Is Palin serious?

I don't get this Palin character.  Is she serious?  Does she seriously believe that she understands the first amendment to the Constitution?  Does she really believe that citizens should not be allowed to criticize and chastise people that speak out in ways they don't approve of?  Isn't that exactly what she's been doing since McCain dug her out of the snow?  How dumb can she be?

Who is Rand Paul?

At least you can't say Rand Paul isn't interesting.  In less than 2 days he's gone from relative obscurity to national figure, and it remains to be seen whether that is a famous our infamous figure.  I once subscribed to the Libertarian view of government and society, even going so far as to vote Libertarian in a couple of elections.  But it didn't take me long to mull through the logical vector the movement offered.  Politically, I still agree with at least some of the party's positions regarding less government intervention, less military action and less spending, but only to a point.  The Paul crew take this ideal to its extreme.  They don't believe in less government; they believe in NO government, which to me is just chaos.  

Paul has not made a political gaff so much as revealed too much of himself to the national public too soon.  He supports the idea that private businesses should be allowed to discriminate, and that includes if you are black or Hispanic or confined to a wheelchair.  So, if you walk with a cane, that is fair grounds for a company to deny you a job, regardless of your qualifications.  Now he's questioning the appropriateness of the President putting pressure on BP to fix an environmental disaster of epic proportions.  So, just who is this guy?  And how can anyone logically support his positions?  I'm all for reasonable, rational limitations of government.  Most Republicans are, as well as Democrats.  The difference is we have different definitions of what is reasonable for government to do.  But Paul's definition is that the government should do nearly nothing, and that is just not tenable in a society such as ours.  There are very good reasons why most of the government framework is in place.  Yes, some of it is in dire need of reform, possibly even removal.  But to suggest that there is no place for government restrictions on business for the greater good of society is just radical.  History can be a guide to us for such notions, and there's no reason to believe that any complex society can smoothly function without the aid of government.  And for Paul to hide his rhetoric behind the Second Amendment is simply preposterous and disingenuous.  He suggests that there must be a parallel between forcing businesses to abide by civil rights laws and allowing gun toting cowboys to invade their premises.  Nonsense!  There is a reasonable framework in government for discerning the need to balance individual rights with public safety and well-being, as if he isn't aware of such things.

Folks, if you find yourself intrigued by the Tea Party, then you should begin to ask yourself some very serious questions about what the country could look like if they had their way.  Businesses allowed to discriminate on virtually any basis.  Businesses with almost no restrictions on what they can do, and no oversight for when they do nefarious things with the public's money and trust.  If anything in the world should inform us about what business is capable of when it isn't being watched, Enron and the recent banking scandals should be two very important lessons we should all take to heart.

Misinformation

We are awash in data these days.  Data in the form of a massive wave of words and numbers, sometimes graphics as well.  At every turn there is another blog, another study, another quote, all pushing a particular spin on reality.  No wonder so many people are confused and angry.  There seldom seems to be an opinion that is neutral; everyone is essentially selling ideas, pushing an agenda.

Unfortunately, I wonder about the skill with which people sort this out.  Do we, collectively, have the necessary skill sets to see through the fog?  As individuals, it's possible.  But even as individuals, we can properly filter data and gauge it against known factors, only to have a well-meaning yet persuasive friend, relative or TV personality come along and convert us?  And how can this information be so conflicting?  How is it possible that two different people can be promoting diametrically opposing views on something that can actually be measured and objectively evaluated?  You see this every day in politics, religion, gossip.  One party says program A is a success; the other says it's a miserable failure.  How are we to know the difference and where to go for reliable and robust analysis?  Are we, as human beings, adequately equipped to be skeptics, or are we doomed to following whatever path that best comforts our beliefs and desires?

Need we say more?

For anyone out there still actually listening to the rotund idiot named Rush, it's become painfully obvious how partisan and hypocritical he is.  Apparently, he now reacts to just about any web article he can get his hands on, confirmation be damned.  If this isn't the worst kind of sensationalism, then it doesn't even exist.  Hey, Rush, how about spending 5 minutes checking your sources!  Course, that might turn up some evidence that his preconceived notions are...gasp, mistaken!  Can't have that, can we, Rush?

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93122?fp=1

The Conservative Attack on Health Care

I think it's high time I blogged on this subject. Not that I have any particular insight into the issue, and not that I can come up with some pithy angle that forces people to consider it anew, either. But what I can do is be one of the voices of moderation in an increasing mob of lunatics. I was once a Conservative, a Republican even. That time is long past, and will stay that way until conservatism and the GOP emerges from its present state of spiraling insanity. For a party that once held positions that made a modicum of sense, it's practitioner's thinking has become increasingly paranoid. And we didn't get here overnight, no sir. This fervor has built for at least the last 20 years, since the Regan era of conservatism.

