Weblog
Monday, July 21, 2008
-
Phrase of the Day
a general time horizon for meeting aspirational goals
Domestic Charges
I had the TV turned on to "Tru TV" tonight and was watching a slightly comical show called Operacion Repo.
After it was over, one of those crime documentaries came on, and while I packed my bag to go out of town, my wife watched it. Now, I generally don't watch these shows because they're depressing, and also because about 50% of the time they seem to involve a woman who ends up dead because she makes a really bad decision about an abuseive husband/ex/boyfriend.
One such example was the show that was on tonight. A woman had clearly been a victim of assault by her husband, but she chose to drop the charges not long after she filed them against him... From what I've read and heard, this is a pretty common thing. Sometimes it's fear that causes them to drop the charges, and other times it's just pure stupidity. Well, this woman ended up dead thanks to her choice. Others are a bit more lucky and just have to endure more abuse.
I'm going to start by saying something to any of you women out there... No one-- man, woman, or otherwise-- has the right to abuse you; this means physically, mentally, or otherwise. If you are abused by someone have them thrown in jail, or at the very least get as far away from them as possible. I know there's probably part of you that thinks he still loves you or that he'll change, but abusive people do not change. It's not going to happen.
Now I'm going to be an asshole. I think that women who file charges against their husbands or boyfriends should not be allowed to choose to have the charges dropped. I know a woman cannot be compelled to testify against her will, but the police should have a clear policy that says once you sign a police report claiming to have been assaulted, in order for you to choose to "drop the charges" you should have to plead guilty to filing a false police report. The way I see it, if a woman is being assaulted by her husband, this way the end result is either the husband is locked up for assault or the woman is locked up behind bars so the husband cannot assault her.
Now I know I'm just being insensitive because I'm a man, blah blah blahbetty blah, but it just pisses me off that there are all of these stupid women out there that are convinced that a man who abuses them is somehow showing his affection... I know that abuse carries a lot of baggage with it, but I feel very strongly that if a woman shows herself to be unwilling to care for herself as the result of the abuse, it should be the responsibility of the government to protect her from her own decisions. Perhaps a woman who files a claim of assault, then chooses to drop the charges should be required to undergo inpatient treatment for mental illness-- if she's a danger to herself (trying to protect her abuser), then it seems justified.
Like I said, I know abuse is serious business, but I also know that a lot of time the abused is unwilling or unable to help themselves. If the government can do something to help these people help themselves, then I have no problem with them doing it.
Another thing I think needs to happen is that I think there needs to be stricter enforcement of restraining orders (or whatever they're called). I think that there should be a special kind of order a judge can hand down requiring an abuser to stay away from a person. If the abuser violates that order intentionally, he or she should serve a mandatory 5 year prison sentence. If he or she violates it and harms the other person, it should be a mandatory 20 year prison sentence. If the person violates it and kills the other person, it should be mandatory life without parole.
I could go on about this for a long time, but that show just hit a nerve and I needed to vent...
Friday, July 18, 2008
-
Maybe It's a Sign
Yesterday I wrote about how we need a new John F. Kennedy to bring the country behind energy reform...
Then today there's this: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080719020703.9g21o7yp&show_article=1
Thursday, July 17, 2008
-
Evidence
Here's a little more evidence this is whole drilling thing is about oil profits for Bush-buddies and not lowering the price of oil. We can't ensure that the oil from Alaska stays in the US to help keep our prices low and to make us "energy independent", nor can we require that these oil companies actually drill on the land we're leasing them in a timely manner to make sure that the opening up of our wildlife refuges actually helps to increase our oil supplies and lower the cost of oil.
As I've said, it's about one thing only: money for oil companies, George W. Bush, and his family and friends. Do not allow yourself to be lied to any longer. Refuse to vote for anyone who supports more oil drilling.
More Coverage
I'm so tired of hearing people complain about how Barack Obama gets more coverage than John McCain in the media. That's like asking why heterosexual college males prefer watching girl-on-girl porn to the Teletubbies.
Let's say I'm your average TV viewer and I turn on the TV and suddenly only two of my channels work. On one, there's a young, charismatic guy talking with optimism about a future where things don't suck quite as bad as they do now. On the other channel there's some old zombie-looking guy that's delivering for the large part the same message that we've heard from Republicans for the past 7 years. Which channel will I tune into (assuming I don't just turn off the TV)?
