First let's quickly review the definition of a "Social Justice Warrior". They are generally kind and decent people with kind hearts and good intentions. But despite these positive attributes they share a level of irrationality unintentionally masked by their own sincerity. I mean equality in itself is a good thing, correct?
Well, usually YES but in some cases it depends on the context.
SJW’s tend to lean a little farther to the political Left than your run of the mill Liberal. A Liberal tends to favor “equality of opportunity”, which is in itself a decent a noble cause. SJWs on the other hand tend to gravitate toward a notion of “equality of OUTCOME”. There is a critical difference between these two philosophies.
Equality of opportunity is rational because it focuses on the “input” of a given project with a desire that it will positively affect the “output”. Equality of OUTCOME on the other hand, disregards this critical first step of input and ONLY focuses on OUTPUT. This is a gross violation of the first Law of Thermodynamics, which you might remember from science class as The Law of Conservation of Energy. This states that energy can NOT be created nor destroyed in a given system. At the most, it can only change in form.
An excellent example of this resides in the current hot takes on the US Women’s very much deserved World Cup title and their disparity in pay between their division and the men’s.
Now the difference between genders in sports is an icky topic that for men like myself, we don’t like to discuss it much. It is an awkward subject that makes us feel a little uncomfortable if not a tad guilty.
For whatever reason and I do not know why, men were designed a little bigger, faster and stronger on average than women on this earth. And due to that, they tend to perform at a different level. Not “better” per se. Just “different”. By no means am I using the word “better”. If we want to talk about who is better, if you consider which gender commits the most violent crimes, workplace violence, spousal abuse, drug trafficking, fraud, etc., I think it would be fair to say the ladies are crushing the men in overall quality of humanity.
What does this all mean? I personally love the fact that we have women’s divisions in sports. I can watch women’s college softball all afternoon. I also enjoy watching them play volleyball, ice hockey during the Olympics and the occasional soccer match. I remember 1999, jumping up and down in my living room when Mia Hamm and her crew defeated a ferociously talented team China for the World Cup. I’ll even argue that women’s volleyball and tennis is actually more exciting to watch due to their abilities to return the serves and create some exciting back and forth. Men’s leagues tend to be an extreme serving competition and rounds are over before they even start. (snooze)
The most recent championship, which I sadly missed due to recovering from surgery, is equally as exciting. Congratulations, ladies. You are all bad asses and you make us all proud. But out of this recent title has reemerged the narrative of the ladies not getting paid the same amount as the men’s division. I mean on the surface, it does seem a little unfair. Our ladies have won FOUR titles and our men, ZERO. This year the men didn’t even qualify for the tournament. Our ladies on the world stage most certainly stack up better against their competitors than our men do against theirs. So why the pay disparity?
First we have to remember that pay is not based on championships. That is what trophies, medals and belts are for. Pay is one of the OUTPUTS we just mentioned above, an output that is contingent on the initial input. The men’s FIFA league generated 6 billion dollars in revenue this year. The women’s generated 131 million. Those numbers are not the fault of the men’s league nor any possible level of sexism existing in the upper offices. It is a direct result of the input. The input is ticket sales and merchandising.
You can complain all day long about men spending more money on attending sports in a men’s league more than those in the women’s. But the problem here is not sexism because the women are doing this as well! Women attend more NFL, NBA, NHL and MLB games on average than they do ANY of the women’s sporting leagues. This despite women in the US making up about 51% of our population. For those not good at math, that is slightly more than HALF.
So ladies, why are you not buying tickets to soccer matches nor purchasing player jerseys? That is the input. If you start selling out soccer stadiums, the revenues will increase and the women’s soccer team will get paid more. You can’t increase their pay to a level that causes the league to operate at a loss. They would no longer be able to operate. And is it fair to force the men to take a pay cut down to the level of what the women are making? I mean I suppose you could argue in favor of that. However if they have done nothing wrong so why punish them? If they are pulling in ticket sales, why is it important that they surrender a portion of their salary to subsidize the women’s division?
By the way, I should point out that female models on average earn far more than male models for the same work essentially. There is a simple explanation for this. Women make in the upwards of 85% of all consumer purchasing in the US. A significant percentage of this is apparel. Their side pulls in more revenue. The models earn more, period.
So in closing, look, I don’t disagree with the notion that I’d love to see a world where everyone makes an equally large bit fat salary for the same jobs. But that is Utopian and irrational because it discounts all of the factors that go into the equation that actually generates that money in the first place. If there is no input, you can’t expect an output. And you certainly can’t demand a higher output of cash from an lower input of sales.
Let’s spend a little more time understanding the input and what changes we need to make there and THEN we can begin to see a more desired output.
Monday, April 13, 2020
Friday, April 14, 2017
Before The Affordable Care Act will EVER work, we need to first accept these FIVE realities.
For most of the either years of the Obama Administration, the GOP whined about the Affordable Care Act while shouting their battle cry of "Repeal! Repeal!". This of course over time evolved into "Repeal and Replace!" as the winds of political opinion unexpectedly shifted on them when people realized "You know, it's not necessarily a bad thing to help poor people get health insurance".
Now with the new Trump Administration in place, the GOP is in a wind-sprint to get a "replacement" on the table before the end of Trump's first hundred days, (in order to look "zippy" I imagine). They have thus presented a plan so badly thrown together with duct tape, it never had a chance of being passed and was thus pulled from the table before the GOP could embarrass itself by putting to a vote. Some 28 votes (or more) in their own party were going to side with the Democrats and reject it. This current bill can be simply called "Tweak and maintain current course and try to convince everyone this is a Repeal and Replace". Amazingly still, during Trump's campaign, he continuously railed about the need to allow the insurers to compete across state lines and promised to add that to his "signature replacement". Note now there is NOTHING in regards to that in this new bill. Fortunately there are just enough people in Congress not dumb enough to fall for it this time. Some call this a loss for the GOP. I call it a win. They are finally beginning to stand up to their own crappy leadership.
