalk up another reason I don't like the northeast - Philadelphia, Boston, Washington DC are the worst places in the country to have to pick up a rental car. In those airports, buses might not show up for 20 minutes, while renters crowd the sidewalk and fight for a space on the bus when it finally arrives.
In those cold-weather cities, returns often have to be made outside in the rain and snow, where returning rental customers shiver in the cold while waiting for the agent to finally get you checked in. Just my luck, when I've had to wait to be checked in the longest, the agent's likely to run out of paper on his little portable receipt printer or the battery will die. It's unspeakably irritating to have to go inside to check your car in after you've already been waiting in the cold for the agent.
The best situation I've found when on a longer-term project, where the rental agents get to know me. It seems that once they recognize me and begin to call me by name, I notice I get checked in a bit quicker, and they're more likely to give me a better upgrade. Another advantage of the smaller airports over the giant ones.
Like hotels but perhaps worse, government's favorite place to collect outrageous taxes and fees is the rental car. Just last week I was in Minneapolis, renting from the MSP airport. I got a pretty good deal on a full-size car for the week, only $205.
But wait, $205 is just the rental rate. When I returned the car, I was actually charged almost $290. The extra 80-plus dollars? Taxes and fees. Assessments from the state, the city, the airport authority, and I suppose everybody else who has a palm that needs greased. Legalized theft is the only way to describe a 40 percent tax rate. Because most of us renters are from out of state, so we can complain all we want, but we don't vote for the officials who dreamed up all those taxes and fees.
The best rental car experiences can be found at a limited number of airports around the country. In those places, you walk out of the terminal and into the garage, where you see your name on the board and walk up to your car, hop in and drive to the exit, show your drivers license to the guard, and you're off. The company automatically upgraded you to a nice vehicle that's clean, has no strong odors (neither cigarette smoke nor disgusting air fresheners), has some power on the interstate, and gets you around nicely and in relatively decent style. Then when you return to the garage, the agent's there at your door as soon as you park, scanning the bar code and giving you the receipt just as you've pulled your bags out of the trunk and are ready to walk into the terminal.
The best thing about renting cars is that best experience actually does happen now and then.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Union Wars
Looking at the mess in Wisconsin is interesting. One of the things I discovered that seems pretty typical is that it took a couple of days before I could find out what the actual proposed Wisconsin law included. Instead, everywhere I turned in the news I was hammered with messaging, mostly from the union/left making it sound like Wisconsin's governor wants to destroy teachers' lives.
Now that I know what it's about, I'll leave it to others who are already arguing about whether it's fair or unfair. Instead, I'd like to focus on the longer view ramifications of the events.
The Wisconsin Democrat Senators have run away to shut down the ability of that house to vote on the new law, because they have no way of stopping it. It would seem that their hope is to delay the vote long enough while using out-of-state protesters to shout loudly enough that just maybe they can change the minds of Wisconsin's general population. Because, whatever any of us think of the merits of the law itself, my best understanding right now is that Wisconsin's people support it by a fairly large margin.
I'm hearing today that Indiana is trying to repeat Wisconsin's walkout. If true that Indiana's Democrat lawmakers have fled to stop a vote on my own state's law (I don't know yet if they're running from Mitch's Education Reform package or the newly introduced Right to Work Bill).
It seems to me to be outrageous that all these Wisconsin teachers skipped out of school for a week (did the schools re-0pen there this week? I haven't heard). Regardless of the reason, were I a governor in a state where teachers shut down the schools for a week, I wouldn't have allowed it. After 2 days, I would have announced that the teachers have to be back in their classrooms the next day, or will be terminated for cause. I'm not sure whether a governor has the authority to do so, but if he doesn't, I think he should.
Right to Work laws like what was proposed this week in Indiana weaken the union, because lots of folks will decide to keep their dues, which I heard range between $800 and $1200 per year. If somebody doesn't think all that money buys them much, or objects to the way it is spent, they're going to opt out.
Some are arguing whether or not there's even a need to have union representation for public employees. Why do teachers need a union at all these days? I suppose to answer that, we'd have to have some idea of what teachers would face in terms of salary and benefits were it not for their union.
There are those who suggest there's a sort of soft corruption at work here. When Democrats get to run state and local governments, they have the incentive to give lots of goodies to teachers, because teachers unions give millions of dollars to Democrat candidates.
I heard one of the MSNBC talkers suggest that if Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and other states succeed in passing their union-weakening legislation, the ultimate result will be a weakening or destruction of the Democrat party. It will certainly weaken the party in terms of fundraising if unions become weaker and less able to fund their candidates, but I don't think for a second it will destroy liberalism.
The numbers haven't changed. A third of the population is liberal, a third is conservative, and the remaining third are somewhere in between. The left and right aren't fighting over their own voters, they're fighting over the impressionable middle. Obama and the Dems won in 08 because the folks in the middle were tired of W and the folks on the right weren't impressed with McCain.
Now we find out what the Obama and the Democrats really want, and two-thirds of us ran away from that agenda as fast as our legs can carry us. We went back to the right with the hope they could bring some sanity back to government, and the new guys are doing exactly what they promised.
If it works, they'll stay. If it doesn't work, they'll get replaced. I don't think we'll get the Left back in charge anytime soon, though.
I wonder if the states have anything in their constitutions that provides for action against lawmakers who purposely deny a quorum during legislative sessions to try to hold up legislation? Maybe it's time for such action: Arrest, impeachment, some sort of action that makes them think twice next time.
It will be interesting to see this play out. My fear is we're sliding rapidly into chaos, and am worried about what will happen or is already happening in the Muslim world while we're fighting with each other.
Now that I know what it's about, I'll leave it to others who are already arguing about whether it's fair or unfair. Instead, I'd like to focus on the longer view ramifications of the events.
The Wisconsin Democrat Senators have run away to shut down the ability of that house to vote on the new law, because they have no way of stopping it. It would seem that their hope is to delay the vote long enough while using out-of-state protesters to shout loudly enough that just maybe they can change the minds of Wisconsin's general population. Because, whatever any of us think of the merits of the law itself, my best understanding right now is that Wisconsin's people support it by a fairly large margin.
I'm hearing today that Indiana is trying to repeat Wisconsin's walkout. If true that Indiana's Democrat lawmakers have fled to stop a vote on my own state's law (I don't know yet if they're running from Mitch's Education Reform package or the newly introduced Right to Work Bill).
It seems to me to be outrageous that all these Wisconsin teachers skipped out of school for a week (did the schools re-0pen there this week? I haven't heard). Regardless of the reason, were I a governor in a state where teachers shut down the schools for a week, I wouldn't have allowed it. After 2 days, I would have announced that the teachers have to be back in their classrooms the next day, or will be terminated for cause. I'm not sure whether a governor has the authority to do so, but if he doesn't, I think he should.
Right to Work laws like what was proposed this week in Indiana weaken the union, because lots of folks will decide to keep their dues, which I heard range between $800 and $1200 per year. If somebody doesn't think all that money buys them much, or objects to the way it is spent, they're going to opt out.
Some are arguing whether or not there's even a need to have union representation for public employees. Why do teachers need a union at all these days? I suppose to answer that, we'd have to have some idea of what teachers would face in terms of salary and benefits were it not for their union.
There are those who suggest there's a sort of soft corruption at work here. When Democrats get to run state and local governments, they have the incentive to give lots of goodies to teachers, because teachers unions give millions of dollars to Democrat candidates.
I heard one of the MSNBC talkers suggest that if Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, and other states succeed in passing their union-weakening legislation, the ultimate result will be a weakening or destruction of the Democrat party. It will certainly weaken the party in terms of fundraising if unions become weaker and less able to fund their candidates, but I don't think for a second it will destroy liberalism.
The numbers haven't changed. A third of the population is liberal, a third is conservative, and the remaining third are somewhere in between. The left and right aren't fighting over their own voters, they're fighting over the impressionable middle. Obama and the Dems won in 08 because the folks in the middle were tired of W and the folks on the right weren't impressed with McCain.
Now we find out what the Obama and the Democrats really want, and two-thirds of us ran away from that agenda as fast as our legs can carry us. We went back to the right with the hope they could bring some sanity back to government, and the new guys are doing exactly what they promised.
If it works, they'll stay. If it doesn't work, they'll get replaced. I don't think we'll get the Left back in charge anytime soon, though.
I wonder if the states have anything in their constitutions that provides for action against lawmakers who purposely deny a quorum during legislative sessions to try to hold up legislation? Maybe it's time for such action: Arrest, impeachment, some sort of action that makes them think twice next time.
It will be interesting to see this play out. My fear is we're sliding rapidly into chaos, and am worried about what will happen or is already happening in the Muslim world while we're fighting with each other.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Hotels
Today's road warrior post is about hotels.
Unlike airlines, hotels generally must compete for our business. As a business traveler, I am very experienced with the various hotels that exist in the market space known as "business class" lodging.
My two favorite families are Hilton and Marriott. Both are fairly consistent and predictable in quality, cleanliness, and service. Others are pretty good as well, but no matter where you're going, you're likely to find a decent option nearby that's part of one of these two families.
Something I find interesting lately is that the old traditional "premium" hotels, including the big Hiltons and Marriotts, are not my first choice.
For example, I was recently in a DoubleTree, which is a relatively high-priced Hilton hotel that's more traditional, sort of upscale. I didn't like it much.
Marble and brass fixtures don't impress me much, especially when there's mildew on the shower curtain. Add in the limited channel selection on the flat screen TV that doesn't have any HD, and I'd prefer to get a room in the La Quinta down the street.
My favorite hotels that I'll take whenever it's even remotely an option are the Homewood Suites from Hilton and the Residence Inn from Marriott. I like the apartment-style hotels with the full kitchen, and wish it was an option more often.
After those, I like the Embassy Suites.
Where I am most likely to be these days is the Hampton Inn. Country Inns are pretty common. And I often have to suffer with Quality and Comfort Inns, which are cheap and favored by my clients but mostly blue-collar places.