The fact of the matter is that Obama looks better, speaks more eloquently, sounds better (tone of his voice, etc.), dresses better, and has a far more interesting message than John McCain. Although McCain is a bit of a departure from the Bush White House in terms of policy, it seems like every day he leans farther to the right in order to kiss the butts of the most conservative members of his party. We've heard the conservative message for far too long and I think people are just tired of hearing it. People are just fed up with hearing from the Republican party, and the media outlets have to appeal to the people in order to get viewership. If they focused on "fair" coverage where each candidate gets equal time, their ratings would suck 50% of the time...
Let's face it, America doesn't want to see some old guy feeding them the same old tired conservative Republican line (for the most part) that we've heard for years... They want new and fresh, and that's what Barack is cookin'.
Oil
Republicans and their followers believe that if we open up our national wildlife refuges and everywhere else under the sun to oil companies for drilling, the price of oil will go down. I can only assume that their belief is based on the conclusion that OPEC, seeing the possibility that there will be increased supply within 5-10 years will increase supply on their own in order to lower prices so that investment in American drilling is less profitable. That's all I can figure... Another argument by these Republicans is the "energy independence" argument that says that within 5-10 years oil prices will drop because we won't have to depend on foreign countries for oil anymore.
Well, first of all I think the first belief is a long-shot at best that assumes that most of the problem with oil prices today is based on simple supply and demand. And as for the concept of "energy independence" I think it's a myth. Even if we do increase our own domestic oil production, oil will still continue to be traded on a global market. Unless we can completely remove the need for any foreign oil and bar the export of our domestic oil production within this 5-10 year timeframe, I don't really see how there will be that significant of an effect on oil prices once we take into account the increases in American and global oil demands that will inevitably take place over the next 5-10 years if we continue down our current "oil-addicted" path.
I've already explained how based on the President's assertion in the 2006 state of the union address that we're "addicted" to oil, producing more oil would be like a family offering to make methamphetamine at cost for their kids because the street prices are too high. I actually used a different drug analogy, but the addiction and increasing supply to lower price to end-users thing is the same at the core.
The way I see it, America is reaching the point where the two roads diverge in the yellow wood. We can choose to continue our addiction to oil by taking drastic measures to feed the addiction and keep the price of the addiction low, or we can choose to take a difficult path that changes the way we generate energy across the board. We could open these new lands and seas to drilling and just hope that we're able to increase supply faster than demand increases, and that our hopes will magically drive prices down, or we can choose to invest in alternative energy sources for our homes, vehicles, and cities.
I'm not the first person to propose this, and I certainly won't be the last, but the response has been and likely will be the same from Republican politicians and pundits (with their hands and campaigns filthy with oil money) and their ever-gullible followers. Their response every time will be whining about the cost of such a move. They'll say, "Sure it's a good idea" but we need to fix the immediate problem and get more oil. We can't spend a bunch of money on new energy sources when we need oil!" In my mind this is a lot like the addict trying to switch drug dealers instead of going to rehab when prices get high. In Alcoholics Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous this kind of thing happens all of the time; addicts say, "I can't quit now because [insert reason here], but I'm going to quit [insert time in the future here]," or they'll say, "I can't just quit. Maybe I'll just kind of ease off of the drugs. Instead of drinking a 12-pack tonight, I'll only have 9 beers. Eventually, I'll be able to quit." But in most cases, that time never comes. The date just keeps getting pushed back again and again and again... It seems like that's the Republican plan. "Quit later." Maybe they're more like Ted Kennedy than they'd like to admit.
I think the choice is obvious. Finding a newer cheaper supplier for America's drug of choice isn't the answer. We need to kick the habit altogether (or as much as possible). Will it be hard? Sure. But aren't we already suffering the consequences of our addiction? Isn't this hard already? We need to decide whether in the long-term a more reliable (both in terms of sustainability and price stability) source of energy might be better than continued dependence on a source of energy based on non-renewable commodities that are subject to rapid and severe price fluctuations. Again, the choice seems clear to me.
