As many of you know, I work at a vitamin supply company as a wholesale account rep. Occasionally, I take overflow calls from the retail side of the company. Generally speaking, the people I deal with are well-educated business owners that are easy to understand, and professional in their dealings.
This customer, though, was a wildly different story. The phone call went something like this.
Customer- Did you get my return package?
(Because I can always tell exactly who the customer is by the sound of their sweet, melodious voice over the IP phone...)
Me- Well, let me pull up your account first, and then I will be more than happy to tell you.
Customer- See, I got this letter here from a woman named Shannon, and she said that she isn't really sure what to do with the package, and I realized I sent the wrong one. So, I sent another one, the right one, to you, so you can get it back.
Me- Ok, do you have your customer ID number?
Customer- Says here it is xxxx-xxxx.
(I pull up his account and check his notes. Shannon said that he shipped back an 8 volt battery and a charger, from two different companies)
Me- Ok... so... it looks like you sent back a battery and a charger, am I correct?
Customer- Yes, I would like a refund for my weed whacker, it doesn't work at all.
(stunned silence, muffled laughter... it's not going to work very well when you don't have a battery and the charger, of course, but no company would give you a refund for a whole product when you only ship back 10% of it)
Me- I show here that the only product you have purchased from us is our Awesome Product #1. We are a vitamin supply company, we have nothing to do whatsoever with electronics...
Customer- But the box said it was your address to send things back to. I want my refund.
Me- Which box was that?
Customer- The box that came in the mail.
Me- Are you sure you picked the right box for the product you sent to us?
Customer- Yes, I am quite sure. I would like my refund now.
(After about 5 minutes, he realizes that we are not, in fact, an electronics company)
We eventually made a deal with him to send back the packages to him at his expense, once we received the next package. But it sure was awesome to open up a box marked "Return" and see a battery, a charger, and various other items having nothing to do with our company!
Friday, June 25, 2010
Monday, March 29, 2010
Health Care
In light of many a recent discussion that I have had with various friends and family members, I have decided to put down my thoughts on this blog in order to point people to here should they want to see what I think (which I admit isn't all that likely), and to organize my thoughts on the subject (which I need to do very badly).
First off, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and that people need to be taken care of. I am not advocating for people being left to die outside of the hospital because they can't afford the expensive procedure that they might need. But I also do not think that a single payer system is the ideal approach either.
First off, "insurance reform," as incurred in the bill that was just passed, is not insurance "reform" so much as it is insurance "takeover." I know there are Democrats, Obama included, that will fight me tooth and nail on that issue, but I think the bill speaks for itself-now, the Federal Government will be able to decide who should be covered (which, in this case, is everyone), and what they can and cannot charge (meaning, the government will have s say in price increases for premiums). That amounts to a takeover, and it fundamentally changes the way that the industry is run.
Now, I think there is a common misconception among some people about what insurance is, and how it works. I admit that I myself am no expert, but I do know at least the general principle at work. Insurance is about mitigating risk by first monetizing that risk through actuarial tables and statistical information, and then spreading that risk among a sufficiently large pool in order to provide everyone with security against something catastrophic happening. I assume most everyone reading this know that as well. But for me, growing up on my father's awesome insurance plan, insurance came to mean "some company that pays for all the things I want to do at the doctor." That's essentially what a lot of us, and the United States, are conditioned into thinking when it comes to insurance-we have become so far removed from the actual paying of our hospital bills, that we have an expectation that someone else should pay for all of them, or at least the vast majority of them. While that isn't in and of itself a bad thing, it does tend to make people over-use the medical care system, which drives up costs and premiums as well. I don't remember my mother or me ever asking a doctor in advance what they would charge for a given procedure, let alone shopping around for the best doctor at the best price. We do this routinely for a refrigerator or a car, and some of those items can be far less expensive than an in-patient surgery and hospital stay. Why should that be any different?
The new health care bill has a guaranteed issue clause, which means that anyone, regardless of existing conditions or other things that would exclude them from receiving insurance coverage, will now be able to sign up for coverage. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, it essentially makes the idea behind insurance meaningless. I know, there are tragic stories where some deserving people have an insurance lapse for a month between jobs and develop cancer or get pregnant, but there are also people that smoke for 30 years, eat terribly, and then end up wanting for the insurance company to sign them up so the company can pay for all the expensive medical care that they will need for the next 20 years. While I admit that the insurance companies did not always have their customer's best interest in mind (the comical boss from The Incredible comes to mind as the perfect caricature), they also wouldn't stay in business long if they started making exceptions for some even deserving people, as those that had abused themselves and the system would point to the exceptions to get themselves covered as well. Insurance companies are not made of money-they use the premiums paid by healthy people, who pay into the system more than they currently take out, to pay for those who are a drain on the system. The more people you add that will take more money out of the system, the more people you have to add who will not, otherwise the company will have to close its doors, and no one will be insured. It's not them being heartless, per se-it's the company trying to maintain its business.