This is another of those things that changed over the years. In the 90's I stayed in lots of suite hotels, Holiday Inn's Crown Plaza, JW Marriott, and a variety of resort and luxury hotels. These days I hardly ever get to stay in those places, while the clients save money.
The things I hope for in a hotel and am happiest when I find them include these:
1. Clean room (especially bathroom) and comfortable bed
2. A good breakfast buffet or restaurant with fast service and good food
3. Either a decent restaurant in the hotel or 2-3 good restaurants nearby (preferably in walking distance). Room service available for those nights I'm working late.
4. Decent selection of channels, HD, and flat-panel TV
5. Reliable internet access without extra charges
6. A decent work desk with plenty of power outlets and a comfortable office chair
7. USA Today under the door in the morning (although I'm getting more of my news online and this is becoming less important)
8. Fast, friendly check-in
9. If not a kitchen in the room, at least a fridge and microwave
10. Comfortable chair - I really like rooms with a recliner.
Hilton and Marriott both have pretty good frequent stay programs. Lately I've been mostly using Hilton for vacations, and they're pretty good about availability (unlike the airlines).
Unlike airlines, hotels generally must compete for our business. As a business traveler, I am very experienced with the various hotels that exist in the market space known as "business class" lodging.
My two favorite families are Hilton and Marriott. Both are fairly consistent and predictable in quality, cleanliness, and service. Others are pretty good as well, but no matter where you're going, you're likely to find a decent option nearby that's part of one of these two families.
Something I find interesting lately is that the old traditional "premium" hotels, including the big Hiltons and Marriotts, are not my first choice.
For example, I was recently in a DoubleTree, which is a relatively high-priced Hilton hotel that's more traditional, sort of upscale. I didn't like it much.
Marble and brass fixtures don't impress me much, especially when there's mildew on the shower curtain. Add in the limited channel selection on the flat screen TV that doesn't have any HD, and I'd prefer to get a room in the La Quinta down the street.
My favorite hotels that I'll take whenever it's even remotely an option are the Homewood Suites from Hilton and the Residence Inn from Marriott. I like the apartment-style hotels with the full kitchen, and wish it was an option more often.
After those, I like the Embassy Suites.
Where I am most likely to be these days is the Hampton Inn. Country Inns are pretty common. And I often have to suffer with Quality and Comfort Inns, which are cheap and favored by my clients but mostly blue-collar places.
This is another of those things that changed over the years. In the 90's I stayed in lots of suite hotels, Holiday Inn's Crown Plaza, JW Marriott, and a variety of resort and luxury hotels. These days I hardly ever get to stay in those places, while the clients save money.
The things I hope for in a hotel and am happiest when I find them include these:
1. Clean room (especially bathroom) and comfortable bed
2. A good breakfast buffet or restaurant with fast service and good food
3. Either a decent restaurant in the hotel or 2-3 good restaurants nearby (preferably in walking distance). Room service available for those nights I'm working late.
4. Decent selection of channels, HD, and flat-panel TV
5. Reliable internet access without extra charges
6. A decent work desk with plenty of power outlets and a comfortable office chair
7. USA Today under the door in the morning (although I'm getting more of my news online and this is becoming less important)
8. Fast, friendly check-in
9. If not a kitchen in the room, at least a fridge and microwave
10. Comfortable chair - I really like rooms with a recliner.
Hilton and Marriott both have pretty good frequent stay programs. Lately I've been mostly using Hilton for vacations, and they're pretty good about availability (unlike the airlines).
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Temporary Sidetrack on Budget
The news on the federal budget arguments got me too disgusted, so I feel the urge to break into my road warrior series to expound a bit.
We're way past due for a conversation about the appropriate role of government. And getting the federal budget mess to some sort of reasonableness is the place for that conversation.
Let's put this into a series of questions.
Homeland Security & the TSA: Can anyone prove that building this massive new bureaucracy has made us more safe from terrorists than we were before 9/11? Is there any evidence that this new organization has been a positive addition over the existing law enforcement and intelligence organizations it has duplicated?
Education Department: What is one single federal initiative from the Department of Education that has improved education for any kid in America?
EPA and Energy Departments: What have these bloated bureaucracies favored by Obama done to improve anyone's ability to get and use energy? Is there any positive program out of these massive agencies that have made any of our lives better in any way? Why are we quietly accepting their massive handouts to Democrat-friendly corporations (ie General Electric) using our tax money?
Public Broadcasting: If this organization is truly by and for the people, why are we forced to support them through federal taxation? To be truly "Public", shouldn't it be up to the public to support and maintain?
Healthcare: Who decided citizen healthcare was the business of the federal government? Why have we allowed the government to take 3.5 percent of every bit of all our earned income to give to the healthcare industry to pay for medical care and drugs for our retirees after skimming a very large percentage off the top to pay the bureaucrats? Why does the federal government have a Medicaid program for the "poor" that is duplicative and and unfunded mandate that is bankrupting every state in the union? Why did we allow the corrupt bureaucrats in DC to create this mess?
Fannie & Freddie: Why do these federal government poster children for massive corruption still exist at all?
Foreign Aid: Why do we keep giving billions to countries that hate us?
Can the budget be balanced? Sure, but only if we can invent a sanity drug that we can put in aerosol form and spray over Washington DC, suddenly curing everyone in the district of their mental and ethical diseases.
We're way past due for a conversation about the appropriate role of government. And getting the federal budget mess to some sort of reasonableness is the place for that conversation.
Let's put this into a series of questions.
Homeland Security & the TSA: Can anyone prove that building this massive new bureaucracy has made us more safe from terrorists than we were before 9/11? Is there any evidence that this new organization has been a positive addition over the existing law enforcement and intelligence organizations it has duplicated?
Education Department: What is one single federal initiative from the Department of Education that has improved education for any kid in America?
EPA and Energy Departments: What have these bloated bureaucracies favored by Obama done to improve anyone's ability to get and use energy? Is there any positive program out of these massive agencies that have made any of our lives better in any way? Why are we quietly accepting their massive handouts to Democrat-friendly corporations (ie General Electric) using our tax money?
Public Broadcasting: If this organization is truly by and for the people, why are we forced to support them through federal taxation? To be truly "Public", shouldn't it be up to the public to support and maintain?
Healthcare: Who decided citizen healthcare was the business of the federal government? Why have we allowed the government to take 3.5 percent of every bit of all our earned income to give to the healthcare industry to pay for medical care and drugs for our retirees after skimming a very large percentage off the top to pay the bureaucrats? Why does the federal government have a Medicaid program for the "poor" that is duplicative and and unfunded mandate that is bankrupting every state in the union? Why did we allow the corrupt bureaucrats in DC to create this mess?
Fannie & Freddie: Why do these federal government poster children for massive corruption still exist at all?
Foreign Aid: Why do we keep giving billions to countries that hate us?
Can the budget be balanced? Sure, but only if we can invent a sanity drug that we can put in aerosol form and spray over Washington DC, suddenly curing everyone in the district of their mental and ethical diseases.
Tuesday, February 08, 2011
Airlines
My perspective as a frequent traveler on airlines and air travel is admittedly a bit jaded. Beginning in the late 80's, I was flying on a fairly regular basis, which became a constant from '93 through today.
Much has changed over those decades, as I have the experience to attest.
In the beginning, I found the experience of air travel reasonably pleasant. From the gate agents who checked me in to the flight crews on the plane, once upon a time I was made to feel like a valued customer. Service was generally pretty good, airline employees were friendly, security screenings were much less intrusive, and we received actual meals during most flights.
Now the ground agents are more likely to be surly and put-upon, security is a personal violation, seating is more cramped and uncomfortable, flight attendants are less attentive, and you're lucky to get a watered-down Coke and a half-dozen peanuts even on the longer flights.
From my perspective, I'd also have to point out there also more misbehaving passengers.
The obvious change happened after 9/11. Now the government owns the security screening franchise, and does what is very predictable whenever they are in charge. They can't use smart screening methods that identify and screen folks more likely to have evil intentions; instead they choose to expose literally everyone and their grandmothers to intrusive high-radiation scanning and/or embarrassing pat-downs.
The long lines and requirements to strip off shoes and jackets and belts combine to make the security screening process a major disincentive to flying. Trips I would have taken in the air before I now choose to drive - I'll get a rental car and drive up to 8 hours away before I'll subject myself to the TSA.
We can't really blame the airlines for TSA. But I can blame the airlines for many other sins, some of which have been committed with full knowledge and cooperation with that same over-intrusive federal government.
First and foremost, consolidation of the airlines has led to virtual monopolies and practically no competition in the industry. For many destinations, there's only one airline that can get you there. And that airline can charge whatever they like for the trip.
Name another industry in the world (except maybe the oil industry), where the companies in the industry employ practices designed to gouge and mistreat their best customers. Airlines mistreat their best customers, the business travelers, through multiple policies that, were there any competition available, would have frequent travelers flocking to the upstart airline that simply chose to stop gouging them.
Change fees is one of the most unfriendly policies to the business traveler. Say you're in a city for meetings, and things wrap up a day early. Only a few years ago, you simply call the airline and ask for a seat on an earlier flight. If there's a seat available, you're on the flight, no problem.
No longer. Same scenario, including the fact there are plenty of seats available on the earlier flight. But to get on the flight, you have to pay the Change Fee, which could be a couple hundred dollars, but that's not all: In addition to the Change Fee, you also have to pay the "Fare Difference".
Say when you booked the flight, the fare was $500. Now you're calling to move your return trip up a day, and you agree to pay the Change Fee. Then the agent tells you that the fare for that same flight is now $1,000. So you have to pay the additional fare on top of the change fee. In many cases, the change in your flight plans has cost you more than the original ticket.
Which brings me back to the monopoly issue. The few airlines left that control the marketplace are American and Delta. Beyond those two behemoths, there's United (merging with Continental) and US Airways. Then there are the regional and economy carriers, most notable among them Southwest.
The airline I've been flying pretty much exclusively is Delta. I'm not a fan of Delta, but was a Gold level flyer with Northwest before the merger, so it pretty much locked me in unless I wanted to start over with one of the other big boys. American's frequent flyer program is the poorest among the carriers and United is a horrible airline all-around, so there's no reason to switch.