By now any Conservative reading this has likely pegged me as a "bleeding heart, hairy-legged liberal", no doubt. Well, you would be mostly wrong. I'm a moderate liberal at the most extreme. Most of my liberal leanings come in the form of social acceptance of personal lifestyles and religious freedom. But where money is concerned, I'm far more moderate. But I see the health care issue through both lenses. In a way, our health care "system" is yet another form of discrimination, reinforcing both class and race barriers. And it's particularly insidious. Those fortunate enough to have a well paying job and good insurance don't have to go out of their way to keep these barriers in place. Those who don't have it, simply don't get it. Easy as pie, and no one has a filthy conscience. But where's the compassion? We aren't talking about the latest electronics or the poshest restaurants; we're talking about people's health, sometimes about the difference between living and dying. Even in America that seems about as callous as you can get.

Sure, it makes no sense to declare that health care is a Constitutional "right"; that people are guaranteed a long and healthy life. We have no realistic mechanism for such a promise. But no one I know is suggesting anything like that. Interestingly, those with enough money and good health care spend lots of time and dough keeping themselves fit. Yet they rely on people with much less money to do a variety of daily tasks to help their day go smoothly. Ever tried to get a rich guy to change your oil? How bout the local millionaire who spends his free time as a cook? My point is, if all those people got sick and died, it would not only make the lives of the rest of us suck, it would really put a dent in civilization. The reality is, most people aren't wealthy! But we depend on those people every day of our lives. If you have good health insurance, chances are you don't even realize how insanely expensive medicine is these days, or the cost of a few nights in the hospital. But hey, if nothing changes in the next decade, you will notice because employers are slowly but surely extricating themselves from being the health care nanny. Some day soon, almost everyone below the millionaire level will be slogging it out in the same boat, or maybe I should say raft.

I admit, the free market is the best and most efficient incentive system in the world. It rewards the best and motivates people to be their best. But in the case of health care, an exception must be made. People seldom choose to be unhealthy, and even in cases where they do, they've usually been helped by society at large. Consider smoking. For decades smoking was considered not only acceptable, but almost normal, behavior. The peer pressure for people to smoke was tremendous. So I it should come as no surprise that millions of people have undergone lung cancer treatment, at least those who had good insurance. This is especially tasteless in a society where the manufacturers of cigarettes have become insanely rich by selling a product that almost certainly kills it's consumers. So, free market or not, I can't overlook the oppression going on here. I'm not a religious person, but I can see a huge moral delimma here, and I'm mystified by religious conservatives who are adamantly opposed to any form of health care reform. Especially when I know they often give generously to community members who are in need of costly medical treatments. Clearly they feel sympathy for people in need, but when it's put into any kind of organized context, they rebel. Perhaps they don't want people to feel secure in the knowledge that if they get sick, someone will be there for them. Heck, most of our lives are lived in this way. There are no real guarantees in this life. If you screw up at work or in your marriage or with you kids, you lose. If you gamble your savings away, you lose. If you live too recklessly, you lose. Would it be so bad that just one aspect of our life had a little security to it? Would it be so bad to feel confident that good medical care is not out of reach, no matter what your income is? I don't see this as assurance so much as compassion.

My other objection is that of money. Most conservatives insist that our current government (Democrats at least) seeks only to socialize medicine and force everyone to pay a new tax to cover it. Well, that simply isn't true. In fact, if it were true, then it would already be a done deal. The reason for all the delay is the lack of consensus on issuing yet another massive government program. Democrats have the numbers, but many, many of them are opposed to this; only a small minority support it. So all the fear mongering is just that, hype. But that seems to be the only thing Conservatives want to focus on, fear of what might happen. What about what is already happening? I know Conservatives who are no more pleased with health care than I am, yet they refuse to embrace an effort to reform it. Medical professionals often acknowledge the dire need to address these issues; even Conservative medical professionals (such as former Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist). Yet the vast majority of Conservatives are violently opposed. Makes no sense to me.

My money objection is based on simple economics. About two decades ago, when I first came into the workplace, my company's health plan was focused on workers keeping a tight watch on their health; visiting doctors early when they felt sick and getting annual checkups. That seems to have all but vanished now. The reasoning was sound. If you keep a close watch on your health, you will likely catch any health problem sooner, when treatment is less expensive and the likelihood of death is far less. But in recent years, that concern for patient's health has morphed into dire directives for people to "take responsibility for their own health". That's basically code for, "don't visit the doctor unless you absolutely have to". And this is reinforced by all the cuts in benefits, increases in premiums and constant switching of health insurance plans. Some companies push employees to use health care spending accounts, where money is deducted from your check before taxes, and used to pay for medical expenses. That's not a bad option, but it always comes with the caveat that you must use it by years end, or lose it. Not very practical for planning purposes. And it basically puts people on a medical budget, which isn't reasonable. When was the last time you could control when you got sick? And if we could apply that proactive thinking to people across the board, wouldn't that result in a reduction of emergency visits that often end in long hospital stays and a big bill to the tax payers?