The benefits are even similar. Alernate energy sources would mean we'd move toward "energy independence" from foreign oil producers. It means we'd scare OPEC immediately into thinking we weren't going to support them anymore by buying all of their oil, and that we'd even be selling our more efficient, sustainable technologies to other countries so they could kick the oil habit. OPEC would have no choice then but to flood the market with oil so prices nose-dived.
So, how do we get this ball rolling? We need two things: first, we have to get America on board, or as many Americans as possible since some people are either so ignorant or so attached to the oil industry they cannot be swayed. Second we have to make it happen. The good news is that there are enough intelligent people out there that if we can truly come together behind this plan, the solution to the latter problem will develop automatically.
The challenge here is getting Americans on board. Unfortunately for him, I think George W. Bush has destroyed his credibility beyond repair and no matter how brilliant his plan or his speech presenting such a plan, no one is going to want to hear it. What we need is our next President to deliver such a bold and magnificent presentation of plan and purpose that Americans cannot help but get behind it. I suggest at his or her (I hear Cynthia McKinney is running) inauguration. What we need is a message on par with JFK's announcement that we're going to the moon. We need someone to lay out in clear terms the current situation and the value in accomplishing such a noble goal as this. We need energy and charisma that people can chew on and that will make them realize that this idea is good and it's doable.
When JFK said, "We choose to go to the moon," there were no doubt people who said it couldn't be done; in fact many people still don't believe we went there. There were no doubt still more that said it coudn't be done in a short period of time. But the fact is that in less than 10 years, the United States had sent man to the moon. Now if through an extraordinary act of national unity we Americans can accomplish something that was more symbolic than anything else like putting a man on the moon to plant a flag and hit some golf balls, why can't we do something that will affect every American man, woman, and child for centuries to come? I see no reason whatsoever.
We do not need more oil today. What we need today is the right man to deliver the right message to unite Americans from every party and every walk of life behind a common vision for the future.
If you'd like to read some of JFK's speeches announcing the plan to go to the moon, here are some links (I think the second one is the best):
Interesting
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzZjZGIyMTVmODNmODY3NTJkY2QzN2M0OGI1NDg4NDY=
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
-
Persuasion by Fear
Another thing they said on this talk show I was listening to today was about the upcoming Presidential election...
One of the guys said he was pretty sure that there would be some kind of major terrorist attack in October of this year.
While I don't know that there will actually be an attack, I'm guessing we'll at least have another one of these scares that gets dropped periodically by the government anytime they don't think Americans are scared enough to vote for Republican foreign policies. I think that it's not beyond the Republican party to take scare tactics to the extreme around October to frighten people into voting for McCain.
Do you think it's likely that we'll just happen to be attacked or threatened by terrorism just before the November election?
Insurance
This morning I was listening to a radio talk show called Lex & Terry. I've listened to these guys off and on for years, ever since they were still in Jacksonville (now they're in Dallas).
Well, one of them was complaining about his health insurance company. Apparently, he uses Humana for health insurance. Not too long ago, his wife went to the Mayo Clinic to have a mammogram. Now for women, this type of procedure is typical preventative care. After she went, they started getting letters from Humana saying that they were "reviewing" the procedure to see if they were going to pay for it. Humana continued their "review" so long that the clinic got tired of not being paid and sent this guy's family a bill for $500 or whatever the cost was. So now this guys is still fighting with Humana to get them to pay for something that under their contract they're obligated to pay for.
Now, I know for a fact that this type of thing isn't atypical. I know plenty of people who have experienced trouble getting their health insurer to pay claims. You can turn on the television, radio, or open a newspaper any day and find at least one individual or family who's having to fight with their insurer to get what they've already paid for through their premiums.
I'm not going to take this opportunity to rant about insurance premiums. We all know how much health insurance costs, and we all know it's way too expensive. What I'm going to rant about here is quality of service. Not only are Americans paying top dollar for health insurance, but in many cases, they just aren't getting what they paid for. Unfortunately insurance companies seem to have a policy of not paying claims instead of holding up their end of their agreement with their customers and covering medical expenses.
Don't you think that if we're paying such high premiums for medical insurance, the insurance companies should be required to do the job we're paying them to do, and do it with some efficiency? Well, I do.