Southwest is only a good alternative on certain routes. If you can get a direct flight on Southwest to the city you need to visit, it is a good alternative. Although they have no first class, their coach seats are roomier and more comfortable than the other airlines. They've partially improved their open seating by boarding group, but I still don't really like not having an assigned seat. Unless you check in extremely early, you're going to board last and probably have to squeeze into a middle seat.
Otherwise, Southwest doesn't play the games with fees and other hated practices of the others. Their staff is more friendly, but the amatuer comedian flight attendants can take their act a bit beyond appropriate levels.
US Airways is the only choice for many northeastern destinations. Since I don't particularly like the northeast (as I've written about in the previous post), I don't fly them often. The experience I do have with them rates about even with Delta.
I actually sort of liked Northwest until Delta gobbled them up. Even though everyone was angry with management for the past few years before the merger, their gate agents and flight attendants I found to be very friendly and helpful. Their frequent flyer program was also very good for me, contrasted with Delta's.
Frequent flyer programs are judged on how many miles it takes to get a free flight, then how easy (or difficult) it is to actually redeem that flight. Northwest was the best program on these counts. When Delta took over, those benefits were lost almost immediately.
Here's what Northwest typically didn't do to me, but Delta does (and I understand American and United also do to their frequent flyers): You want to take a family vacation, and have planned ahead a few months. The base miles you need for a coach ticket anywhere in North America is 25,000. So you try to redeem 50,000 miles for two coach tickets, say to Florida.
You find out there are no seats available for frequent flyer miles. So you try alternate dates around the general time period you want to take the trip. Still no luck. But if you will give up 50,000 miles per seat, you can get on a flight. So it ends up requiring 100,000 frequent flyer miles instead of 50,000 miles for the two of you to take that vacation.
Why do they do that? Because they can. Here's how to find out just how abusive their system is: Sign on and start the process of booking that vacation flight without trying to use miles. Don't purchase the flight of course, but go far enough to pull up the seating chart for the flight you're looking to book. You'll see the seating is wide open - there might be no more than 8 or 10 seats reserved so far.
What Delta has done is set a super-secret limit on the number of 25,000 mile seats they will make available on each flight. When those seats are gone, it goes up to 50,000 miles per seat, also a super-secret number. When those seats are gone, just forget using miles for that flight.
Makes me angry just writing it.
I'd like to start a new airline. On my airline, every seat is a first class seat. Pricing for every flight is clearly published. Discounts and specials will be available, but clearly published with easy-to-understand deadlines and requirements. Meals are served on all flights over 800 miles. Our non-union employees will be given an incentive-based pay structure that guarantees them a share in profitability for helping make and keep the airline in the black. The frequent flyer program allows redemption on any flight that's not sold out 14 days before departure. Frequent flyer miles do not expire. Flight attendants are friendly, luggage delivery is the most reliable in the industry, nobody ever gets bumped from a confirmed flight, check-in is easy and fast. A free priority screening program would be provided (got to figure out how to get that through the TSA) that lets our passengers bypass the long lines and allows them to obtain a card exempting them from the radiation or pat-down.
Business travelers, and probably lots of other folks, would flock to my airline.
Much has changed over those decades, as I have the experience to attest.
In the beginning, I found the experience of air travel reasonably pleasant. From the gate agents who checked me in to the flight crews on the plane, once upon a time I was made to feel like a valued customer. Service was generally pretty good, airline employees were friendly, security screenings were much less intrusive, and we received actual meals during most flights.
Now the ground agents are more likely to be surly and put-upon, security is a personal violation, seating is more cramped and uncomfortable, flight attendants are less attentive, and you're lucky to get a watered-down Coke and a half-dozen peanuts even on the longer flights.
From my perspective, I'd also have to point out there also more misbehaving passengers.
The obvious change happened after 9/11. Now the government owns the security screening franchise, and does what is very predictable whenever they are in charge. They can't use smart screening methods that identify and screen folks more likely to have evil intentions; instead they choose to expose literally everyone and their grandmothers to intrusive high-radiation scanning and/or embarrassing pat-downs.
The long lines and requirements to strip off shoes and jackets and belts combine to make the security screening process a major disincentive to flying. Trips I would have taken in the air before I now choose to drive - I'll get a rental car and drive up to 8 hours away before I'll subject myself to the TSA.
We can't really blame the airlines for TSA. But I can blame the airlines for many other sins, some of which have been committed with full knowledge and cooperation with that same over-intrusive federal government.
First and foremost, consolidation of the airlines has led to virtual monopolies and practically no competition in the industry. For many destinations, there's only one airline that can get you there. And that airline can charge whatever they like for the trip.
Name another industry in the world (except maybe the oil industry), where the companies in the industry employ practices designed to gouge and mistreat their best customers. Airlines mistreat their best customers, the business travelers, through multiple policies that, were there any competition available, would have frequent travelers flocking to the upstart airline that simply chose to stop gouging them.
Change fees is one of the most unfriendly policies to the business traveler. Say you're in a city for meetings, and things wrap up a day early. Only a few years ago, you simply call the airline and ask for a seat on an earlier flight. If there's a seat available, you're on the flight, no problem.
No longer. Same scenario, including the fact there are plenty of seats available on the earlier flight. But to get on the flight, you have to pay the Change Fee, which could be a couple hundred dollars, but that's not all: In addition to the Change Fee, you also have to pay the "Fare Difference".
Say when you booked the flight, the fare was $500. Now you're calling to move your return trip up a day, and you agree to pay the Change Fee. Then the agent tells you that the fare for that same flight is now $1,000. So you have to pay the additional fare on top of the change fee. In many cases, the change in your flight plans has cost you more than the original ticket.
Which brings me back to the monopoly issue. The few airlines left that control the marketplace are American and Delta. Beyond those two behemoths, there's United (merging with Continental) and US Airways. Then there are the regional and economy carriers, most notable among them Southwest.
The airline I've been flying pretty much exclusively is Delta. I'm not a fan of Delta, but was a Gold level flyer with Northwest before the merger, so it pretty much locked me in unless I wanted to start over with one of the other big boys. American's frequent flyer program is the poorest among the carriers and United is a horrible airline all-around, so there's no reason to switch.
Southwest is only a good alternative on certain routes. If you can get a direct flight on Southwest to the city you need to visit, it is a good alternative. Although they have no first class, their coach seats are roomier and more comfortable than the other airlines. They've partially improved their open seating by boarding group, but I still don't really like not having an assigned seat. Unless you check in extremely early, you're going to board last and probably have to squeeze into a middle seat.
Otherwise, Southwest doesn't play the games with fees and other hated practices of the others. Their staff is more friendly, but the amatuer comedian flight attendants can take their act a bit beyond appropriate levels.
US Airways is the only choice for many northeastern destinations. Since I don't particularly like the northeast (as I've written about in the previous post), I don't fly them often. The experience I do have with them rates about even with Delta.
I actually sort of liked Northwest until Delta gobbled them up. Even though everyone was angry with management for the past few years before the merger, their gate agents and flight attendants I found to be very friendly and helpful. Their frequent flyer program was also very good for me, contrasted with Delta's.
Frequent flyer programs are judged on how many miles it takes to get a free flight, then how easy (or difficult) it is to actually redeem that flight. Northwest was the best program on these counts. When Delta took over, those benefits were lost almost immediately.
Here's what Northwest typically didn't do to me, but Delta does (and I understand American and United also do to their frequent flyers): You want to take a family vacation, and have planned ahead a few months. The base miles you need for a coach ticket anywhere in North America is 25,000. So you try to redeem 50,000 miles for two coach tickets, say to Florida.
You find out there are no seats available for frequent flyer miles. So you try alternate dates around the general time period you want to take the trip. Still no luck. But if you will give up 50,000 miles per seat, you can get on a flight. So it ends up requiring 100,000 frequent flyer miles instead of 50,000 miles for the two of you to take that vacation.
Why do they do that? Because they can. Here's how to find out just how abusive their system is: Sign on and start the process of booking that vacation flight without trying to use miles. Don't purchase the flight of course, but go far enough to pull up the seating chart for the flight you're looking to book. You'll see the seating is wide open - there might be no more than 8 or 10 seats reserved so far.
What Delta has done is set a super-secret limit on the number of 25,000 mile seats they will make available on each flight. When those seats are gone, it goes up to 50,000 miles per seat, also a super-secret number. When those seats are gone, just forget using miles for that flight.
Makes me angry just writing it.
I'd like to start a new airline. On my airline, every seat is a first class seat. Pricing for every flight is clearly published. Discounts and specials will be available, but clearly published with easy-to-understand deadlines and requirements. Meals are served on all flights over 800 miles. Our non-union employees will be given an incentive-based pay structure that guarantees them a share in profitability for helping make and keep the airline in the black. The frequent flyer program allows redemption on any flight that's not sold out 14 days before departure. Frequent flyer miles do not expire. Flight attendants are friendly, luggage delivery is the most reliable in the industry, nobody ever gets bumped from a confirmed flight, check-in is easy and fast. A free priority screening program would be provided (got to figure out how to get that through the TSA) that lets our passengers bypass the long lines and allows them to obtain a card exempting them from the radiation or pat-down.
Business travelers, and probably lots of other folks, would flock to my airline.
Wednesday, February 02, 2011
Characterizing America
The beginning of my travel theme is a discussion of the character of different regions of America. I've been to every state in the union, except Alaska, Idaho, and Vermont. I've met and worked with people from the remaining 47 states, or I might suggest 48 if one considers DC.
First I should make clear that these are general impressions and observations based on personal experiences. This post should not be taken as an indictment of everyone in a given region, nor a blanket hug to everyone in another. There are always exceptions, and many times I've encountered some of those exceptions to the general characterization I've assigned to various parts of the country.
Now where should I start? I'll begin with the places I find most hospitable and friendly.
Although I choose to live in Indiana and it has been my home for the vast majority of my life, unfortunately it doesn't make the cut for hospitality and friendliness.
The place I've found most friendly? Texas.