Look, I will go on the record (again) as saying President Obama's heart was in the right place with the Affordable Care Act. I don't agree with the exact structure of his final delivered product nor how he attempted to roll it out but I don't doubt his intentions to fix a problem that DOES exist in this country.
We have a large chunk of the population with no access to health care when needed. When they are included statistically with the entire middle class and up, it pulls our average life expectancy numbers (in the U.S.) down below most industrialized nations while our costs still remain the highest. It's not unlike our public school system where we spend more per child than almost any other developed country on Earth, yet our test scores are pathetically average, some even below. There is one common theme existing in both problems. That is excessive government regulation and control. The government causes the problems and then wants to be hired as to solve them. This is like hiring the fox to guard the hen house.
To the disappointment of some naive believers, big government is not a benevolent force of good trying to protect the little guy. In fact it is usually quite the opposite. Most Washington politicians would classify as wealthy. People of lower incomes continuously vote people into office that remain wealthy while they themselves are hardly helped at all. And these people along with their supporters continuously point to everyone except themselves and say "You need to do more (and pay more) to help those people". It's easy to say that someone ELSE should be more charitable while trying to claim the moral high ground. Why do some folks keep feeding this black hole? If this is ever going to improve, the rest of us here at the grassroots level need to intervene.
If America truly is ready for a government health insurance program, there is really nothing saying we can't create at least a basic functional program that does what it is supposed to while at the very least breaking even. But any program to have a shred of a chance of success needs to be based on reality and not what a given political movement assumes its followers will do. It also needs to be carefully crafted by a large and diverse team of thinkers; Not just politicians, but also doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, insurers, patients themselves, financial experts, economists, psychologists, analysts, legal experts, the list goes on. This is a massive project and the government historically sucks at managing projects. Our federal government literally wastes billions of dollars per year in botched projects, a statistic sadly overlooked by most people.
They reason for this continual pattern of governmental failure is they lack the same incentive for success as businesses in the private sector do. For the rest of us, failed projects can mean certain disaster in one's career. For the government, their solution is "we need more funding." In which case they'll just confiscate more of your and my money in the form of increased taxes in order to keep their failed project on life support. The only incentive they have is being reelected. If they can pump enough deficit spending into a program to keep it afloat long enough, they're golden and they can pass the problems down to their successor and let them deal with it. The cycle repeats itself.
I cringed while watching the Affordable Care Act roll out. The federal government was making every mistake in the book. As a project manager by trade, my entire livelihood is dependent upon my ability to make sure a project is rolled out successfully. And before hitting the "go" button, the idea is to plan, plan and plan some more. It also involves proper "Risk Management". What can go wrong? What might surprise us? What happens if it does? How will we respond? You plan these contingency responses until you are blue in the face. This is done with teams of people, not small groups of self-anointed subject matter experts of field none of them have ever worked in.
There is not one person on this Earth that is intelligent enough by only him or herself to solve the complex problems introduced by the Affordable Care Act or for the problems with our entire health system as a whole. True, the ACA did in fact help some people obtain health insurance that otherwise unable to before. But this was not without unintended financial consequences that make it mathematically insolvent within a relatively short period of time. It also shifted the costs to other people including the middle class. (This wasn't supposed to happen, remember?) The quick gut-reaction is to yank it entirely going back to how things were before. But how good were they really?
Conservatives need to accept the fact that social programs are going to be a part of our lives whether we like them or not. The best thing we can do is work to keep them as unobtrusive in our lives as possible, while ensuring the ones we do adopt function efficiently and cost effectively. Unfortunately these are two traits the government won't be accused of having anytime soon.
Before the GOP can present an alternative that has some teeth, everyone needs to accept some realities.
First, everyone needs to understand the difference between health CARE and health INSURANCE. They are not one in the same. Proponents of socialized medicine like to point out that our healthcare system is the worst in the industrialized world. In their defense, they are half correct on that. Our health CARE system is not the problem despite the cherry picked b.s. data that socialists and other big government pundits like to present. We have the BEST doctors and nurses and facilities and researchers and medical schools on Earth. I'll put them up against anyone anywhere. The problem is the insurance INDUSTRY paired with the government itself. They are the ones that actually suck at this. Additionally, single payer systems in other countries require tax rates of that average in the mid 40 percentile range to well over 50 percent. Healthcare is far from "free' in these countries. They take it out of your paycheck and then give you something in return. This is no different than if I took $100 from you and then brought you $100 worth of groceries to your door. Sounds nice since it saved you a trip to Safeway but you never got to select which groceries you wanted. Lastly, one frighteningly overlooked statistic that keeps me up at night is how many people in the middle class might lose their houses if their taxes were to jump that highly in such a short period of time. Think about that for a moment. Scary isn't it?
Second, calling Healthcare a "right" has a fundamental flaw; It implies that one person is entitled to another person's property. And that the government is granted the authority to make sure that exchange happens. In this case the "property" takes the form of an acquired skill. This being the skill that trained doctors and nurses have in order to care for patients. A skill like anything else is a limited resource. The government in theory would have to guarantee that doctors and nurses will provide care to everyone that needs it when and where they need it. That opens the door for forced servitude which we outlawed some years back, remember? It would only be a matter of time before a some people living in a remote part if the U.S. would demand colocated health care providers. But if no caregiver wanted to uproot his or her family and move to the middle of nowhere in order to take that job, now what have you? Some might say "that will never happen". If you allow the government THAT much authority, it WILL happen in some form or another. History shows that they eventually will capitalize on it. Some politician will see it as an opportunity to gain votes; a politician's currency of choice. They stand behind a podium demanding you to give more to someone else and then they try to claim the moral high ground.