The guaranteed issue clause will make for a powerful disincentive to just stay out of the system until you need it. I know, this was to be coupled with the "individual mandate," wherein the federal government forces everyone to by insurance. Again, while this sounds like a good idea (insurance is a "good" thing, and the government wants us to have good things, right?), in my opinion it is not. First of all, the fact that the government can force us to buy anything makes a mockery of everything that this country was founded on. I know that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution just might be stretched to give the government the authority to enforce the individual mandate, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that I think it's "constitutional" in the strictest sense of the word. If the government can force us to buy insurance, why not other "good" things, like a gym membership, or new orthopedic shoes? Both of those can be proven to improve a person's life (assuming they would use them, of course). You can even say you are using market forces and "stimulating" the economy at the same time. But why do we need this nanny-state mentality? Who in the world should decide what is or is not good for me? In my opinion, not the feds, not the state government, not even my religion. I decide what is and is not "good" for me and my family. As a matter of course, I have decided that the LDS Church is good for us, and I try to follow what it says as best as I am able. But that is an important distinction-I am the one who chooses to follow it. I don't see the prophet sending out scripture-reading-enforcement-crews. But Obama will in fact enforce this with penalties and ultimately jail time should the person decide that they don't want to participate. It's completely ludicrous.
Now, as I mentioned before, the insurance industry really is no longer an insurance industry in the classical sense. It's now a forced charity organization. I am all for charity, especially when provided locally by non-profit religious organizations. They know the people and their needs better than a bureaucrat in Washington. I have no qualms sending money to my church or local charity, because I know they will be efficient with the money I send them, and it will be free of fraud. Such cannot be said for the US government.
Secondly, the health insurance market as we knew it, prior to the new bill, was by no means a true "free-market" system. As the insurance policies were only allowed to be sold in a given state, and each state had a different set of things that each policy had to cover (generally from different special interest group's lobbying). This made some states have wildly expensive premiums, with only a few major companies being able to operate. This lead to monopolistic-type markets, where companies competed with themselves and a few other companies to get business, and the consumer was ignored, because they didn't have really anywhere else to go. Compare this with the truly national auto-insurance companies. Threatening to leave is a real concern for them, and the premiums are quite low. If this were allowed to happen on a national scale, insurance companies could expand their base, lower their premiums, and force hospitals to better regulate their businesses and costs. But instead, we get a convoluted and stupid system, with so many regulations as to make the average person completely lost in the shuffle.
So, what do we do? I think, as much as I would like it to happen, that repealing this law just won't happen. Amending and changing it, though, might. Removing the restriction on sales across state lines, reigning in tort lawsuits, and creating a truly free insurance market will drive premiums down low enough for a lot of the people without insurance now to be able to get it. Also, getting away from the employer-based system as well will make people more aware of their health care costs, and also help to lower premiums as people make more informed choices about what they do and do not need. And finally, less government meddling in the market, with the possible exception of a small grace-period for people with certain conditions to be able to sign up for non-employer backed tax-credited insurance, will enable everyone who wants to have insurance to afford it. If they don't, then no one will force them, but they also won't let them try to sign on as soon as it's needed. Please keep comments informed and polite, but otherwise feel free to tell me how I am wrong lol. And if you did in fact read all of this, I congratulate you!
First off, I realize that this is a contentious issue, and that people need to be taken care of. I am not advocating for people being left to die outside of the hospital because they can't afford the expensive procedure that they might need. But I also do not think that a single payer system is the ideal approach either.
First off, "insurance reform," as incurred in the bill that was just passed, is not insurance "reform" so much as it is insurance "takeover." I know there are Democrats, Obama included, that will fight me tooth and nail on that issue, but I think the bill speaks for itself-now, the Federal Government will be able to decide who should be covered (which, in this case, is everyone), and what they can and cannot charge (meaning, the government will have s say in price increases for premiums). That amounts to a takeover, and it fundamentally changes the way that the industry is run.
Now, I think there is a common misconception among some people about what insurance is, and how it works. I admit that I myself am no expert, but I do know at least the general principle at work. Insurance is about mitigating risk by first monetizing that risk through actuarial tables and statistical information, and then spreading that risk among a sufficiently large pool in order to provide everyone with security against something catastrophic happening. I assume most everyone reading this know that as well. But for me, growing up on my father's awesome insurance plan, insurance came to mean "some company that pays for all the things I want to do at the doctor." That's essentially what a lot of us, and the United States, are conditioned into thinking when it comes to insurance-we have become so far removed from the actual paying of our hospital bills, that we have an expectation that someone else should pay for all of them, or at least the vast majority of them. While that isn't in and of itself a bad thing, it does tend to make people over-use the medical care system, which drives up costs and premiums as well. I don't remember my mother or me ever asking a doctor in advance what they would charge for a given procedure, let alone shopping around for the best doctor at the best price. We do this routinely for a refrigerator or a car, and some of those items can be far less expensive than an in-patient surgery and hospital stay. Why should that be any different?