Texans are terrific hosts, very friendly, and overall wonderful folks at work. When in Texas, I've been invited to social events and parties and even to family homes for dinner after work. That happens pretty much nowhere else.
Texans seem sincerely interested in getting to know me and making me comfortable while visiting their communities to a degree I've found nowhere else in my travels. At work, they tend to be rather laid back, in many ways like most of the folks in the South. But unlike folks in the southeast, Texans are focused on getting the job done on time - they just choose not to get stressed over meeting those deadlines.
The rest of the "Old South", that is all the states east of Texas and below the Mason-Dixon line, also are friendly and laid back. In hospitality terms, they may not measure up to Texas' standards, but definitely come in second.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas are filled with polite and pleasant folks. They're taught civility and respect, and still refer to each other with "sir" or "ma'am". I don't hear much course language in those states, and they're also more likely than other regions of the country to be considerate and hospitable to out-of-state visitors like my, even though I am a "yankee".
I actually believe I can pick out the various southern dialects. Naturally I can easily differentiate a Texan from a Carolinian or Georgian. I also believe I can pick out the Cajun drawl from the Louisiana bayous over their southern neighbors.
Oklahoma is sort of like Texas, and Arkansas seems to straddle the line between the OK/TX personality and LA/MS.
Florida doesn't really fit with the rest of the southeast. So many in Florida are transplants that I can't characterize the sunshine state as a whole. The panhandle is more Alabama, the interior seems sort of midwestern, Miami is Cuban, and Palm Beach to Lauderdale are sort of like New York City South.
The southwest, Arizona and New Mexico, I group into a separate category from the hospitable Old South. Phoenix is full of transplants from everywhere else, therefore I can't really assign it a specific character. I've encountered folks from California and Utah, the midwest, Mexico, and miscellaneous other places who've settled in Phoenix, although the proportion of hispanic immigrants seems to have exploded in recent years. Perhaps part of the reason for the recent immigration controversies there.
I've enjoyed my time in New Mexico, where I've worked with many native folks, or American Indians to be more descriptive. They're generally friendly enough I suppose, but seem a bit wary of outsiders.
Working my way up the West Coast, I have to start with California. Southern California is to me like visiting a different country. Their economy, overcrowding, smog, and "diversity" sets southern California apart from everywhere else in America. I wouldn't consider Southern California a hospitable place, having few experiences where folks were anything more than focused on the business at hand.
Once in Los Angeles, I received this unsolicited statement from one of the managers of the company I was consulting with:
"We (hispanics) have taken control of Los Angeles. This city belongs to us."
I hadn't made any statements or asked any questions to prompt her statement, but apparently she had a message she felt she needed to share with the white guy from out of state.
Northern California is very different from Southern California. Getting away from San Francisco, I feel like I could be back home in the midwest, albeit with mountains and better weather.
I can't characterize San Fransisco any differently than this: "strange". Not everyone is strange there, of course, but I have to say I've met more folks in San Fran than anywhere else that leave me a bit dumbfounded. They're so different from me in nearly every respect that it's easy to suspect they may have dropped into SFO via some other planet.
Oregon, and to a somewhat lesser degree Washington, are places I would describe as Yuppie Paradise. They're full of trendy folks who look like second-generation hippies. People in Oregon especially seem very much into the latest fads, gave birth to exotic designer coffees via Starbucks, eat strange vegan stuff, and are rabid environmentalists.
Otherwise I find them a bit aloof and elitist.
Let's move onto the midwest. There are certainly differences between Chicago and Detroit, between Indianapolis and Kansas City, between St Louis and Columbus (Ohio). It could take a book to go into those finer points, but I still will generally lump the midwest together.
The midwest is still largely farm country, and I may be most comfortable with the farmers. They plant and harvest crops, raise livestock, love meat and potatoes, and are common-sense, no-nonsense folks.
Midwesterners tend to be taciturn and not very gregarious. They're focused on the job at hand, and don't really spend much time thinking about being hospitable to their out-of-town visitors. They're not inhospitable necessarily, just very practical.
I'll wrap up with my least favorite part of the country - the NorthEast. The one place I will only go if there isn't work anywhere else is New York City.
The people that have given me the most grief over my years consulting? New Yorkers.
New Yorkers are rude, use foul language, and have made a sport out of figuring out ways to cheat. The ones I've worked with in the past are most likely to dispute an invoice, making up reasons that range from irrelevant to completely false.
Where people in most of the rest of the country are essentially fair and will back up their word or honestly do business on a handshake, those characteristics do not apply in New York. I have learned to never deliver anything to a New Yorker that hasn't been specifically contracted in writing ahead of time, even if he "gives his word" that he'll honor the verbal agreement. When the bill comes, he'll deny ever having the conversation.
Not all the Northeast is as bad as NYC. I generally like the folks in Upstate New York, places like Buffalo and Niagara Falls. There are some folks in New Jersey that are pretty good to work with as well, once you get away from the greater New York area. I've enjoyed Maine and New Hampshire, but would prefer to avoid Boston. Cape Cod is a place I always enjoyed visiting.
I haven't dealth with Virginia (which I like) or DC (which is a mixed bag). There's lots more I could get into about the regions of the country, like the differences and rivalries between the Wisconsin cheeseheads and Chicagoans. But I've been typing on this post too long already.
Right now, I'd just like an assignment somewhere warm to get away from this awful winter weather!
First I should make clear that these are general impressions and observations based on personal experiences. This post should not be taken as an indictment of everyone in a given region, nor a blanket hug to everyone in another. There are always exceptions, and many times I've encountered some of those exceptions to the general characterization I've assigned to various parts of the country.
Now where should I start? I'll begin with the places I find most hospitable and friendly.
Although I choose to live in Indiana and it has been my home for the vast majority of my life, unfortunately it doesn't make the cut for hospitality and friendliness.
The place I've found most friendly? Texas.
Texans are terrific hosts, very friendly, and overall wonderful folks at work. When in Texas, I've been invited to social events and parties and even to family homes for dinner after work. That happens pretty much nowhere else.
Texans seem sincerely interested in getting to know me and making me comfortable while visiting their communities to a degree I've found nowhere else in my travels. At work, they tend to be rather laid back, in many ways like most of the folks in the South. But unlike folks in the southeast, Texans are focused on getting the job done on time - they just choose not to get stressed over meeting those deadlines.
The rest of the "Old South", that is all the states east of Texas and below the Mason-Dixon line, also are friendly and laid back. In hospitality terms, they may not measure up to Texas' standards, but definitely come in second.
Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia and the Carolinas are filled with polite and pleasant folks. They're taught civility and respect, and still refer to each other with "sir" or "ma'am". I don't hear much course language in those states, and they're also more likely than other regions of the country to be considerate and hospitable to out-of-state visitors like my, even though I am a "yankee".
I actually believe I can pick out the various southern dialects. Naturally I can easily differentiate a Texan from a Carolinian or Georgian. I also believe I can pick out the Cajun drawl from the Louisiana bayous over their southern neighbors.
Oklahoma is sort of like Texas, and Arkansas seems to straddle the line between the OK/TX personality and LA/MS.
Florida doesn't really fit with the rest of the southeast. So many in Florida are transplants that I can't characterize the sunshine state as a whole. The panhandle is more Alabama, the interior seems sort of midwestern, Miami is Cuban, and Palm Beach to Lauderdale are sort of like New York City South.
The southwest, Arizona and New Mexico, I group into a separate category from the hospitable Old South. Phoenix is full of transplants from everywhere else, therefore I can't really assign it a specific character. I've encountered folks from California and Utah, the midwest, Mexico, and miscellaneous other places who've settled in Phoenix, although the proportion of hispanic immigrants seems to have exploded in recent years. Perhaps part of the reason for the recent immigration controversies there.
I've enjoyed my time in New Mexico, where I've worked with many native folks, or American Indians to be more descriptive. They're generally friendly enough I suppose, but seem a bit wary of outsiders.
Working my way up the West Coast, I have to start with California. Southern California is to me like visiting a different country. Their economy, overcrowding, smog, and "diversity" sets southern California apart from everywhere else in America. I wouldn't consider Southern California a hospitable place, having few experiences where folks were anything more than focused on the business at hand.
Once in Los Angeles, I received this unsolicited statement from one of the managers of the company I was consulting with:
"We (hispanics) have taken control of Los Angeles. This city belongs to us."
I hadn't made any statements or asked any questions to prompt her statement, but apparently she had a message she felt she needed to share with the white guy from out of state.
Northern California is very different from Southern California. Getting away from San Francisco, I feel like I could be back home in the midwest, albeit with mountains and better weather.
I can't characterize San Fransisco any differently than this: "strange". Not everyone is strange there, of course, but I have to say I've met more folks in San Fran than anywhere else that leave me a bit dumbfounded. They're so different from me in nearly every respect that it's easy to suspect they may have dropped into SFO via some other planet.
Oregon, and to a somewhat lesser degree Washington, are places I would describe as Yuppie Paradise. They're full of trendy folks who look like second-generation hippies. People in Oregon especially seem very much into the latest fads, gave birth to exotic designer coffees via Starbucks, eat strange vegan stuff, and are rabid environmentalists.
Otherwise I find them a bit aloof and elitist.
Let's move onto the midwest. There are certainly differences between Chicago and Detroit, between Indianapolis and Kansas City, between St Louis and Columbus (Ohio). It could take a book to go into those finer points, but I still will generally lump the midwest together.
The midwest is still largely farm country, and I may be most comfortable with the farmers. They plant and harvest crops, raise livestock, love meat and potatoes, and are common-sense, no-nonsense folks.
Midwesterners tend to be taciturn and not very gregarious. They're focused on the job at hand, and don't really spend much time thinking about being hospitable to their out-of-town visitors. They're not inhospitable necessarily, just very practical.
I'll wrap up with my least favorite part of the country - the NorthEast. The one place I will only go if there isn't work anywhere else is New York City.
The people that have given me the most grief over my years consulting? New Yorkers.
New Yorkers are rude, use foul language, and have made a sport out of figuring out ways to cheat. The ones I've worked with in the past are most likely to dispute an invoice, making up reasons that range from irrelevant to completely false.