This all plays into a big element affecting medical costs that don't typically happen with other expenses. Medical expenses are insanely variable. Many years, all I've spent on medical costs amount to a trip to my doctor for a minor injury. But with absolutely no warning, I could be a cancer patient and face hundreds of thousands in expenses. That's why we have insurance. But even a relatively bad year can put a real strain on a family. With two kids, a family could easily end up with a dozen or so visits to the doctor, each with lab costs, a couple of ER visits and lots of meds. That's hundreds of dollars on top of the insurance premiums. OK, so I make enough money to cover it. It might hurt, but it won't bankrupt me. Yet there are many, many families that such a disruption would put them in dire circumstances. Should we penalize them simply because they don't make enough money? Their fault, huh? Well, I'm just not so callous. People can lose their home because of this. And if they were already living on the edge, they could easily slip into unrecoverable poverty. Then who is going to be paying for their bills? Every person who joins the ranks of the poor becomes a burden on the rest of us, whether they are happy being there or not.

So, if there were some mechanism for people to get medical services for a very reasonable price, then it seems logical that they would be less likely to be so adversely affected. I'm not suggesting that medical services should be free and I'm not criticizing doctors for making money. They should make money. I want my doctor to be a happy, comfortable, well paid professional. If he's worried about making his mortgage payment, then he's not likely to do a good job, so more power to him. But there has to be a way, some kind of compromise, some common ground that we can seek, as a society that supposedly cares for it's members, to solve this problem. It's a serious problem, folks, as serious as the threat of terrorism or global economic collapse. With American ingenuity, I don't see why people of both parties couldn't pitch in ideas that could compliment one another. But before that can happen, Conservatives have to stop raving like madmen. They have to cease the doomsday predictions and they most certainly have to cease the character assassinations. When the President asks a bipartisan committee to come up with a solution, that isn't an opportunity for people to rave that he doesn't have a plan. It's called being an open-minded President. I know it's been a while since we've seen that kind of behavior in the White House, but it is not a character flaw; it's what you want the President to do. There will never come a day when America consists of only Conservatives or only Liberals. So why not seek some common ground?

bogus Information

Trying hard not to rant about this, but I listened to a radio station the other day, one I happen to like. The host of the show, a jolly fellow and his jolly partner, made much fun of the recent story about the FDA banning the makers of Cheerios from claiming that the cereal drastically reduces cholesterol. The claim, it turns out, has no scientific foundation. In other words, they made it up! That's pretty bad in my book, a big company lying to the public to get us to buy their product, and in the process giving people false hope about improving our health. But some folks apparently don't see it this way. People like these radio show hosts on Rocket 95.1 FM in Huntsville, for instance. They think the FDA is the bad guy here for looking out for our best interests. It's "Big Government", they say. It's over-controlling, they claim. The FDA just wants to sell us medicines they approve of, they harp. Please spare me the conspiracy theories.

Does every government agency have to be a controlling, monopolizing, conspiracy-riddled bunch of evil communists? Has anyone heard about the controlling, monopolizing, conspiracy-riddled bunch of corporate hoods who've taken the American Public to the cleaners in the last decade? Does Enron ring any bells? What about racial and gender discrimination by Wal-Mart? How about mortgage back derivatives? Can anyone still living remember the days of the savings & loan bust? I'm only getting warmed up here. Two of the most powerful tech companies, Microsoft and Intel, have been under deep scrutiny by European anti-trust agencies for their unlawful and unfair business practices. And to what end? Profits, of course! Yet small companies shouldn't get overlooked either. Who hasn't heard of the local mechanic that conveniently "finds" problems with your car whenever you take it in for an oil change? And that last crown, was it really necessary? Of course not all companies are unethical; I don't mean to suggest they are. But let's just stop with the overcritical view of government while turning a blissfully ignorant eye toward business. At least government is accountable to voters; businesses are not. Government is also far more sensitive to media scrutiny. Public officials can't sue for liable like a business often does when unfavorable news is printed in the papers or aired on TV. The public has exactly zero input into who runs any given business, unless you happen to own at least 50.1% of the stock in some company.

Software headache

Arrrg! Navigating one's way through software can be at once exhilarating and irritating. The excitement of implementing a new software tool and seeing it spring into action can quickly become a migraine headache as it stubbornly refuses to perform as the instructions the creators insist it will. And I'm never one to know when to give up and take another road, or quit altogether. I quickly become a slave to the software. Somewhere, a programmer is laughing at the havoc he's wrecked.