This is one of those cases where I think corruption in the insurance industry demands government intervention. I think I know the answer, too. As usual, I think that the answer is making the companies be held accountable when they don't honor their agreements. Our government needs to set up steep penalties for excessive delays in payment of claims or outright refusal to pay claims, when it is found that the insurer should have paid.
Here's what I'd do. For starters, I'd mandate that an insurance company must pay any insurance claim or deny payment within 45 days of receipt of the invoice from the medical provider. If claims are not paid or denial is not issued within this 45 day period, the insurer would be required to pay damages to the medical provider of two times the amount of the original invoice, plus an additional $10,000 punitive fine to the government. If however, the insurer does deny payment of the claim, the insured would have the right to sue for payment of the claim. While the suit was going through, medical providers would be barred from turning the insured individual over to collections for the unpaid debt. If it turned out that the insurer denied the claim, but was supposed to pay it, the insurer would be required to pay the medical provider two times the amount of the original invoice, would be required to pay the insured $50,000 in damages, and would be required to pay punitive fines to the government of $100,000. As to what would be done with these fines paid to the government, these funds would be placed into a fund that would allow people attempting to sue their insurance companies to have money to pay the attorneys up front. Of course, if it turns out that the insurance company was right to deny the claim, the insured who filed the suit would have to reimburse this fund...
Now, as it goes anytime someone suggests raising fines or regulation of business, there's always the argument that all the companies will do is raise their rates to account for the extra fines they'll have to pay... Thtis is a great point, and it's why I decided on one more rule that would have to be enacted in order to make this work... Starting when these new rules went into effect, all insurance companies would be required to sumbit data to the government detailing what kind of premiums customers are paying for what kind of service. Based on this data, the government would need to create a number representing what premiums consumers were paying for insurance. This formula would be somewhat complicated, but I'm guessing that it could be done given some thought. Probably by assigning minimum levels of care to be provided by insurers, requiring that plans meet these minumums, and finding the average premium charged. Once the government had this number, they could track it, and based on that number and it's increase or decrease, the fines could be changed from their original amounts. For instance, let's say that after the first year of these new rules being in effect, Big Box Insurance Corporation decides to increase their premiums by 6%... Well, then that $10,000 fine for not paying or denying a claim within 45 days would be increased to a $10,600 fine. The $100,000 fine for denying a claim in error would be $106,000...
As I've said before, the only reason most people ever support government intervention in business is when businesses fail to act in an ethical manner. Based on what I've seen in my adult life, I'd say the health insurance industry definitely fits this description, and needs to be reined in.
Why We're Fat
So, this morning I was hungry and decided that since I had a few extra dollars, I'd stop in at my favorite guilty pleasure and get some breakfast. I arrived at McDonald's and there was a big sign on the window advertising two Sausage Egg and Cheese McMuffins for $2. "Good deal," I said to myself...
So, I went inside, and asked the girl at the counter, "I want a Sausage Egg and Cheese McMuffin. Can you just sell me one for $2?" She told me that if I just wanted one, it'd be $2.49. I had to order the two for $2 deal to get the special price. Pressing on, I tried to appeal to her sense of logic (I don't need to be reminded of what a misguided decision this was when dealing with a fast food employee). I said, "Listen, it saves the company money to just give me one sandwich for $2. You've got half of the food costs and the same revenue from the sale..."
Blank stare.
I decided to just go the easy route, "Why don't you ring me up for the two for $2 deal, and just put one in the bag?"
She looked around as if I'd just asked her to commit treason and replied, "I don't think we're allowed to do that."
Defeated, I just ordered the two sandwiches, took the second one out and set it on the counter, and left.
So, scholars: why is it cheaper to force someone to get two sandwiches than to give them one for the same price?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
-
Interesting
Look at this clip taken from Fox News website today... Note the word choice in the picture caption...
News Weary
This guy writes a pretty good article about what it's like watching a 24-hour news network...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20080714/cm_huffpost/112350
Disturbing_The_Universe
-
- Name: Dad
- Country: United States
- Gender: Male
- Member Since: 11/16/2005
-
True
Connect
Subscriptions
Pulse
-
I just love stirring up trouble.
-
If any of you ever think that I am serious when I make a blatantly offensive comment, just lighten up and laugh. I'm joking
-
I just made my first political cartoon. It's on my site in today's post.
Chatboard (4)