Where people in most of the rest of the country are essentially fair and will back up their word or honestly do business on a handshake, those characteristics do not apply in New York. I have learned to never deliver anything to a New Yorker that hasn't been specifically contracted in writing ahead of time, even if he "gives his word" that he'll honor the verbal agreement. When the bill comes, he'll deny ever having the conversation.
Not all the Northeast is as bad as NYC. I generally like the folks in Upstate New York, places like Buffalo and Niagara Falls. There are some folks in New Jersey that are pretty good to work with as well, once you get away from the greater New York area. I've enjoyed Maine and New Hampshire, but would prefer to avoid Boston. Cape Cod is a place I always enjoyed visiting.
I haven't dealth with Virginia (which I like) or DC (which is a mixed bag). There's lots more I could get into about the regions of the country, like the differences and rivalries between the Wisconsin cheeseheads and Chicagoans. But I've been typing on this post too long already.
Right now, I'd just like an assignment somewhere warm to get away from this awful winter weather!
Monday, January 24, 2011
Travel Blog
I'm often asked what its like to travel all over the country. After getting stranded overnight in Atlanta (again), it occurred to me to use this blog to answer that question.
There are so many things that can be said about the life of a road warrior. Today I'll start with a basic overview.
I've been traveling extensively as part of my profession for nearly 20 years. The experiences over those years have constantly changed, as business and the travel industry have changed. Some changes for the better, others for the worse.
For those who think it's some sort of exciting and glamourous life, I'd respond you better not look for a road warrior job based on that myth.
Sure, there are lots of great features in this lifestyle. Automatic airline upgrades, hotel perks, car rental upgrades, seeing sights and cultures, some pretty good restaurants, and meeting all kinds of people are all very nice advantages.
On the other hand, the first thing those of you on the outside looking in may not understand is a key fact that it's far from a continuous vacation. Sightseeing is generally limited to the highways and skylines on the way to the office every day. Flight delays and cancellations, TSA harrassments, unethical businesspersons, frequent long hours, bad hotels, bad food, bad weather, loneliness all too often provide an offset to the upsides of the road warrior profession.
There are lots of topics available to me, and here are a few I will consider posting over the next few weeks or so:
Characteristics by Regions of the Country
Air Travel
Hotels
Rental Cars
Driving vs Flying
The Efficient Traveler
Maximizing Frequent Traveler Programs
Booking Tips
There may be more topics to develop as things move along. I'll go with my impressions of the country first, where each region can be described with certain characteristics. I definitely have my favorite regions and other regions I actively try to avoid.
Check back later for my favorite and least-favorite places to visit in North America (yes, I'm going to include Canada).
There are so many things that can be said about the life of a road warrior. Today I'll start with a basic overview.
I've been traveling extensively as part of my profession for nearly 20 years. The experiences over those years have constantly changed, as business and the travel industry have changed. Some changes for the better, others for the worse.
For those who think it's some sort of exciting and glamourous life, I'd respond you better not look for a road warrior job based on that myth.
Sure, there are lots of great features in this lifestyle. Automatic airline upgrades, hotel perks, car rental upgrades, seeing sights and cultures, some pretty good restaurants, and meeting all kinds of people are all very nice advantages.
On the other hand, the first thing those of you on the outside looking in may not understand is a key fact that it's far from a continuous vacation. Sightseeing is generally limited to the highways and skylines on the way to the office every day. Flight delays and cancellations, TSA harrassments, unethical businesspersons, frequent long hours, bad hotels, bad food, bad weather, loneliness all too often provide an offset to the upsides of the road warrior profession.
There are lots of topics available to me, and here are a few I will consider posting over the next few weeks or so:
Characteristics by Regions of the Country
Air Travel
Hotels
Rental Cars
Driving vs Flying
The Efficient Traveler
Maximizing Frequent Traveler Programs
Booking Tips
There may be more topics to develop as things move along. I'll go with my impressions of the country first, where each region can be described with certain characteristics. I definitely have my favorite regions and other regions I actively try to avoid.
Check back later for my favorite and least-favorite places to visit in North America (yes, I'm going to include Canada).
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Using the Liar Charge
I haven't been paying a lot of attention to news stuff lately because I'm too busy. Even so, I still can't avoid a continuous drumbeat coming from Democrats about the Republican efforts to overturn the healthcare bill mainly known as "Obamacare".
One thing you can't say about Democrats is that they're unfocused in their messaging. Everywhere I turn this week, I'm hearing a message that goes pretty much like this:
"Republicans are lying when they say (Obamacare) is a government takeover of healthcare".
This is a statement that should be analyzed by itself. Which is true - Obamacare is essentially a government takeover of the healthcare system, or isn't it?
If you are a Democrat, I suppose your perspective comes from the difference between what Obamacare is and what you wish it were. Since the leftward part of the Democrat party wants something they call "Single Payer", I suppose anything that falls short of that goal doesn't qualify as a government takeover.
If the standard for goverment takeover is that all Health Insurance companies go out of business and all healthcare services are paid for directly by the Federal Government, the Obamacare bill certainly fails to meet that standard.
On the other hand, if you're a Republican, the massive regulations and mandates included in Obamacare absolutely represents a government takeover of the system. Just a few components that could be interpreted as "takeover" are these:
Mandating everyone buy health insurance
Mandating what the health insurance has to cover or not cover
Mandating how much each of us must spend for our insurance premiums
Mandating who every state must cover and what they must cover in their Medicaid programs
Giving Kathleen Sebelius full power to create and enforce all healthcare regulations without congressional oversight (or oversight by anybody else)
Giving Kathleen the full power to create a central committee to decide what treatments are covered and not covered for patients based on statistical tables (what Sarah Palin called "Death Panels")
Giving HHS (Sebelius) the full power to decide which drugs are approved and not approved, apparently based on economic considerations and not clinical results.
Mandating what corporations can and can't offer their employees in their health plans
Taxing employers on health plans they provide their employees
Choosing which Insurance Companies will be allowed to participate in the new "Insurance Pools"
Taking away state-based programs and high-risk pools in favor of the Federal system
Is there a liar in this story? Is the liar a Democrat or a Republican? If you think it's me, please demonstrate to me which of the above examples is incorrect (and prove it), and I'll be happy to rescind the example.
One thing you can't say about Democrats is that they're unfocused in their messaging. Everywhere I turn this week, I'm hearing a message that goes pretty much like this:
"Republicans are lying when they say (Obamacare) is a government takeover of healthcare".
This is a statement that should be analyzed by itself. Which is true - Obamacare is essentially a government takeover of the healthcare system, or isn't it?
If you are a Democrat, I suppose your perspective comes from the difference between what Obamacare is and what you wish it were. Since the leftward part of the Democrat party wants something they call "Single Payer", I suppose anything that falls short of that goal doesn't qualify as a government takeover.
If the standard for goverment takeover is that all Health Insurance companies go out of business and all healthcare services are paid for directly by the Federal Government, the Obamacare bill certainly fails to meet that standard.
On the other hand, if you're a Republican, the massive regulations and mandates included in Obamacare absolutely represents a government takeover of the system. Just a few components that could be interpreted as "takeover" are these:
Mandating everyone buy health insurance
Mandating what the health insurance has to cover or not cover
Mandating how much each of us must spend for our insurance premiums
Mandating who every state must cover and what they must cover in their Medicaid programs
Giving Kathleen Sebelius full power to create and enforce all healthcare regulations without congressional oversight (or oversight by anybody else)
Giving Kathleen the full power to create a central committee to decide what treatments are covered and not covered for patients based on statistical tables (what Sarah Palin called "Death Panels")
Giving HHS (Sebelius) the full power to decide which drugs are approved and not approved, apparently based on economic considerations and not clinical results.
Mandating what corporations can and can't offer their employees in their health plans
Taxing employers on health plans they provide their employees
Choosing which Insurance Companies will be allowed to participate in the new "Insurance Pools"
Taking away state-based programs and high-risk pools in favor of the Federal system
Is there a liar in this story? Is the liar a Democrat or a Republican? If you think it's me, please demonstrate to me which of the above examples is incorrect (and prove it), and I'll be happy to rescind the example.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Teenagers
The problem is arrested development. We're a country run by folks who are stuck in the teenage developmental stage.
Any of this sound familiar?
A teen considers a weekly allowance a right. Earning it is a foreign concept.
A teen gets all their costs of medical care, dental care, orthodontia, and hair stylists covered by Mom & Dad.
A teen expects Mom & Dad to provide a car at the 16th birthday. Plus gas money, repairs, insurance.
A teen expects lunch money every day, because only losers eat in the school cafeteria.
A teen rails against all rules and personal responsibility, whether in after-school behavior, dating, curfews, limits on TV and video games.
When a teen gets caught doing something wrong, the first defense is to blame somebody else.
See the parallels with any specific political rhetoric these days?
If you don't, perhaps you're a teenager as well.
Any of this sound familiar?
A teen considers a weekly allowance a right. Earning it is a foreign concept.
A teen gets all their costs of medical care, dental care, orthodontia, and hair stylists covered by Mom & Dad.
A teen expects Mom & Dad to provide a car at the 16th birthday. Plus gas money, repairs, insurance.
A teen expects lunch money every day, because only losers eat in the school cafeteria.
A teen rails against all rules and personal responsibility, whether in after-school behavior, dating, curfews, limits on TV and video games.
When a teen gets caught doing something wrong, the first defense is to blame somebody else.
See the parallels with any specific political rhetoric these days?
If you don't, perhaps you're a teenager as well.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Fear on the Right
When I heard the news about the shooting in Arizona, even before I knew any details beyond "Democratic Congresswoman", my first reaction was, "Here we go".
Whether the shooter was a right-wing lunatic or not, I expected that the Left would jump all over it as proof that the Right inspired him.
It's sad just how right my prediction turned out to be.
Even though the guy's about as far from a right-wing nutcase as you can imagine. But that doesn't matter to those who continue promoting the message. He shot the congresswoman and a number of other people, not because he's a murdering nutcase, but because of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.