Third and possibly most critical, we need to reexamine the number of U.S. citizens we used to identify as "without health insurance" before Obamacare kicked in and then break them into TWO categories; first being those that are in true need of help or as I call "tragically uninsured". These are people that have fallen on hard times in their lives, perhaps by bad luck, perhaps by choices. Nonetheless, helping these people is a virtue and I'll stand in defense of the idea of doing so. I'm OK with contributing to their aid. The second group however are those that CAN afford insurance, but simply chose not to buy it due to any number of reasons ranging from procrastination to simply thinking it isn't necessary. You can actually subdivide this further to include another group which is made of people that WERE able to afford insurance, but rather blew the cash on something else. A bigger house than they need, fancier car, premium cable and expensive vacations, etc. I'm sorry but nobody can provide an ounce of logic defending the notion that responsible people should have to pony up extra cash in order to pay for people that make stupid decisions. Both sides of the aisle need to grow spines and tell these people "no" like the children they are. This will force them into making the necessary adjustments in their lives in order to afford insurance. Just because they may not want to get a used car and a smaller apartment, does that mean the rest of us must subsidize their lifestyles? These groups need to be discounted from those that actually need a helping hand. There is plenty of money in the public dole to help those people provided it isn't leeched up by those that don't actually need it. They just jumped into the line with their hands out and politicians, like always, just couldn't say "No".
Fourth, Conservatives need to understand the "guarantee" of insurance and why people want it. The Right likes to talk about how charity and volunteer groups will take up the slack to care for those that need help if there is no government plan. This in theory could work but will it for sure? Can that guarantee of aid be assured? if even they believe this will work, then I ask those Conservatives "Why do you buy home and car insurance?" The answer is because in life we are willing to pay real money for that peace of mind knowing that the help will be there if needed. We don't want to have to rely on charity if something goes wrong.
Fifth, if there is going to be a "mandate", it must be a real mandate. Not a symbolic and optional one. You are required to obtain health insurance of some kind. If you do not, we will assign the basic government plan to you and we will charged an additional tax for it. If you cannot afford it, you will quality for Medicaid. The provided plan will not be a Rolls Royce plan. But it will get you by. If you have a condition or become gravely ill or injured, you'll get treated and won't go into the poor house.
Some Americans love to point to European countries whose economies and GDPs we out perform and say "We need to be like them." My answer is "Why?" There is a reason we broke out of the European model of governance two centuries ago and walked our own path to prosperity. American has always found a better way of doing something. There is nothing stopping us from doing that yet again with the health care (and insurance) industry. Well, aside from political stubbornness of course.
Now with the new Trump Administration in place, the GOP is in a wind-sprint to get a "replacement" on the table before the end of Trump's first hundred days, (in order to look "zippy" I imagine). They have thus presented a plan so badly thrown together with duct tape, it never had a chance of being passed and was thus pulled from the table before the GOP could embarrass itself by putting to a vote. Some 28 votes (or more) in their own party were going to side with the Democrats and reject it. This current bill can be simply called "Tweak and maintain current course and try to convince everyone this is a Repeal and Replace". Amazingly still, during Trump's campaign, he continuously railed about the need to allow the insurers to compete across state lines and promised to add that to his "signature replacement". Note now there is NOTHING in regards to that in this new bill. Fortunately there are just enough people in Congress not dumb enough to fall for it this time. Some call this a loss for the GOP. I call it a win. They are finally beginning to stand up to their own crappy leadership.
Look, I will go on the record (again) as saying President Obama's heart was in the right place with the Affordable Care Act. I don't agree with the exact structure of his final delivered product nor how he attempted to roll it out but I don't doubt his intentions to fix a problem that DOES exist in this country.
We have a large chunk of the population with no access to health care when needed. When they are included statistically with the entire middle class and up, it pulls our average life expectancy numbers (in the U.S.) down below most industrialized nations while our costs still remain the highest. It's not unlike our public school system where we spend more per child than almost any other developed country on Earth, yet our test scores are pathetically average, some even below. There is one common theme existing in both problems. That is excessive government regulation and control. The government causes the problems and then wants to be hired as to solve them. This is like hiring the fox to guard the hen house.
To the disappointment of some naive believers, big government is not a benevolent force of good trying to protect the little guy. In fact it is usually quite the opposite. Most Washington politicians would classify as wealthy. People of lower incomes continuously vote people into office that remain wealthy while they themselves are hardly helped at all. And these people along with their supporters continuously point to everyone except themselves and say "You need to do more (and pay more) to help those people". It's easy to say that someone ELSE should be more charitable while trying to claim the moral high ground. Why do some folks keep feeding this black hole? If this is ever going to improve, the rest of us here at the grassroots level need to intervene.
If America truly is ready for a government health insurance program, there is really nothing saying we can't create at least a basic functional program that does what it is supposed to while at the very least breaking even. But any program to have a shred of a chance of success needs to be based on reality and not what a given political movement assumes its followers will do. It also needs to be carefully crafted by a large and diverse team of thinkers; Not just politicians, but also doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, insurers, patients themselves, financial experts, economists, psychologists, analysts, legal experts, the list goes on. This is a massive project and the government historically sucks at managing projects. Our federal government literally wastes billions of dollars per year in botched projects, a statistic sadly overlooked by most people.
They reason for this continual pattern of governmental failure is they lack the same incentive for success as businesses in the private sector do. For the rest of us, failed projects can mean certain disaster in one's career. For the government, their solution is "we need more funding." In which case they'll just confiscate more of your and my money in the form of increased taxes in order to keep their failed project on life support. The only incentive they have is being reelected. If they can pump enough deficit spending into a program to keep it afloat long enough, they're golden and they can pass the problems down to their successor and let them deal with it. The cycle repeats itself.
There is not one person on this Earth that is intelligent enough by only him or herself to solve the complex problems introduced by the Affordable Care Act or for the problems with our entire health system as a whole. True, the ACA did in fact help some people obtain health insurance that otherwise unable to before. But this was not without unintended financial consequences that make it mathematically insolvent within a relatively short period of time. It also shifted the costs to other people including the middle class. (This wasn't supposed to happen, remember?) The quick gut-reaction is to yank it entirely going back to how things were before. But how good were they really?
Conservatives need to accept the fact that social programs are going to be a part of our lives whether we like them or not. The best thing we can do is work to keep them as unobtrusive in our lives as possible, while ensuring the ones we do adopt function efficiently and cost effectively. Unfortunately these are two traits the government won't be accused of having anytime soon.