The new health care bill has a guaranteed issue clause, which means that anyone, regardless of existing conditions or other things that would exclude them from receiving insurance coverage, will now be able to sign up for coverage. While this sounds like a good idea on the surface, it essentially makes the idea behind insurance meaningless. I know, there are tragic stories where some deserving people have an insurance lapse for a month between jobs and develop cancer or get pregnant, but there are also people that smoke for 30 years, eat terribly, and then end up wanting for the insurance company to sign them up so the company can pay for all the expensive medical care that they will need for the next 20 years. While I admit that the insurance companies did not always have their customer's best interest in mind (the comical boss from The Incredible comes to mind as the perfect caricature), they also wouldn't stay in business long if they started making exceptions for some even deserving people, as those that had abused themselves and the system would point to the exceptions to get themselves covered as well. Insurance companies are not made of money-they use the premiums paid by healthy people, who pay into the system more than they currently take out, to pay for those who are a drain on the system. The more people you add that will take more money out of the system, the more people you have to add who will not, otherwise the company will have to close its doors, and no one will be insured. It's not them being heartless, per se-it's the company trying to maintain its business.
The guaranteed issue clause will make for a powerful disincentive to just stay out of the system until you need it. I know, this was to be coupled with the "individual mandate," wherein the federal government forces everyone to by insurance. Again, while this sounds like a good idea (insurance is a "good" thing, and the government wants us to have good things, right?), in my opinion it is not. First of all, the fact that the government can force us to buy anything makes a mockery of everything that this country was founded on. I know that the Commerce Clause in the Constitution just might be stretched to give the government the authority to enforce the individual mandate, but that doesn't mean that I agree with it, or that I think it's "constitutional" in the strictest sense of the word. If the government can force us to buy insurance, why not other "good" things, like a gym membership, or new orthopedic shoes? Both of those can be proven to improve a person's life (assuming they would use them, of course). You can even say you are using market forces and "stimulating" the economy at the same time. But why do we need this nanny-state mentality? Who in the world should decide what is or is not good for me? In my opinion, not the feds, not the state government, not even my religion. I decide what is and is not "good" for me and my family. As a matter of course, I have decided that the LDS Church is good for us, and I try to follow what it says as best as I am able. But that is an important distinction-I am the one who chooses to follow it. I don't see the prophet sending out scripture-reading-enforcement-crews. But Obama will in fact enforce this with penalties and ultimately jail time should the person decide that they don't want to participate. It's completely ludicrous.
Now, as I mentioned before, the insurance industry really is no longer an insurance industry in the classical sense. It's now a forced charity organization. I am all for charity, especially when provided locally by non-profit religious organizations. They know the people and their needs better than a bureaucrat in Washington. I have no qualms sending money to my church or local charity, because I know they will be efficient with the money I send them, and it will be free of fraud. Such cannot be said for the US government.
Secondly, the health insurance market as we knew it, prior to the new bill, was by no means a true "free-market" system. As the insurance policies were only allowed to be sold in a given state, and each state had a different set of things that each policy had to cover (generally from different special interest group's lobbying). This made some states have wildly expensive premiums, with only a few major companies being able to operate. This lead to monopolistic-type markets, where companies competed with themselves and a few other companies to get business, and the consumer was ignored, because they didn't have really anywhere else to go. Compare this with the truly national auto-insurance companies. Threatening to leave is a real concern for them, and the premiums are quite low. If this were allowed to happen on a national scale, insurance companies could expand their base, lower their premiums, and force hospitals to better regulate their businesses and costs. But instead, we get a convoluted and stupid system, with so many regulations as to make the average person completely lost in the shuffle.
So, what do we do? I think, as much as I would like it to happen, that repealing this law just won't happen. Amending and changing it, though, might. Removing the restriction on sales across state lines, reigning in tort lawsuits, and creating a truly free insurance market will drive premiums down low enough for a lot of the people without insurance now to be able to get it. Also, getting away from the employer-based system as well will make people more aware of their health care costs, and also help to lower premiums as people make more informed choices about what they do and do not need. And finally, less government meddling in the market, with the possible exception of a small grace-period for people with certain conditions to be able to sign up for non-employer backed tax-credited insurance, will enable everyone who wants to have insurance to afford it. If they don't, then no one will force them, but they also won't let them try to sign on as soon as it's needed. Please keep comments informed and polite, but otherwise feel free to tell me how I am wrong lol. And if you did in fact read all of this, I congratulate you!
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
On Temples, Big Love, and Ritual.
Many familiar with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, which I will reference as the LDS Church from now on, are familiar with the recent controversy regarding the HBO television show "Big Love." Big Love's producers decided to show, in detail, the LDS Church's temple ceremony, which members of the LDS Church believe is sacred, and not to be shown or discussed outside of the temple setting. Devout members of the church do not even discuss the temple ceremony outside the walls of the temple, and feel it is a slight to them and their religion to parade around their sacred beliefs on a sleazy HBO program.