All kinds of political and celebrity types are going on television to decry the hateful and mean-spirited tone of our political discourse. At first, it seems like they mean from both sides, but it only takes a couple of minutes before you find out they're only including those from the Right.
So let's examine a few things we know about the murderer. He's likely a schizophrenic who smokes a lot of pot, has a weird satanic altar in his backyard, is an admirer of Marx and the Communist Manifesto, thinks Bush blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11, and hates Jews.
So the Left thinks we should shut down Fox News, lynch Palin, and ban all the conservative talkers from the radio airwaves. Based on nothing.
Let's see. If we try to follow their logic, then I suppose we should also lock up all pot-heads, Marxists, 9/11 Truthers, Satanists and other weird pagan occultist types, and Jew haters.
Oh yes, apparently also we need to ban guns.
It's frightening, when considering that these people are seeking the power to selectively oppress more than half of the American population, for no discernable reason other than the fact they oppose liberal policies.
If we want to cool down the rhetoric, may I suggest we start with that rhetoric that suggests that everyone who happens to hold a right-of-center philosophy is a potential lunatic mass murderer.
Whether the shooter was a right-wing lunatic or not, I expected that the Left would jump all over it as proof that the Right inspired him.
It's sad just how right my prediction turned out to be.
Even though the guy's about as far from a right-wing nutcase as you can imagine. But that doesn't matter to those who continue promoting the message. He shot the congresswoman and a number of other people, not because he's a murdering nutcase, but because of Sarah Palin, the Tea Party, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck.
All kinds of political and celebrity types are going on television to decry the hateful and mean-spirited tone of our political discourse. At first, it seems like they mean from both sides, but it only takes a couple of minutes before you find out they're only including those from the Right.
So let's examine a few things we know about the murderer. He's likely a schizophrenic who smokes a lot of pot, has a weird satanic altar in his backyard, is an admirer of Marx and the Communist Manifesto, thinks Bush blew up the World Trade Center on 9/11, and hates Jews.
So the Left thinks we should shut down Fox News, lynch Palin, and ban all the conservative talkers from the radio airwaves. Based on nothing.
Let's see. If we try to follow their logic, then I suppose we should also lock up all pot-heads, Marxists, 9/11 Truthers, Satanists and other weird pagan occultist types, and Jew haters.
Oh yes, apparently also we need to ban guns.
It's frightening, when considering that these people are seeking the power to selectively oppress more than half of the American population, for no discernable reason other than the fact they oppose liberal policies.
If we want to cool down the rhetoric, may I suggest we start with that rhetoric that suggests that everyone who happens to hold a right-of-center philosophy is a potential lunatic mass murderer.
Monday, January 10, 2011
Colts Season Wrap
The loss to the Jets was disappointing, but not surprising. It actually was somewhat encouraging to see the Colts fight through to be in position for the victory. But their special teams, specifically the kickoff team, let them down in the end.
Of course, the defense also failed to stop the worst quarterback in the playoffs from completing the clutch passes that put the Jets close enough for an easy chip shot field goal winner as the clock clicked down to zero. The pass rush disappeared during that final drive in the final minute, probably because the Colts coaches decided to only rush 3 and try to cover.
But the 4th and 5th string defensive backs couldn't cover.
For the Colts to be back next year, it's clear they need to get their starters back healthy, but they also need to fill some holes.
They need safeties and linebackers on defense. They will give up on Bob Sanders, who has collected too many millions over the last 3 years for watching from the sideline. Gary Brackett was embarassed by the Jets' offensive line in the playoff game, and his time might be at an end.
They need offensive linemen. I love Jeff Saturday, but he couldn't block the Jets' defensive line. The tackles can't open holes for the running game, and can't give Peyton the time he needs to pick defenses apart.
They need to draft a wide receiver that's got the size and talent in the mold of Terrell Owens or Randy Moss without the baggage. (I know, like every team isn't looking for the same thing). I suspect that Reggie Wayne has lost a step. I hope Dallas Clark is able to come back healthy enough to reclaim his place at the top of the league, and combined with Tamme will make the Tight End position the best ever.
Certainly bringing in a running back or two to challenge Joseph Addai is a good idea. But I'm willing to consider that the problem with the running game this year may have had more to do with the O line than the backs.
Will the Colts fill the right holes and get and keep the other guys healthy to be back in the hunt for the Super Bowl next year? Or will they fall into mediocrity?
That's the thing about sports. Nobody knows.
Otherwise, the season's pretty much over for me. I still have a mild interest in seeing the Bears do well, and they seem to be a decent bet to make it to the NFC championship game. But I would be surprised to see them make it through to the Super Bowl.
And please, somebody must beat the Patriots. I'm no Jets fan, but will be this coming weekend, one game only.
Of course, the defense also failed to stop the worst quarterback in the playoffs from completing the clutch passes that put the Jets close enough for an easy chip shot field goal winner as the clock clicked down to zero. The pass rush disappeared during that final drive in the final minute, probably because the Colts coaches decided to only rush 3 and try to cover.
But the 4th and 5th string defensive backs couldn't cover.
For the Colts to be back next year, it's clear they need to get their starters back healthy, but they also need to fill some holes.
They need safeties and linebackers on defense. They will give up on Bob Sanders, who has collected too many millions over the last 3 years for watching from the sideline. Gary Brackett was embarassed by the Jets' offensive line in the playoff game, and his time might be at an end.
They need offensive linemen. I love Jeff Saturday, but he couldn't block the Jets' defensive line. The tackles can't open holes for the running game, and can't give Peyton the time he needs to pick defenses apart.
They need to draft a wide receiver that's got the size and talent in the mold of Terrell Owens or Randy Moss without the baggage. (I know, like every team isn't looking for the same thing). I suspect that Reggie Wayne has lost a step. I hope Dallas Clark is able to come back healthy enough to reclaim his place at the top of the league, and combined with Tamme will make the Tight End position the best ever.
Certainly bringing in a running back or two to challenge Joseph Addai is a good idea. But I'm willing to consider that the problem with the running game this year may have had more to do with the O line than the backs.
Will the Colts fill the right holes and get and keep the other guys healthy to be back in the hunt for the Super Bowl next year? Or will they fall into mediocrity?
That's the thing about sports. Nobody knows.
Otherwise, the season's pretty much over for me. I still have a mild interest in seeing the Bears do well, and they seem to be a decent bet to make it to the NFC championship game. But I would be surprised to see them make it through to the Super Bowl.
And please, somebody must beat the Patriots. I'm no Jets fan, but will be this coming weekend, one game only.
Tuesday, January 04, 2011
Solving the Budget Crisis
Cynics point to the Tea Party folks and other conservatives and derisively challenge them with, "OK, genius, what are you going to cut to balance the budget?"
Not professing to be a genius, nonetheless here is my answer:
First, the low-hanging fruit. Eliminate every non-essential federal program and agency. Easy ones are the NEA, PBS, Education, and every other agency and bureau that contributes nothing of value to the country.
Then, slash other agencies. Reorganize Homeland Security and eliminate the TSA. Let the transportation system pay the freight for airport security and take funding away from the taxpayers.
I'm fairly convinced that we could cut money from the military by focusing on readiness and security and eliminating the ability of influential congress members to fund and maintain unnecessary weapons systems simply because they directly benefit their district or key campaign donors.
Entitlements are the toughest nut to crack. Medicare is in the most trouble, followed by Social Security. Unemployment is also a big problem. Here's a solution with heart.
Wean the government off of Social Security revenue by actually beginning to separate it out of the main federal budget. It can't be done right away, but over the span of the next 20 years or so, gradually convert the Social Security system from it's current transfer payment entitlement to an actual retirement & disability fund maintained in each citizen's name.
Something like this would make it solvent: Start with everybody under 50 getting 2% of their annual payroll tax deposited into an interest-bearing account with their name on it. The investment of this money would be in government bonds or money market funds, or while the debt is being paid off, the government can borrow from our accounts at a market interest rate. We simply can't touch the money until we retire, then it becomes a source of our retirement income. Since the percentage goes up 1% per year, within 15 to 16 years, 100% of the payroll tax is now going into the fund, and by the time those entering the workforce today retire, they will have a sweet nest egg that will fund their monthly retirement income and can be willed to their heirs at death.
Medicare's another story. The fact is that seniors need the most expensive medical care, and the cost of that care exceeds the annual income of the vast majority of these retirees.
How to escape this seemingly impossible problem is to use an approach with a philosophy that mirrors what I've written about many times before. Again, gradually over the next generation, we will gradually wean everyone off the Medical Welfare program called Medicare in favor of a realignment of the way the healthcare system pays for treatment.
Gradually change the system so that insurance is separated from both the government and the employers, and is purchased individually on the open market. Some insurance companies may choose to offer comprehensive plans that pay for prescriptions and routine care, but the most attractive policies will be what we used to call "Major Medical".
Those insurance policies cover everyone, regardless of age, for surgeries, inpatient procedures, and major illness. Employers can offer payroll deductions or even kick in contributions toward these plans if they want to, but ultimately everyone buys their own.
What will happen is providers will have to compete for patients, will have to post their rates so people can compare and make their own decisions on the best use of their available healthcare funds. No prescription drug insurance means pharmaceutical companies will no longer be able to get away with charging $100 per pill on their brand-name drugs.
Finally, Unemployment Insurance. I'd like to separate this from government entirely as well. Instead of Federal and State taxes on the employer, let the employer opt out in favor of a simple 2 percent savings plan. The employer can put 2 percent of each employee's salary into a tax-deductable, interest-bearing account. The employee can elect to contribute up to 2 percent of their own salary into the same account, using pre-tax dollars in the same way they can save for retirement in a 401K.
If the employee loses his or her job, for any reason, the cash value of their unemployment account immediately becomes available. The employee can take the money, pay the tax on it at normal marginal rates, and spend it as they see fit. Or they can choose to take it in a weekly payout to tide them over while they look for a new job. Or they can roll it over into their IRA, just like they can roll over their 401K when leaving an employer. Or they can roll it over into the Unemployment Fund at their next employer.
All these ideas represent freedom, help provide security for people, and still give us all the ability to make our own financial decisions.