Before the GOP can present an alternative that has some teeth, everyone needs to accept some realities.
 |
| image from Financial Times |
Second, calling Healthcare a "right" has a fundamental flaw; It implies that one person is entitled to another person's property. And that the government is granted the authority to make sure that exchange happens. In this case the "property" takes the form of an acquired skill. This being the skill that trained doctors and nurses have in order to care for patients. A skill like anything else is a limited resource. The government in theory would have to guarantee that doctors and nurses will provide care to everyone that needs it when and where they need it. That opens the door for forced servitude which we outlawed some years back, remember? It would only be a matter of time before a some people living in a remote part if the U.S. would demand colocated health care providers. But if no caregiver wanted to uproot his or her family and move to the middle of nowhere in order to take that job, now what have you? Some might say "that will never happen". If you allow the government THAT much authority, it WILL happen in some form or another. History shows that they eventually will capitalize on it. Some politician will see it as an opportunity to gain votes; a politician's currency of choice. They stand behind a podium demanding you to give more to someone else and then they try to claim the moral high ground.
Third and possibly most critical, we need to reexamine the number of U.S. citizens we used to identify as "without health insurance" before Obamacare kicked in and then break them into TWO categories; first being those that are in true need of help or as I call "tragically uninsured". These are people that have fallen on hard times in their lives, perhaps by bad luck, perhaps by choices. Nonetheless, helping these people is a virtue and I'll stand in defense of the idea of doing so. I'm OK with contributing to their aid. The second group however are those that CAN afford insurance, but simply chose not to buy it due to any number of reasons ranging from procrastination to simply thinking it isn't necessary. You can actually subdivide this further to include another group which is made of people that WERE able to afford insurance, but rather blew the cash on something else. A bigger house than they need, fancier car, premium cable and expensive vacations, etc. I'm sorry but nobody can provide an ounce of logic defending the notion that responsible people should have to pony up extra cash in order to pay for people that make stupid decisions. Both sides of the aisle need to grow spines and tell these people "no" like the children they are. This will force them into making the necessary adjustments in their lives in order to afford insurance. Just because they may not want to get a used car and a smaller apartment, does that mean the rest of us must subsidize their lifestyles? These groups need to be discounted from those that actually need a helping hand. There is plenty of money in the public dole to help those people provided it isn't leeched up by those that don't actually need it. They just jumped into the line with their hands out and politicians, like always, just couldn't say "No".
Fourth, Conservatives need to understand the "guarantee" of insurance and why people want it. The Right likes to talk about how charity and volunteer groups will take up the slack to care for those that need help if there is no government plan. This in theory could work but will it for sure? Can that guarantee of aid be assured? if even they believe this will work, then I ask those Conservatives "Why do you buy home and car insurance?" The answer is because in life we are willing to pay real money for that peace of mind knowing that the help will be there if needed. We don't want to have to rely on charity if something goes wrong.
Fifth, if there is going to be a "mandate", it must be a real mandate. Not a symbolic and optional one. You are required to obtain health insurance of some kind. If you do not, we will assign the basic government plan to you and we will charged an additional tax for it. If you cannot afford it, you will quality for Medicaid. The provided plan will not be a Rolls Royce plan. But it will get you by. If you have a condition or become gravely ill or injured, you'll get treated and won't go into the poor house.
Some Americans love to point to European countries whose economies and GDPs we out perform and say "We need to be like them." My answer is "Why?" There is a reason we broke out of the European model of governance two centuries ago and walked our own path to prosperity. American has always found a better way of doing something. There is nothing stopping us from doing that yet again with the health care (and insurance) industry. Well, aside from political stubbornness of course.
Monday, March 27, 2017
Lighten up Mayim
My Sunday was one packed with drama and excitement.
First was a little March Madness in the form of the Kentucky vs. North Carolina game. Then followed by a tornado warning here in Columbus here complete with the municipal sirens blaring outside. (No tornado thank goodness, just some heavy rain) and lastly for a little "chaser", a fun little social media slap-fight over the Mayim Bialik rant about the use of the term "girls" when referring to women.
In case you haven't seen it.....
Mayim's rant video HERE
Now I should first say I like Mayim and have a lot of respect for her. I enjoy her character on Big Bang Theory and I always dug the fact that when her acting career went quiet for several years after "Blossom", she went to school and obtained a pretty badass PhD. She ain't no dummy.
But I'm going to take exception with her comments.
First, if you watch the rant, notice that within the first 15 seconds or so, she refers to men around the age of 40 as "guys". Is this that much different than calling women "girls"?
Second, I'd like to know the context. If I said my wife is a "pretty girl", (which is very much true), is it in any way disparaging to her or to women in general? Does it imply that women are inferior to men? I agree that grown men shouldn't refer to pretty girls as "hot chicks". And for those that do, I'd say that those "guys" are disrespecting themselves as much as they are any woman by simply making the statement "This is how I talk".
Lastly, as my wife pointed out, do we refer to our significant others as "womanfriends" instead of "girlfriends"? How ridiculous does that sound? I've seen people in their sixties dating and referring to each other as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend".
I've got a major issue with people that throw terms like "sexism" around so liberally. When you do this, you undoubtedly are going to tag many of the wrong people with that accusation. "Sexist", like "racist" and "rapist" are all very serious terms that should be used sparingly only when absolutely necessary and never wielded recklessly at the risk of insulting those that are the farthest thing from it.
This happened to me on social media just last night. (the last chapter of my action filled Sunday) A friend on Facebook posted the video. No big deal. I assume in defense of Mayim's standpoint. He didn't make any comments for or against it. He's a better person than that. He just quietly posted the video. Again, NO big deal. I'll always respect is right to do that.
However once I made the relatively harmless comment about her use of the term "guys" as being a little hypocritical, one of his "friends" pounced by called me a typical "tRump" supporter (that's how he spelled it) and a sexist. It's sad how people like to use a friend's chat feed as a place to anonymously attack people whom they've never met, not much different than people did twenty years ago in AOL chat rooms. "Hi, since you and I will never meet face to face, I'm going to start cursing at you'. These are spineless people that lack the testicular fortitude to say these things directly to someone's face. So they hide behind their computers and throw mud pies from miles away.