Being an active member of the LDS Church, I am inclined to agree with the sentiment that this is outside the bounds of decency and respect for a person's beliefs. I do acknowledge HBO's right to publish whatever it feels like will get it more ratings, but I also hold the right to abstain from their and their parent company's (Time Warner) services for slighting what I believe should have been kept sacred.
That having been said, I wanted to address what I think is the underlying problem in all of this controversy. I know how the world views the temple ceremonies that the LDS Church holds to be sacred. They see them as strange, cult-like, weird--take your pick of the adjectives that describe something foreign to your sensibilities. I read a comment on the comment board of the Big Love website, and a person described in detail the temple ceremony and the "shock" it produced in her, and she is by no means alone; I have known many friends that, in moments of candor, express their dismay, and sometimes even distaste or disgust, with their first experience with the temple ceremony.
This comment, and the subsequent recalling of other comments from friends and family, got me thinking--what is it in our culture that has made us so wary of ritual? Why are many of us so reflexively against set patterns of worship, and of symbolism in the form of religious services? I myself had an interesting experience in my first temple visit--during the ceremony, I had words like "cult" and other associated with it pop into my head almost involuntarily. I realize now that this is something that is engrained in many American's way of viewing religion--it was one of the things that the Puritans had much contempt for, the overly ceremonial Catholic ritual and the subsequent Anglican ceremonies that coped the Catholic versions. American religious tradition grew to reject symbolism, ritual, and all things associated therewith (obviously, not all of the American religious tradition went this route, but a great majority did)--and we were left with a strong distaste for whatever we thought was outside the mainstream norms.
This is not the way it always has been. The reason Christ taught in parables so often is that people in his day were familiar with, and accustomed to, symbolism. They dealt with it daily in their own temple worship, and in their religious tradition. There are several websites that go into detail about the Jewish temple worship practices, and their interesting parallels to the modern LDS temple ceremony, but suffice it to say that our generational distaste for the modern temple practices is the exception to an otherwise long rule of accepted practices, practices that date back to ancient times. Once this can be truly realized, and prejudices and stereotypes can be, as much as possible, diminished, then true learning can take place in that wonderful ceremony. The temple ceremony can become a treasure trove of knowledge, poured out from a loving Father that wants us to know as much as possible about our purpose here, our prior identities, and our future destinies. Would to God that we might all find ourselves immersed in the grandeur of His Holy House!
Being an active member of the LDS Church, I am inclined to agree with the sentiment that this is outside the bounds of decency and respect for a person's beliefs. I do acknowledge HBO's right to publish whatever it feels like will get it more ratings, but I also hold the right to abstain from their and their parent company's (Time Warner) services for slighting what I believe should have been kept sacred.
That having been said, I wanted to address what I think is the underlying problem in all of this controversy. I know how the world views the temple ceremonies that the LDS Church holds to be sacred. They see them as strange, cult-like, weird--take your pick of the adjectives that describe something foreign to your sensibilities. I read a comment on the comment board of the Big Love website, and a person described in detail the temple ceremony and the "shock" it produced in her, and she is by no means alone; I have known many friends that, in moments of candor, express their dismay, and sometimes even distaste or disgust, with their first experience with the temple ceremony.
This comment, and the subsequent recalling of other comments from friends and family, got me thinking--what is it in our culture that has made us so wary of ritual? Why are many of us so reflexively against set patterns of worship, and of symbolism in the form of religious services? I myself had an interesting experience in my first temple visit--during the ceremony, I had words like "cult" and other associated with it pop into my head almost involuntarily. I realize now that this is something that is engrained in many American's way of viewing religion--it was one of the things that the Puritans had much contempt for, the overly ceremonial Catholic ritual and the subsequent Anglican ceremonies that coped the Catholic versions. American religious tradition grew to reject symbolism, ritual, and all things associated therewith (obviously, not all of the American religious tradition went this route, but a great majority did)--and we were left with a strong distaste for whatever we thought was outside the mainstream norms.
This is not the way it always has been. The reason Christ taught in parables so often is that people in his day were familiar with, and accustomed to, symbolism. They dealt with it daily in their own temple worship, and in their religious tradition. There are several websites that go into detail about the Jewish temple worship practices, and their interesting parallels to the modern LDS temple ceremony, but suffice it to say that our generational distaste for the modern temple practices is the exception to an otherwise long rule of accepted practices, practices that date back to ancient times. Once this can be truly realized, and prejudices and stereotypes can be, as much as possible, diminished, then true learning can take place in that wonderful ceremony. The temple ceremony can become a treasure trove of knowledge, poured out from a loving Father that wants us to know as much as possible about our purpose here, our prior identities, and our future destinies. Would to God that we might all find ourselves immersed in the grandeur of His Holy House!