If someone chooses not to buy the major medical policy, if they get very ill or severly injured, they're on their own. The providers will still treat them, but can take all their assets. But the individual has the freedom to make that choice.
If someone gets laid off and cashes out their unemployment account, then goes to Vegas and blows every last dollar, that's their choice. But there's no help for them from the government. They are bankrupt by their own choice, and must make their own decision on where to go from there.
Some might say that we have to take care of even these irresponsible folks who make the wrong choices and end up broke. I'll only agree to a point - the rest of us can and will have compassion toward these folks, but that doesn't mean we all chip in to give them a free house, free medical care, free food, etc. I think they should always have a place to go where they can get a roof over their head and food to eat, but if able-bodied, they should return some service for those handouts.
More about that some other time.
But imagine that the government is no longer in the business of handing out Social Security checks, Unemployment checks, or checks to our parents' doctors and hospitals. Suppose we cut them out of the process, in essence removing the "middle man" who skims way to much off the top.
It will not only solve our government's budget crisis, but result in better lives for all of us.
Not professing to be a genius, nonetheless here is my answer:
First, the low-hanging fruit. Eliminate every non-essential federal program and agency. Easy ones are the NEA, PBS, Education, and every other agency and bureau that contributes nothing of value to the country.
Then, slash other agencies. Reorganize Homeland Security and eliminate the TSA. Let the transportation system pay the freight for airport security and take funding away from the taxpayers.
I'm fairly convinced that we could cut money from the military by focusing on readiness and security and eliminating the ability of influential congress members to fund and maintain unnecessary weapons systems simply because they directly benefit their district or key campaign donors.
Entitlements are the toughest nut to crack. Medicare is in the most trouble, followed by Social Security. Unemployment is also a big problem. Here's a solution with heart.
Wean the government off of Social Security revenue by actually beginning to separate it out of the main federal budget. It can't be done right away, but over the span of the next 20 years or so, gradually convert the Social Security system from it's current transfer payment entitlement to an actual retirement & disability fund maintained in each citizen's name.
Something like this would make it solvent: Start with everybody under 50 getting 2% of their annual payroll tax deposited into an interest-bearing account with their name on it. The investment of this money would be in government bonds or money market funds, or while the debt is being paid off, the government can borrow from our accounts at a market interest rate. We simply can't touch the money until we retire, then it becomes a source of our retirement income. Since the percentage goes up 1% per year, within 15 to 16 years, 100% of the payroll tax is now going into the fund, and by the time those entering the workforce today retire, they will have a sweet nest egg that will fund their monthly retirement income and can be willed to their heirs at death.
Medicare's another story. The fact is that seniors need the most expensive medical care, and the cost of that care exceeds the annual income of the vast majority of these retirees.
How to escape this seemingly impossible problem is to use an approach with a philosophy that mirrors what I've written about many times before. Again, gradually over the next generation, we will gradually wean everyone off the Medical Welfare program called Medicare in favor of a realignment of the way the healthcare system pays for treatment.
Gradually change the system so that insurance is separated from both the government and the employers, and is purchased individually on the open market. Some insurance companies may choose to offer comprehensive plans that pay for prescriptions and routine care, but the most attractive policies will be what we used to call "Major Medical".
Those insurance policies cover everyone, regardless of age, for surgeries, inpatient procedures, and major illness. Employers can offer payroll deductions or even kick in contributions toward these plans if they want to, but ultimately everyone buys their own.
What will happen is providers will have to compete for patients, will have to post their rates so people can compare and make their own decisions on the best use of their available healthcare funds. No prescription drug insurance means pharmaceutical companies will no longer be able to get away with charging $100 per pill on their brand-name drugs.
Finally, Unemployment Insurance. I'd like to separate this from government entirely as well. Instead of Federal and State taxes on the employer, let the employer opt out in favor of a simple 2 percent savings plan. The employer can put 2 percent of each employee's salary into a tax-deductable, interest-bearing account. The employee can elect to contribute up to 2 percent of their own salary into the same account, using pre-tax dollars in the same way they can save for retirement in a 401K.
If the employee loses his or her job, for any reason, the cash value of their unemployment account immediately becomes available. The employee can take the money, pay the tax on it at normal marginal rates, and spend it as they see fit. Or they can choose to take it in a weekly payout to tide them over while they look for a new job. Or they can roll it over into their IRA, just like they can roll over their 401K when leaving an employer. Or they can roll it over into the Unemployment Fund at their next employer.
All these ideas represent freedom, help provide security for people, and still give us all the ability to make our own financial decisions.
If someone chooses not to buy the major medical policy, if they get very ill or severly injured, they're on their own. The providers will still treat them, but can take all their assets. But the individual has the freedom to make that choice.
If someone gets laid off and cashes out their unemployment account, then goes to Vegas and blows every last dollar, that's their choice. But there's no help for them from the government. They are bankrupt by their own choice, and must make their own decision on where to go from there.
Some might say that we have to take care of even these irresponsible folks who make the wrong choices and end up broke. I'll only agree to a point - the rest of us can and will have compassion toward these folks, but that doesn't mean we all chip in to give them a free house, free medical care, free food, etc. I think they should always have a place to go where they can get a roof over their head and food to eat, but if able-bodied, they should return some service for those handouts.
More about that some other time.
But imagine that the government is no longer in the business of handing out Social Security checks, Unemployment checks, or checks to our parents' doctors and hospitals. Suppose we cut them out of the process, in essence removing the "middle man" who skims way to much off the top.
It will not only solve our government's budget crisis, but result in better lives for all of us.
Monday, January 03, 2011
Colts Playoff Prospects
My pessimism showed yesterday, when Dominic Rhodes fumbled the ball and appeared to hand a victory to the Tennessee Titans late in the fourth quarter. The Jacksonville loss already assured, we knew the Colts were in the playoffs regardless, but handing a close game to the Titans wasn't the way I'd hoped to see them earn the spot.
The Titans' gift of a fumbled center snap assured the Colts of the 3rd seed over Kansas City, which is theoretically a better route to another hoped-for Super Bowl appearance. But realistically, it would take a miracle for this year's version of the team with the horseshoe to make it that far.
The Colts get the Jets at home next weekend, which may be preferable to the Ravens. But these Colts will be hard-pressed to win against either of those teams.
If somehow they can overcome the Jets, the Colts then will have to travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers in their icy stadium. This game is certainly preferable to having to face New England in their similarly frigid venue, but again would seem to require a combination of the Colts playing above their heads while catching more than a couple of breaks to escape with a win.
Finally, assuming they overachieve and win against both the Jets and Steelers, taking the AFC championship from the hottest team in the NFL would seem impossible.
If Peyton and his makeshift offense can be productive, eliminate turnovers and penalties, and get guys like Garcon and White and Tamme to play out of their minds, maybe they have a chance. If the Colts defense can find consistency, stringing together 3 good stops in a row instead of 2, shutting down the run and the pass, maybe there's a slim chance.
One thing I can say definitively; if this Colts team makes it to the Super Bowl, it will exceed their previous Super Bowl accomplishments. Even if they lose in the Super Bowl, just getting there with this team is more impressive than the other two trips, when they were expected to make it and win. Nobody expects this team to get there.
The pessimist in me thinks next week's game against the Jets will end their run for this year. But I'll still maintain a faint hope that they can somehow overachieve and find their way to Dallas for the big game next month.
The Titans' gift of a fumbled center snap assured the Colts of the 3rd seed over Kansas City, which is theoretically a better route to another hoped-for Super Bowl appearance. But realistically, it would take a miracle for this year's version of the team with the horseshoe to make it that far.
The Colts get the Jets at home next weekend, which may be preferable to the Ravens. But these Colts will be hard-pressed to win against either of those teams.
If somehow they can overcome the Jets, the Colts then will have to travel to Pittsburgh to face the Steelers in their icy stadium. This game is certainly preferable to having to face New England in their similarly frigid venue, but again would seem to require a combination of the Colts playing above their heads while catching more than a couple of breaks to escape with a win.
Finally, assuming they overachieve and win against both the Jets and Steelers, taking the AFC championship from the hottest team in the NFL would seem impossible.
If Peyton and his makeshift offense can be productive, eliminate turnovers and penalties, and get guys like Garcon and White and Tamme to play out of their minds, maybe they have a chance. If the Colts defense can find consistency, stringing together 3 good stops in a row instead of 2, shutting down the run and the pass, maybe there's a slim chance.
One thing I can say definitively; if this Colts team makes it to the Super Bowl, it will exceed their previous Super Bowl accomplishments. Even if they lose in the Super Bowl, just getting there with this team is more impressive than the other two trips, when they were expected to make it and win. Nobody expects this team to get there.
The pessimist in me thinks next week's game against the Jets will end their run for this year. But I'll still maintain a faint hope that they can somehow overachieve and find their way to Dallas for the big game next month.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Thoughts for the New Year
On the last day of 2010, I look back on a busy but generally good year, and forward to a year that holds lots of questions.
Will 2011 be another good year personally, or will hard times come?
Will the country pull back from the brink politically and at least begin to restore reason, or will it be business as usual?
Will terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, et al threaten us, or will we keep them at bay another year? If we are attacked again, will our leaders choose to do anything about it, or seek to pacify our enemies?
I'm hopeful the Obamacare constitutional challenges will succeed. It is clearly unconstitutional. But what concerns me is that most of what today's Federal Government does today is also unconstitutional, so how can we go after one unconstitutional element of the Obamacare law (insurance purchase mandate), while we ignore all the other agencies and laws that are also unconstitutional but have stood for decades?
Unconstitutional federal things abound, here are just a few off the top of my head:
Social Security, Medicare, Federal Unemployment
The departments of Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, EEOC, and Labor
Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Boosted by FDR and the New Deal, the feds have siezed extra-constitutional power and the citizens have made no move to stop them.
Whether or not you believe some of the agencies and programs created in Washington since the 1930's serve a useful purpose, they are not permitted by the constitution. If we can't draw the line somewhere, there is no line.
The result is an overbearing, Big Brother government.
Our choice is clear in this new decade: We can either choose to take the crumbs from the government table so we at least don't starve to death, or we decide to risk starvation in search of freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy New Year!