(By the way, NOT a Trump supporter here)
And just to give you some perspective on the kind of socially awkward misfit this guy must be, he has action figures as his profile picture, his photo album consists of primarily his own pencil sketches of superheroes and villains and far less of his own family and wife, and the very first word of his first comment was "Fuck". If you have to lead off your post with "fuck" before ANY other word in the English language, you're most like not going to finish your commentary by winning over the hearts and minds of sensible people.
My favorite part is when he made a second comment casting blind aspersions about me and then promptly told me he was going to ignore me for the rest of the night, which lasted right up until 30 seconds after my next comment when he couldn't resist but to use "fuck" three or four more times. I regret not taking a screen capture of the conversation to share the joy with everyone. Not the main theme of this post but still wanted to share the experience for humor sake.
So wrapping things up here, I feel Mayim is just trying to find something to complain about and further expand this level of hypersensitivity that is becoming mainstream today. One quote I heard recently is "Just because YOU have no problem with something in society today doesn't mean that others do not." I will agree with that logic. But then you can't rationally disagree with the opposite logic in that "If there is something in society that most people have NO problem with but YOU do, does that mean it is a true societal issue?" I say both arguments are both partially correct and incorrect at the same time.
People like Carol Hanisch and Tip O'Neill explained the concept that "politics are local", meaning essentially any issue is whatever it means to YOU and it does NOT have to mean that to anyone else on this Earth. This is something we need to get over already. Lobby as hard as you want for or against any issue you feel. Just don't forget nobody is obligated to agree with you. And if you are all alone or at least in the pathetically small minority in the issue, you need to make the decision between continuing to be a pundit for micro-issues or rather redirect your energy toward something a little more impactful in society.
First was a little March Madness in the form of the Kentucky vs. North Carolina game. Then followed by a tornado warning here in Columbus here complete with the municipal sirens blaring outside. (No tornado thank goodness, just some heavy rain) and lastly for a little "chaser", a fun little social media slap-fight over the Mayim Bialik rant about the use of the term "girls" when referring to women.
In case you haven't seen it.....
Mayim's rant video HERE
But I'm going to take exception with her comments.
First, if you watch the rant, notice that within the first 15 seconds or so, she refers to men around the age of 40 as "guys". Is this that much different than calling women "girls"?
Second, I'd like to know the context. If I said my wife is a "pretty girl", (which is very much true), is it in any way disparaging to her or to women in general? Does it imply that women are inferior to men? I agree that grown men shouldn't refer to pretty girls as "hot chicks". And for those that do, I'd say that those "guys" are disrespecting themselves as much as they are any woman by simply making the statement "This is how I talk".
Lastly, as my wife pointed out, do we refer to our significant others as "womanfriends" instead of "girlfriends"? How ridiculous does that sound? I've seen people in their sixties dating and referring to each other as "boyfriend" and "girlfriend".
I've got a major issue with people that throw terms like "sexism" around so liberally. When you do this, you undoubtedly are going to tag many of the wrong people with that accusation. "Sexist", like "racist" and "rapist" are all very serious terms that should be used sparingly only when absolutely necessary and never wielded recklessly at the risk of insulting those that are the farthest thing from it.
This happened to me on social media just last night. (the last chapter of my action filled Sunday) A friend on Facebook posted the video. No big deal. I assume in defense of Mayim's standpoint. He didn't make any comments for or against it. He's a better person than that. He just quietly posted the video. Again, NO big deal. I'll always respect is right to do that.
However once I made the relatively harmless comment about her use of the term "guys" as being a little hypocritical, one of his "friends" pounced by called me a typical "tRump" supporter (that's how he spelled it) and a sexist. It's sad how people like to use a friend's chat feed as a place to anonymously attack people whom they've never met, not much different than people did twenty years ago in AOL chat rooms. "Hi, since you and I will never meet face to face, I'm going to start cursing at you'. These are spineless people that lack the testicular fortitude to say these things directly to someone's face. So they hide behind their computers and throw mud pies from miles away.
(By the way, NOT a Trump supporter here)
And just to give you some perspective on the kind of socially awkward misfit this guy must be, he has action figures as his profile picture, his photo album consists of primarily his own pencil sketches of superheroes and villains and far less of his own family and wife, and the very first word of his first comment was "Fuck". If you have to lead off your post with "fuck" before ANY other word in the English language, you're most like not going to finish your commentary by winning over the hearts and minds of sensible people.
My favorite part is when he made a second comment casting blind aspersions about me and then promptly told me he was going to ignore me for the rest of the night, which lasted right up until 30 seconds after my next comment when he couldn't resist but to use "fuck" three or four more times. I regret not taking a screen capture of the conversation to share the joy with everyone. Not the main theme of this post but still wanted to share the experience for humor sake.
So wrapping things up here, I feel Mayim is just trying to find something to complain about and further expand this level of hypersensitivity that is becoming mainstream today. One quote I heard recently is "Just because YOU have no problem with something in society today doesn't mean that others do not." I will agree with that logic. But then you can't rationally disagree with the opposite logic in that "If there is something in society that most people have NO problem with but YOU do, does that mean it is a true societal issue?" I say both arguments are both partially correct and incorrect at the same time.
People like Carol Hanisch and Tip O'Neill explained the concept that "politics are local", meaning essentially any issue is whatever it means to YOU and it does NOT have to mean that to anyone else on this Earth. This is something we need to get over already. Lobby as hard as you want for or against any issue you feel. Just don't forget nobody is obligated to agree with you. And if you are all alone or at least in the pathetically small minority in the issue, you need to make the decision between continuing to be a pundit for micro-issues or rather redirect your energy toward something a little more impactful in society.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Sure, we can abolish the Electoral College. Just show me a better idea first..... (written in late 2016)
I get it.
More times than not, the Democrats have historically pulled the shortest straw in terms of losing the Electoral College despite winning a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.
In fact, over the past century and a half, the Republicans are on a 4 election winning streak with such a scenario. Most of us are well aware that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote. The same scenario happened in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison defeating Grover Cleveland and yet again with Rutherford Hayes defeating Samuel Tilden in 1876 after a bitter dispute over 20 electoral votes and a controversial final agreement.