Friday, August 29, 2008
2 Nephi 3:1
I don't usually do this, but it's been a while since I posted, and I wanted to jot down a quick thought on this scripture. This is Lehi writing to his son Joseph, just before he passes away in the subsequent chapters. The line "in the days of my greatest sorrow did thy mother bear thee."
Now, I could be totally wrong on this, but I believe that Lehi had Joseph (and also Jacob) in the wilderness, for the 8 years that the family was traveling en route to Bountiful. There was a brief time when even Lehi complained against the Lord, when Nephi broke their bows, and they were on the brink of starvation from not being able to hunt. Now, the profound part I think comes when he says that this was the time of his greatest sorrow (not that I can confirm that Joseph was born during exactly this time, but the possibility is there). It's the time when Lehi questioned his faith, when he complained against God, that he was the most miserable, despite the incredibly hard times that he would face from that time til the time that he would be writing this letter to Joseph. Sounds like a lesson I have learned, and keep on learning like every other day. Life is so much easier if we just do what God asks!
Now, I could be totally wrong on this, but I believe that Lehi had Joseph (and also Jacob) in the wilderness, for the 8 years that the family was traveling en route to Bountiful. There was a brief time when even Lehi complained against the Lord, when Nephi broke their bows, and they were on the brink of starvation from not being able to hunt. Now, the profound part I think comes when he says that this was the time of his greatest sorrow (not that I can confirm that Joseph was born during exactly this time, but the possibility is there). It's the time when Lehi questioned his faith, when he complained against God, that he was the most miserable, despite the incredibly hard times that he would face from that time til the time that he would be writing this letter to Joseph. Sounds like a lesson I have learned, and keep on learning like every other day. Life is so much easier if we just do what God asks!
Thursday, July 31, 2008
On Romney
As you can all probably tell, I have been following this campaign season very closely. Ever since Romney joined the race, and I learned that he was in fact a practicing Mormon, I have been firmly in his camp of support (to the point where I actually contributed to his campaign- a first for me or Laura). At first, it was largely due to identity politics, which has played a major role in this election season- but after I studied out his politics more, I liked what I saw. Now that he is the front-runner for the Vice Presidential pick from McCain, I would like to comment on what I think of him, his policies, and what he as VP would do for McCain and the country.
I don't think anyone can doubt that Romney is a good man. 5 sons, all served missions, all are married in the temple, and a lovely, accomplished wife. He was extremely successful in the private sector, bringing hundreds of thousands of jobs on the whole to the economy, and saving very key business from the brink of collapse (most notably Dominos Pizza and Staples). He governed successfully in Massachusetts, and was elected as a Republican in arguably the most liberal state in the Union.
Now, for those of you that are now rolling their eyes at that last statement - I am aware of his conversion on life issues, namely abortion. In everything that I can find, in Mass and while campaigning for the governorship, he was essentially pro-choice in the sense that even though he was personally against abortion, as one would expect from a practicing Mormon, he promised to not overturn the law of the land as it stood (and still stands). Without this caveat, he would never have been elected anywhere with a liberal-leaning crowd. Does this make him a bad person in my estimation? No. And I believe that his "conversion" to be staunchly in the pro-life camp to be real and complete. Any politician who can say, point blank to a camera in a televised debate, that "he was wrong" and admit his mistake on a key issue has my respect, because the tendency for anyone else in politics is to either justify or dodge (as in Obama saying that his statement about gun-toting God nuts in the backwoods of Booneyville was "inartful").
In every other issue, I believe Romney supports my current worldview on life. I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, but like Romney I do not want gay couples and gay people to be subject to abusive or otherwise unfair treatment. I am for pro-growth, pro-industry tax cuts, and generally in favor of the free market and its marvelous ability to provide for peoples needs. I support an honorable solution to the war in Iraq. I believe that although it was mishandled from the outset, it was the right thing to do to go in, and the right thing to stay there now. In these and many other ways, Romney closely aligns with my worldview.
Now, as to him being the Vice Presidential pick. I would absolutely love it, and would not hesitate to vote for McCain if that were the case. But I do have one reservation, and it's unfortunate that I have to say it- Romney is a Mormon. Right, you say, so are you- why wouldn't you want a Mormon in the #2 spot in the country? It's because I still think, and quite frankly know, that religious bigotry against Mormons is still strong and accepted in many parts of the country, specifically the Bible Belt. I don't think McCain can carry the South with Romney on the ticket, as much as it pains me to say so. Just reading comment boards on pro-Romney articles is almost astounding- while many are supportive (and I have read articles saying that Romney on the ticket puts Nevada and Michigan into play, which are usually strongly Democrat), there are enough that are so virulently anti-Mormon and anti Romney as to accuse this of being a ploy by the "evil Mormon church" to take over the country. Is it absurd? Of course. Bigoted? Absolutely. But it's a reality.