Will 2011 be another good year personally, or will hard times come?
Will the country pull back from the brink politically and at least begin to restore reason, or will it be business as usual?
Will terrorism, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, Venezuela, et al threaten us, or will we keep them at bay another year? If we are attacked again, will our leaders choose to do anything about it, or seek to pacify our enemies?
I'm hopeful the Obamacare constitutional challenges will succeed. It is clearly unconstitutional. But what concerns me is that most of what today's Federal Government does today is also unconstitutional, so how can we go after one unconstitutional element of the Obamacare law (insurance purchase mandate), while we ignore all the other agencies and laws that are also unconstitutional but have stood for decades?
Unconstitutional federal things abound, here are just a few off the top of my head:
Social Security, Medicare, Federal Unemployment
The departments of Health & Human Services, Agriculture, Education, Energy, Housing & Urban Development, EEOC, and Labor
Public Broadcasting, the National Endowment for the Arts, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
Boosted by FDR and the New Deal, the feds have siezed extra-constitutional power and the citizens have made no move to stop them.
Whether or not you believe some of the agencies and programs created in Washington since the 1930's serve a useful purpose, they are not permitted by the constitution. If we can't draw the line somewhere, there is no line.
The result is an overbearing, Big Brother government.
Our choice is clear in this new decade: We can either choose to take the crumbs from the government table so we at least don't starve to death, or we decide to risk starvation in search of freedom - life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Happy New Year!
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
The Simplest Constitutional Question
With the latest ruling in Virginia declaring the health insurance purchase by all citizens under Obamacare unconsitutional, the only question should be why it took so long. The ruling is simple and evident.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
If the feds can force us to buy health insurance, then why can't they also force us to:
Purchase an electric vehicle
Replace our Coal, Oil, or Gas furnace with Solar Panels
Stop buying things they think are bad for us, like soft drinks and french fries
Apply for permission to travel out of our state
Give up our home and move if the house is bigger than they think we should have
Wait 6 months to a year for the surgery that can save our life, while we hope we can live that long?
No, this isn't a stretch. Obamacare is the definition of government oppression and tyranny.
It needs to be ended, now.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Core Principles
It is puzzling to hear the angry denouncements against the president by most of his party over their belief that he "caved" on a core principle in agreeing to the tax compromise.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
What exactly is the core principle, and why is it a core principle?
I'm searching for an answer to that question that makes sense, but the search is in vain. I simply can't figure out why Democrats hold as a core fundamental tenet of political philosophy the requirement that people who make over 200 thousand have to fork over 40% to the government instead of 35%.
Angry Dems are suggesting that Republicans are hypocrites for decrying deficits, while refusing to consider increasing tax rates to at least try to close that gap. Of course, Republicans respond that it's not a tax problem, but a spending problem.
The larger question is why, while the Democrats had the majorities in both houses of Congress, didn't they simply pass a tax plan that fits their philosophy? Why is it that less than 2 weeks out from the expiration of the current tax rates, they suddenly discover their core prinicples, which appear to be based on little more than the old Robin Hood myth?
If a Democrat who defines their core principle as one that taxes the "rich" at 40% instead of 35% happens to be reading this, would you please help me understand by answering these questions?
1. How does it help the failing economy to raise the top tax rate to 40%?
2. Do you earn more or less than $200K? If more, why don't you voluntarily send the extra 5% to the Treasury to help out the government? If less, explain how making those other people pay extra taxes make your life better?
3. What exactly do you think the government will do with the extra tax revenue? Have you heard anybody in government say that it will be earmarked for unemployment benefits only? Or do you just want it to go toward deficit reduction?
4. The "deal" apparently includes reinstatement of the inheritance tax. How do you feeel about a government policy that prohibits you from inheriting the family business or family farm, because the inheritance tax burden forces you to sell out?
5. What if the "rich" decide not to participate, by simply capping their annual income at $200K, so almost nobody pays the 40%? What has it achieved?
6. If you had your way and could dictate tax rates, what would your brackets and rates be, and why?
I'm sincerely curious, and hope somebody answers my questions.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
Pacers Monday
Nick said he had to work late, so Claudia and I braved the freezing temperatures and made the trip to Conseco to take in the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
You've got to give the organization credit in several areas. Despite their struggles to put a decent team on the court in the post-Reggie Miller era that doesn't include a bunch of delinquents, the Pacers organization is finally showing signs of life.
They're pushing a bunch of promotions to get more people in the fieldhouse, such as the one that I used to get a pretty good deal on Club-level seats last night.
They're doing their best to make the games a fun and family-friendly experience, with lots of entertainment promotions during breaks in play.
And most importantly, they've got a team that might actually be competitive. The Pacers are only a game out of first in the Central division, and would make the playoffs if the season ended now. The team seems to be playing better than even the earlier game I visited, sharing the ball better on offense and playing a bit tighter on defense.
If anybody wants a family-friendly evening of entertainment at a reasonable price, this is a good year to catch the Pacers.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Boy is it Cold Out
Better not try that global warming line on me this week. It's hard to get warm this week.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
I'm not really very interested in the stuff going on in the Lame Duck session in Washington. It's sort of surreal that they can't get something as seemingly simple as extending the tax rates for 2011.
The thing that's a bit puzzling about the heated rhetoric on the topic comes from the Democrat side, who keep saying Republicans are holding up tax breaks for the middle class by insisting on massive give-backs to "millionaires and billionaires".
A couple things interesting about that argument:
First, the fact that nobody's talking about giving anybody an actual tax cut - not middle class or millionaires. All they're fighting about is whether or not to keep the existing tax rates in effect.
Second, my first-grade arithmetic tells me that 200 thousand is about 800 thousand short of 1 million. So how exactly are they defining a millionaire?
At least the GOP's message is simpler. Keep the tax rates the same permanently.
The only problem with that is the "permanent" idea. It seems to me Congress can no more make tax rates "permanant" than keep it from raining in DC in April.
I'm a bit puzzled by the Democrat rhetoric, embodied by some overwrought woman I caught on MSNBC the other night. Her impassioned speech decried this "massive handout to the rich, while so many middle-clase Americans are suffering".
Huh? Is she suggesting that keeping the top income tax rate at 35% instead of increasing it to 40% (OK, 39.6%, if you must be precise) is going to somehow cause millions of unemployed Americans to starve to death?
Unless she's suggesting a linkage between that 5% tax increase and the extension of unemployment benefits past 99 weeks. The only problem is that nobody has suggested earmarking those tax revenues for that purpose.
Otherwise, how is it that having people who make more than you pay more in taxes or not pay more in taxes affect your well-being one way or the other? And I haven't even moved into the fact that tax policy affects behavior of the taxed, which means it's unlikely the projected income to the government expected from this tax increase will materialize.
Probably the most disappointing aspect of the argument is that our partisan leaders have so little respect for the intelligence of their constituents.
Extend the tax cuts or don't. Besides the rhetoric, I think both parties know how it will impact the economy.
Friday, December 03, 2010
No Glee
I watched 'Glee' for the first time.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
The musical performances are outstanding.
Everything that happens in between performances is trash. Nothing redeeming whatsovever.
The only way I watch again would be to DVR the show and skip over everything except the music.
If this is supposed to represent the attitudes and mores of high schoolers, we're even worse off than I thought. And I already thought things were pretty bad.
Wednesday, December 01, 2010
An Alternative Perspective on DADT
The military policy called "Don't ask, don't tell" was a compromise that was crafted during the Clinton administration. The Left wanted gays to serve openly in the armed forces, while the Right wanted to maintain the longstanding traditions banning homosexuals from military service.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
My beef with Democrats is mainly the fact that this issue is front-and-center as a policy initiative, while they ignore the truly important issues. The country's bankrupt, healthcare is being destroyed, unemployment is approaching depression-era levels. Yet what is the President and his friends in Congress focused on? DADT.
Besides that, I'm forced to deal with the issue itself.
My personal philosophy is pretty well aligned with the existing policy. How somebody might feel or think about their sexuality should no more be a disqualification from service than their religion or political affiliation. Rather, that disqualification should absolutely take place if they act on those feelings, whether it's beating up another soldier because he's a member of the other political party, spying for jihadists, or propositioning other soldiers for sex.
I've read conflicting accounts of the military's current enforcement of DADT. Activists who want it repealed claim that gays are purposely harrassed and drummed out even when they try to abide by the policy. Alternative sources suggest that in most cases, known gays are allowed to remain as long as they are not flamboyant or militant about their orientation.
In cases like this, I tend to assume that both characterizations can be true, and it depends on the people involved. It's not difficult to imagine that there's one unit that is hyper-sensitive about gays, and will aggressively move to drum out all those who may be suspected of that orientation. It's also easy to imagine there are units with known gay folks, where nobody cares and there's no effort to discharge them as long as they do their job and don't damage the unit's cohesiveness.
The fear is that allowing gays to serve openly might create a culture and atmosphere that might actually be repressive of heterosexuals in units. The fear is that it will result in widespread same-sex harassment, break down unit cohesiveness with divisiveness between the straight and gay components of the unit, and lead to the creation of "pink" barracks, units where heteros are discriminated against and sexual behavior is rampant.
I'm actually so old-fashioned in my thinking that I still oppose women in combat. My position on that would seem tbe be supported by reports of frighteningly high incidences of pregnancies among women during tours of duty on naval ships, reports of widespread sexual harassment, unreported and unprosecuted instances of rape, and unchecked fraternization that flies in the face of military regulation.
The fear of many is that repeal of DADT will explode the problems of harassment and rape and violence among military units, adding the component of HIV epidemics in close quarter deployments. There may become widespread "pink barracks", with units made up primarily with gays that will not be open to heteros. That there will be pockets in the military of unrestricted same-sex behavior, bringing shame and disrepute to the reputation of military branches.
Ultimately I believe that congress and the courts should stay out of this policy altogether. The military leaders know best what's best for their troops, and should be premitted to implement the policies they need to accomplish their mission without meddling from outsider politicians who know nothing about what it's like to send soldiers to war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)