More times than not, the Democrats have historically pulled the shortest straw in terms of losing the Electoral College despite winning a majority (or plurality) of the popular vote.
In fact, over the past century and a half, the Republicans are on a 4 election winning streak with such a scenario. Most of us are well aware that Bush defeated Gore in the 2000 election despite losing the popular vote. The same scenario happened in 1888 with Benjamin Harrison defeating Grover Cleveland and yet again with Rutherford Hayes defeating Samuel Tilden in 1876 after a bitter dispute over 20 electoral votes and a controversial final agreement.
But... the GOP needs to stop spiking the football and dancing like jackasses in the end zone for the moment because if the shoe were on the other foot right now, they'd be throwing their own fit and Fox News would have a new story to lead with for the next 12 months while pretending everyone actually cares.
The truth is the Democrats feel a little ripped off at the moment. God knows we're all only human and when we get ripped off we tend to get a little riled up and start hacking at the source of frustration with a machete when we probably should have been using a scalpel.
Now out of respect for people that I care about, I've been taking a back seat on this post election angst for the past month and a half because I believe that over time, this too shall pass. Hell, I'm still not over the Indians blowing that 3-1 lead in the World Series. But this current hot-button notion of "The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished now!" is one I can't and won't bite my tongue on. You don't get to retroactively change the rules of a completed game because you don't like how it turned out.
Now out of respect for people that I care about, I've been taking a back seat on this post election angst for the past month and a half because I believe that over time, this too shall pass. Hell, I'm still not over the Indians blowing that 3-1 lead in the World Series. But this current hot-button notion of "The electoral college is antiquated and needs to be abolished now!" is one I can't and won't bite my tongue on. You don't get to retroactively change the rules of a completed game because you don't like how it turned out.
First and most importantly, we already DO use the popular vote. We are a nation of 50 sovereign states. "Sovereign" essentially means that each state has its own self-governed entity. It has its own unique voting laws that include rules on voting registration and early voting. In these 50 states plus D.C., we count electoral votes and when a candidate wins a state, he/she gets their electoral votes.
Look, whether it was part of the original intent or not, one of the greatest benefits of the Electoral College is that is forces the candidates to visit the ENTIRE country during his/her campaign. The United States is diverse land mass with a third of a billion inhabitants and captivates literally a dozen or more identifiable cultures. It also respects the individuality of each state and respects their right to protect their own identity. Candidates aren't trying to win the most votes. They are trying to win the most STATES. And states have weighted values based on population. Therefore California, New York, Florida and Texas will continue to have a larger say for years to come.
If winning the popular vote were all it took to win the election, the candidate could spend all of his or her time and money in only a select few heavily populated states, which in turn disregards the voices and opinions of a large number of other voters scattered across the remaining majority of the U.S land mass. In fact if you do the math, this doesn't let EITHER concept off the hook entirely because electoral or popular vote alike, if you ONLY win the 11 most populated states (see table 1 below), you'll hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes to successfully win the election while snubbing 39 of 50 states. You want to talk about “disenfranchisement”? You don’t get much more disenfranchised than that. One could argue the same in terms of winning those states simply in terms of popular vote. This begs the questions "Should we devise a better solution still?"
And in response to those that want to switch to the "popular vote only" method, that is an extreme measure which would require us to rip up the Constitution as it exists right now, eliminate the borders between all 50 states and convert us us one big fat country with NO states. A popular vote election process is a part of a "Direct Democracy", which can work for a single country where there are no independent states and the people directly select their leaders. But a "Direct Democracy" does not work in a union of sovereign states like ours. In order to allow Californians to remain Californians while Texans can be Texans, we structured ourselves in a version of Democracy called a "Representative Republic" or a "Psephocracy", which is based on a Constitution and elected groups of people to represent the communities across the entire country. Here, since the president is selected to represent the union of states, he or she is selected by the states themselves. The states subsequently have their own independent voting laws as they deem fit to best represent their residents. So if you want to take up issue with this system, don't talk to the federal government because they have no authority on the matter. Talk to your state legislature. And no, you can't press the state electors to jump ship and select the a candidate other than the one that one their state. Most state constitutions prohibit this and the few that don't won't provide enough electoral votes to push Mrs. Clinton over the top. And even if it were, it would have to get through the Republican congress. Yeah that'll happen.
So ultimately, the president is campaigning to win states, not votes. And states have a point value based on their population. This concept is so mathematically sound that we even accept it in sports. In the NBA, the NHL and in Major League Baseball, you win a championship by winning games in a best-of-seven series, not by scoring the most points. And yes, this does mathematically allow for the possibility that the team with fewer total points actually loses the championship. In fact, the 1960 World Series saw the New York Yankees score twice the total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates scored. And despite the Yankees having three blow-out victories, Pittsburgh won 4 squeakers and took the 4 out of 7 games needed to earn the title.
Sticking with the baseball analogy for a moment longer, let me throw this final curve ball before my arm gives out. For the sake of simplicity, let's say our country is only made of only three states. In a Direct Democracy election with two candidates "Smith" and "Jones", and where each state has exactly 1 million registered voters (of which miraculously 100% of them turn out to vote), you can see Smith taking two out of 3 states but Jones wins the election by a mere 60,000 votes (see table 2 below). In this scenario, one state gets to impose its will on the other two. Does that make sense to you?
Look, whether it was part of the original intent or not, one of the greatest benefits of the Electoral College is that is forces the candidates to visit the ENTIRE country during his/her campaign. The United States is diverse land mass with a third of a billion inhabitants and captivates literally a dozen or more identifiable cultures. It also respects the individuality of each state and respects their right to protect their own identity. Candidates aren't trying to win the most votes. They are trying to win the most STATES. And states have weighted values based on population. Therefore California, New York, Florida and Texas will continue to have a larger say for years to come.