Like my Dad, I have a serious issue with supporting a party that harbors and caters to such moronic, bigoted, nasty individuals. But I cannot in good faith support the other party, which though they have a more open world view to people that do not believe or look or act like they do, goes against almost every core belief I have. One day, I hope that the highest office in the country will be available to someone that believes the way I do. But until then, I will support who I can that not only shares most if not all of my values and worldviews, but also my dream to see a Mormon accomplish the greatest feat in politics.
I don't think anyone can doubt that Romney is a good man. 5 sons, all served missions, all are married in the temple, and a lovely, accomplished wife. He was extremely successful in the private sector, bringing hundreds of thousands of jobs on the whole to the economy, and saving very key business from the brink of collapse (most notably Dominos Pizza and Staples). He governed successfully in Massachusetts, and was elected as a Republican in arguably the most liberal state in the Union.
Now, for those of you that are now rolling their eyes at that last statement - I am aware of his conversion on life issues, namely abortion. In everything that I can find, in Mass and while campaigning for the governorship, he was essentially pro-choice in the sense that even though he was personally against abortion, as one would expect from a practicing Mormon, he promised to not overturn the law of the land as it stood (and still stands). Without this caveat, he would never have been elected anywhere with a liberal-leaning crowd. Does this make him a bad person in my estimation? No. And I believe that his "conversion" to be staunchly in the pro-life camp to be real and complete. Any politician who can say, point blank to a camera in a televised debate, that "he was wrong" and admit his mistake on a key issue has my respect, because the tendency for anyone else in politics is to either justify or dodge (as in Obama saying that his statement about gun-toting God nuts in the backwoods of Booneyville was "inartful").
In every other issue, I believe Romney supports my current worldview on life. I am strongly opposed to gay marriage, but like Romney I do not want gay couples and gay people to be subject to abusive or otherwise unfair treatment. I am for pro-growth, pro-industry tax cuts, and generally in favor of the free market and its marvelous ability to provide for peoples needs. I support an honorable solution to the war in Iraq. I believe that although it was mishandled from the outset, it was the right thing to do to go in, and the right thing to stay there now. In these and many other ways, Romney closely aligns with my worldview.
Now, as to him being the Vice Presidential pick. I would absolutely love it, and would not hesitate to vote for McCain if that were the case. But I do have one reservation, and it's unfortunate that I have to say it- Romney is a Mormon. Right, you say, so are you- why wouldn't you want a Mormon in the #2 spot in the country? It's because I still think, and quite frankly know, that religious bigotry against Mormons is still strong and accepted in many parts of the country, specifically the Bible Belt. I don't think McCain can carry the South with Romney on the ticket, as much as it pains me to say so. Just reading comment boards on pro-Romney articles is almost astounding- while many are supportive (and I have read articles saying that Romney on the ticket puts Nevada and Michigan into play, which are usually strongly Democrat), there are enough that are so virulently anti-Mormon and anti Romney as to accuse this of being a ploy by the "evil Mormon church" to take over the country. Is it absurd? Of course. Bigoted? Absolutely. But it's a reality.
Like my Dad, I have a serious issue with supporting a party that harbors and caters to such moronic, bigoted, nasty individuals. But I cannot in good faith support the other party, which though they have a more open world view to people that do not believe or look or act like they do, goes against almost every core belief I have. One day, I hope that the highest office in the country will be available to someone that believes the way I do. But until then, I will support who I can that not only shares most if not all of my values and worldviews, but also my dream to see a Mormon accomplish the greatest feat in politics.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
On Obama
For those that know me, you know that I am not the biggest fan of the Democratic nominee for president. I would like to list my main reasons here, with the caveat that I do so not because I hate the man or because I think he would destroy the country- I think he is a nice, generally good natured person, who just has some really dumb ideas about how the country works and what to do to "fix" things. I am not a racist, I don't think that he is secretly a Muslim terrorist, and I believe that even if he is elected, our country will continue on down its merry capitalist path relatively unencumbered.
First and foremost- Obama is pro-choice. And radically so. In Illinois, he voted against a measure that would protect the life of a baby of a botched abortion. Did you catch that? He voted against a bill that would protect a baby- a living, breathing baby just like any other you might see in the nusery ward of a hospital- if they had tried to be aborted but came out of it alive. How sick is that? Obviously, I believe abortions to be wrong in and of themselves- but partial-birth abortions, such as those that Obama supports, seem ludicrous to me. Voting against a bill that would protect an innocent life such as this is unconscionable.
Second, he is a tax-and-spend liberal. He proposes a trillion dollars in new spending over the next ten years. All taxes would go up for anyone making $30,000 or more (though, granted, the bulk of it would be levied against the rich). And he would increase the capital gains taxes, again aimed at the rich, but affecting millions of people like me who have investments in 401(k) plans and soon-to-be stocks and bonds of my own. Now, the main democrat talking point is that those that make more should pay more- the rich should pay more taxes in order to distribute the wealth more evenly. That's socialism at its heart. But there is a major flaw in their rationale- that policy, far from making everyone "rich" like they want to think it does, make everyone poor. It's a well documented fact that whatever you tax, you get less of. If you tax the people that are producing jobs and paying wages, you get less jobs and less wages. A poor man never gave anyone a job. Taxing the people that produce the most in our economy only encourages them to look for other places to hire, look for other ways of cutting costs (by cutting jobs, or decreasing benefits), or packing up shop altogether. Well, then we just make laws that make it so they can't fire people or take away benefits! Then you end up with a stagnant economy like the French (who are repealing laws that do just that in order to make themselves better able to compete in the global marketplace). Obama's plan would only further exacerbate the economy's problem. A pro-growth, lower taxes proposal such that McCain has is the only way to go.
As a caveat- I am extremely disappointed with the Republican leadership, especially Bush, in this area. Though I applaud Bush for keeping us safe from any terrorist attacks at home for the last 7 years, which I believe is largely due to his extra measures for security, I am seriously pissed at the way he and his Republican controlled congress acted for the 6+ years they held all power in the government. Our party is a party of limited spending, limited government involvement, and limited intervention in the market. The Republicans did the exact opposite when given the reigns. Shame on them, and shame on Bush for letting it happen. If Obama wins the presidency (and though obviously he has the upper hand, I don't believe for one minute that it's a done deal), it will be largely because the Republicans lost their base, not because Obama garnered so much support.
Anyway, and this unfortunately applies to both candidates- I hate how beholden they are to the environmental lobby. There was a time when it was necessary- to curb pollution practices by large corporations, to make the country as a whole more aware of what we need to do to take care of our little corner of the planet. That's all great, and important for us all. But now, they are advocates for destroying our economy and socializing our industries (oil and gas, to start), they are for population controls and anti-pro-choice measures, and they base it all on pseudo-science designed to scare the public into either accepting their beliefs or not ever questioning them. Obama and McCain would both implement an economy-wrecking cap and trade system (which, incidentally, has been tried in Europe with disastrous consequences for the economy and absolutely no effect on CO2 emmisions).
And yes, his voting record in the senate does hold some distaste for me (especially how many time he voted "present" on important issues... like he doesn't want his stances on them to be vetted). And his associations (Wright, Ayers, Resko, etc) do give me some pause, though not as much as his stances on key issues for me. And as for Wright- I thought it was actually really funny how Obama tried to downplay his virulently racist and anti-American speechs as mere snippets from speeches taken out of context, only to have Wright give a public appearance and reiterate everything the loony pastor has been saying for the past 20 years (including that AIDS was invented and spread by the government to kill blacks). Awesome stuff. Also, his flops on public financing are telling I believe- touting it was the end-all-be-all end to corruption, he threw it under the bus as soon as it became a political millstone. Which, in the end, is what I believe Obama is- he is a politician, through and through. He has mastered the art of painting himself to be above politics, to be the savior and champion that will defeat partisanship and bring about the millenial reign of peace and happniess. Guess what? He never, not ONCE, worked with Republicans on a bill in the Senate. And he voted 97% down the partisan line. And he is going to be non-partisan? I don't think so. At least call him what he is, folks- a liberal. And a far-left-liberal at that. If that is what you believe in and want, by all means go ahead and vote for him- but don't think he will be anything different then Jimmy Carter.
First and foremost- Obama is pro-choice. And radically so. In Illinois, he voted against a measure that would protect the life of a baby of a botched abortion. Did you catch that? He voted against a bill that would protect a baby- a living, breathing baby just like any other you might see in the nusery ward of a hospital- if they had tried to be aborted but came out of it alive. How sick is that? Obviously, I believe abortions to be wrong in and of themselves- but partial-birth abortions, such as those that Obama supports, seem ludicrous to me. Voting against a bill that would protect an innocent life such as this is unconscionable.
Second, he is a tax-and-spend liberal. He proposes a trillion dollars in new spending over the next ten years. All taxes would go up for anyone making $30,000 or more (though, granted, the bulk of it would be levied against the rich). And he would increase the capital gains taxes, again aimed at the rich, but affecting millions of people like me who have investments in 401(k) plans and soon-to-be stocks and bonds of my own. Now, the main democrat talking point is that those that make more should pay more- the rich should pay more taxes in order to distribute the wealth more evenly. That's socialism at its heart. But there is a major flaw in their rationale- that policy, far from making everyone "rich" like they want to think it does, make everyone poor. It's a well documented fact that whatever you tax, you get less of. If you tax the people that are producing jobs and paying wages, you get less jobs and less wages. A poor man never gave anyone a job. Taxing the people that produce the most in our economy only encourages them to look for other places to hire, look for other ways of cutting costs (by cutting jobs, or decreasing benefits), or packing up shop altogether. Well, then we just make laws that make it so they can't fire people or take away benefits! Then you end up with a stagnant economy like the French (who are repealing laws that do just that in order to make themselves better able to compete in the global marketplace). Obama's plan would only further exacerbate the economy's problem. A pro-growth, lower taxes proposal such that McCain has is the only way to go.