If winning the popular vote were all it took to win the election, the candidate could spend all of his or her time and money in only a select few heavily populated states, which in turn disregards the voices and opinions of a large number of other voters scattered across the remaining majority of the U.S land mass. In fact if you do the math, this doesn't let EITHER concept off the hook entirely because electoral or popular vote alike, if you ONLY win the 11 most populated states (see table 1 below), you'll hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes to successfully win the election while snubbing 39 of 50 states. You want to talk about “disenfranchisement”? You don’t get much more disenfranchised than that. One could argue the same in terms of winning those states simply in terms of popular vote. This begs the questions "Should we devise a better solution still?"
 |
| Table 1 Data source: www.270towin.com |
And in response to those that want to switch to the "popular vote only" method, that is an extreme measure which would require us to rip up the Constitution as it exists right now, eliminate the borders between all 50 states and convert us us one big fat country with NO states. A popular vote election process is a part of a "Direct Democracy", which can work for a single country where there are no independent states and the people directly select their leaders. But a "Direct Democracy" does not work in a union of sovereign states like ours. In order to allow Californians to remain Californians while Texans can be Texans, we structured ourselves in a version of Democracy called a "Representative Republic" or a "Psephocracy", which is based on a Constitution and elected groups of people to represent the communities across the entire country. Here, since the president is selected to represent the union of states, he or she is selected by the states themselves. The states subsequently have their own independent voting laws as they deem fit to best represent their residents. So if you want to take up issue with this system, don't talk to the federal government because they have no authority on the matter. Talk to your state legislature. And no, you can't press the state electors to jump ship and select the a candidate other than the one that one their state. Most state constitutions prohibit this and the few that don't won't provide enough electoral votes to push Mrs. Clinton over the top. And even if it were, it would have to get through the Republican congress. Yeah that'll happen.
So ultimately, the president is campaigning to win states, not votes. And states have a point value based on their population. This concept is so mathematically sound that we even accept it in sports. In the NBA, the NHL and in Major League Baseball, you win a championship by winning games in a best-of-seven series, not by scoring the most points. And yes, this does mathematically allow for the possibility that the team with fewer total points actually loses the championship. In fact, the 1960 World Series saw the New York Yankees score twice the total runs as the Pittsburgh Pirates scored. And despite the Yankees having three blow-out victories, Pittsburgh won 4 squeakers and took the 4 out of 7 games needed to earn the title.
Sticking with the baseball analogy for a moment longer, let me throw this final curve ball before my arm gives out. For the sake of simplicity, let's say our country is only made of only three states. In a Direct Democracy election with two candidates "Smith" and "Jones", and where each state has exactly 1 million registered voters (of which miraculously 100% of them turn out to vote), you can see Smith taking two out of 3 states but Jones wins the election by a mere 60,000 votes (see table 2 below). In this scenario, one state gets to impose its will on the other two. Does that make sense to you?
Democrats fare just fine in elections when they understand the rules of engagement. President Obama spend significant time and money in rural America connecting with and gathering supporters there. Hillary Clinton stood back and called them "deplorable" while assuming she was entitled to a victory. She could not have been a more overly confident candidate.
Therefore I am open to any suggestions that can improve our current system while still respecting the independence of our 50 states. Everyone’s voice
should be heard. Not just the ones that agree with you (or me).
Saturday, June 18, 2016
Stop blaming guns for all of your problems in life.
Only a week into the tragic terror attack in Orlando, I can’t say I am shocked to see the rhetoric going back and forth about gun control already. It happens like clock work every time. Granted, there is typically a silent grace period of one to two days when the tragedy is as horrific as this one. But nonetheless, people have failed to disappoint once again.
So we all are aware that a deranged and extreme religious zealot murdered 49 innocent souls. Yet so many of you focus on the guns; the inanimate object that had a human hand stuck in it pulling the trigger repeatedly. Nobody seems to be pissed off at the man holding it nor his extremist views nor how he and others are attempting to warp and bastardize an entire religion of 1.8 billion that for the most part, does NOT condone his behavior.
Look, we get it already. You hate guns. You hate them for your own unique reasons and I respect your opinion regardless as to why you have it. Your concerns are not without some validity. But stop cherry-picking certain world events as a means to justify your beliefs and to impose them on others as a Utopian solution to a much greater problem.
I strongly believe that most human beings do not have what it takes bring themselves to kill another human being. The few that do, might use an assault rifle if available. But if not, they can easily find or build an array of other potential weapons to do the job. I suppose you have no explanation for Timothy McVeigh’s fertilizer bomb that killed 168? What about the Chechnyan brothers’ backpack bombs in Boston? Suitcase bombs in Belgium? Or perhaps the crazed extremist in England that killed a harmless and innocent military drummer with a butcher knife? Some even lock people in a cage and light them on fire. And I suppose I don't need to point out that nearly 3000 people were killed by 4 jetliners that were hijacked with cheap box cutters. The methods are almost infinite. Guns are used on occasion because they are convenient. But if we remove the guns, they will find other means as they often already do. The root cause of the problem is unchecked evil - not their weapons of choice.
I’ve been noticing false trends on both sides of the aisle. People on the LEFT seem to think that the RIGHT wants 100% freedom for anyone to buy ANY kind of gun ANY time they want. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Even the NRA supports a thorough background check and prohibiting the sale of guns to those deemed as threats. I’ve yet to meet someone that says “Let’s keep selling guns to crazy people”. The problem here is not to expand the background checks but to improve the means of collecting data and the data architecture itself. The private sector is good at this. For crying out loud, Washington, start recruiting some of these experts and pay them what they are worth to get the job done. And the RIGHT seems to think that the LEFT wants a 100% ban on ALL guns and that the politicians are going door to door to collect your guns. That is not true either. I know registered Democrats with guns. I also know registered Republicans with guns that fully agree with an intense background screening process. As far as assault rifles go, I agree they are a bit silly. But the weapon is harmless until put into a human hand. So are knives, bricks and cars for that matter. Everything requires responsibility and safety and not allowing certain people to have access to it. Some people aren’t allowed to drive simply because they could have a seizure behind the wheel. I don’t hear anyone rejecting that safety measure.