As a caveat- I am extremely disappointed with the Republican leadership, especially Bush, in this area. Though I applaud Bush for keeping us safe from any terrorist attacks at home for the last 7 years, which I believe is largely due to his extra measures for security, I am seriously pissed at the way he and his Republican controlled congress acted for the 6+ years they held all power in the government. Our party is a party of limited spending, limited government involvement, and limited intervention in the market. The Republicans did the exact opposite when given the reigns. Shame on them, and shame on Bush for letting it happen. If Obama wins the presidency (and though obviously he has the upper hand, I don't believe for one minute that it's a done deal), it will be largely because the Republicans lost their base, not because Obama garnered so much support.
Anyway, and this unfortunately applies to both candidates- I hate how beholden they are to the environmental lobby. There was a time when it was necessary- to curb pollution practices by large corporations, to make the country as a whole more aware of what we need to do to take care of our little corner of the planet. That's all great, and important for us all. But now, they are advocates for destroying our economy and socializing our industries (oil and gas, to start), they are for population controls and anti-pro-choice measures, and they base it all on pseudo-science designed to scare the public into either accepting their beliefs or not ever questioning them. Obama and McCain would both implement an economy-wrecking cap and trade system (which, incidentally, has been tried in Europe with disastrous consequences for the economy and absolutely no effect on CO2 emmisions).
And yes, his voting record in the senate does hold some distaste for me (especially how many time he voted "present" on important issues... like he doesn't want his stances on them to be vetted). And his associations (Wright, Ayers, Resko, etc) do give me some pause, though not as much as his stances on key issues for me. And as for Wright- I thought it was actually really funny how Obama tried to downplay his virulently racist and anti-American speechs as mere snippets from speeches taken out of context, only to have Wright give a public appearance and reiterate everything the loony pastor has been saying for the past 20 years (including that AIDS was invented and spread by the government to kill blacks). Awesome stuff. Also, his flops on public financing are telling I believe- touting it was the end-all-be-all end to corruption, he threw it under the bus as soon as it became a political millstone. Which, in the end, is what I believe Obama is- he is a politician, through and through. He has mastered the art of painting himself to be above politics, to be the savior and champion that will defeat partisanship and bring about the millenial reign of peace and happniess. Guess what? He never, not ONCE, worked with Republicans on a bill in the Senate. And he voted 97% down the partisan line. And he is going to be non-partisan? I don't think so. At least call him what he is, folks- a liberal. And a far-left-liberal at that. If that is what you believe in and want, by all means go ahead and vote for him- but don't think he will be anything different then Jimmy Carter.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
One more note about AGW
Lord Monckton from Britain is an outspoken critic of the AGW theory. I recently read his APS paper regarding the IPCC estimates, and loved his conclusion paragraph. I reproduce it in its entirety here
"Even if temperature had risen above natural variability, the recent solar Grand Maximum may have been chiefly responsible. Even if the sun were not chiefly to blame for the past half-century’s warming, the IPCC has not demonstrated that, since CO2 occupies only one-ten-thousandth part more of the atmosphere that it did in 1750, it has contributed more than a small fraction of the warming. Even if carbon dioxide were chiefly responsible for the warming that ceased in 1998 and may not resume until 2015, the distinctive, projected fingerprint of anthropogenic “greenhouse-gas” warming is entirely absent from the observed record. Even if the fingerprint were present, computer models are long proven to be inherently incapable of providing projections of the future state of the climate that are sound enough for policymaking. Even if per impossibilethe models could ever become reliable, the present paper demonstrates that it is not at all likely that the world will warm as much as the IPCC imagines. Even if the world were to warm that much, the overwhelming majority of the scientific, peer-reviewed literature does not predict that catastrophe would ensue. Even if catastrophe might ensue, even the most drastic proposals to mitigate future climate change by reducing emissions of carbon dioxide would make very little difference to the climate. Even if mitigation were likely to be effective, it would do more harm than good: already millions face starvation as the dash for biofuels takes agricultural land out of essential food production: a warning that taking precautions, “just in case”, can do untold harm unless there is a sound, scientific basis for them. Finally, even if mitigation might do more good than harm, adaptation as (and if) necessary would be far more cost-effective and less likely to be harmful.
In short, we must get the science right, or we shall get the policy wrong. If the concluding equation in this analysis (Eqn. 30) is correct, the IPCC’s estimates of climate sensitivity must have been very much exaggerated. There may, therefore, be a good reason why, contrary to the projections of the models on which the IPCC relies, temperatures have not risen for a decade and have been falling since the phase-transition in global temperature trends that occurred in late 2001. Perhaps real-world climate sensitivity is very much below the IPCC’s estimates. Perhaps, therefore, there is no “climate crisis” at all. At present, then, in policy terms there is no case for doing anything. The correct policy approach to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing."
For a link to the whole paper, go here http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
Funny stuff!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)