I can easily be a Monday morning quarterback here but let’s face it, despite the FBI’s numerous victories in intercepting potential threats, (and they have), they blew this one big time. But nobody bats a thousand. Let’s learn from it, improve and move forward.
There are literally millions upon millions of guns in circulation. It is just as impossible to make them all disappear as it is to deport 10 million illegal aliens. Let’s focus on realistic solutions for a moment. I’ve made this point before but I am willing to bet real money that if we ban assault rifles entirely or ALL guns for that matter, the first time we see a deranged person rampage into a room and kill 20+ people with an assault rifle he was able to obtain on the black market, we’ll have to say to ourselves, “well, that didn’t work.” Then when we see a deranged person rampage into a room and kill 20+ people with a hand gun or run them down with his car or detonate a homemade fertilizer bomb, we’ll have to again say, “well, that didn’t work either.” Then where do we all go from there? Who will you have left to blame?
I say let’s test the theory. Let’s pass a temporary ban on assault rifles for three years and see what happens. Let’s find out if it works. I’ll give you a hint: Britain has extremely strict gun control laws. Yet Jo Cox from Parliament was just gunned down there last week. How did that happen? Again, It happened because of evil people that want to kill. Not because of a gun.
Let’s please remember one thing; this division between us is exactly what they want to see happen. They attack us and we respond by attacking each other while allocating desperately needed resources away from the true source of the problem and applying it toward those of us that are supposed to be working to fight it. If we don’t stick together we’ll fail together.
Remember that Rome fell from within.
Friday, June 19, 2015
My definition of "Morally Reprehensible"
I try to reserve the use of the term "morally reprehensible" for only special occasions where someone's behavior is so vile and shameful that it justifies such an expression. If I use to too often, it loses its impact.
So today, I am taking it out of the closet, dusting it off and preparing it for proper allocation. Social media has exploded over the past couple days in response to the horrific tragedy in Charleston earlier this week. And once again, one side of the political spectrum wastes no time in attempting to extract the blame from the actual perpetrator and reassign it to an entire population of people they have grown to despise. Bush, the NRA, Christians, Conservatives and even the inanimate guns themselves. NOT the angry, crazy, stupid, racist (or any combination thereof) beast that actually pulled the trigger, ending nine perfectly innocent and beautiful lives.
It is beyond stupid, beyond shameful, it is in fact morally reprehensible to use the deaths of the innocent to pimp your own bigoted agenda and then walk around smugly with a degree of pride in that you did your obligatory duty to try and demonize an entire group or people based on the actions of one person that in most cases, has no affiliation with them whatsoever I wasn't always an ace in English but I'm pretty sure the applicable term to describe this behavior is called "bigotry".
Just like Dylan Roof is a bigot. Only you haven't opened fire on anyone for it. I'll give you at least a shred of credit for exercising restraint.
If so, I'm not really sure why you are reading my post. You should have unfriended me a while ago if in your eyes I am that despicable of a person. That is if you really DO believe what you say. Perhaps the reason we ARE still friends is that you really don't believe that. The ones you have grown to hate are nothing more than the Boogie-Man. So like William F Buckley said, "I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you believe what you just said."
I blame the shooter. Anyone care to join me in that camp?
I have yet to understand the motivation behind something like this. In recent news, one side of the aisle actually attempted to blame the other for the tragic train crash in Philadelphia. Do some people have no shame?
They did it with Oklahoma City. They did it with 9/11. They did it with Columbine and Sandy Hook. They did it with Philadelphia as I just mentioned, they did it with the bridge collapse in Minneapolis and they even did it with a hurricane. They've now done it with this. Some people have literally no shame.
I can only assume that there are a small but radical subset of our society that sits with baited breath watching for a tragedy to unfold on the news and then pounce on the opportunity to blame all Conservatives, the people they've grown to despise and hold accountable for every woe in his/her imperfect little life or that big world that's apparently out to get them.
I think they often forget that when they post their anger-driven monologues on social media, blaming their usual whipping boys, they fail to remember how many friends and family in their OWN lives that they are insulting. And yes, they may try and pull the classic rebuttal; "Well, I wasn't talking about YOU specifically, just the other ones". That is a pathetic as a white person that saying he doesn't like Black people except for all of the ones he actually knows and is friends with - they're OK.
Are you really that stupid? Don't answer that.
Yes, "bigotry"
In recent years, due to the undeserved leadership statuses of our uneducated and clueless pop culture icons, it has been deemed "socially acceptable" to be a bigot against Conservatives and/or Christians and to use isolated acts of violence committed by one person as an excuse to persecute an entire group, none of which have a thing to do with it.
They call us racists, they call us homophobes, they call us sexists, etc. They can never seem to produce a tangible and legitimate example. Rather they just "say" we are that way and that is apparently validation enough for them.
And my obvious question for them that I find myself asking often is "I'm a Conservative Christian, at least lightly so. Is that what you really think of me?"
And sadly, the moment Dylan Roof was taken into custody, the social media reaction to the shooting hit its climax, triggering the latest wave of stupidity flooding the news feeds with pathetic attempts to use the tragic deaths of the victims in order to pimp his/her own biased agenda.
I'm going to put this one way, one time; When you resist arrest, whether for an unpaid parking ticket or for shooting someone, the police will take you down and with deadly force if needed. If you give yourself up peacefully, whether for an unpaid parking ticket or for shooting someone, they will detain you without incident. For those of you with the despicable gaul to try and compare the Charleston shooter's arrest with unrelated incidents in recent weeks where someone either ran or resisted arrest, as an excuse to take another uncalled-for jab at all cops in trying to tag them as "racists", especially when the REAL racist we are dealing with right now just shot 9 innocent people dead in church a couple days ago, what you are doing is morally reprehensible and pretty much just stupid. REALLY stupid.
In closing, I have a theory where I believe that white people who sprint to the front of the line to call other white people racists the moment something terrible like this happens, they are actually hiding something. After all, the best defense is a good offense, right?
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
1 point for Alabama - now it's your move, "other 49 states"
Alabama Senate votes to approve the Abolition of Marriage License Requirements.
Any one of the current GOP candidates would be wise to adopt this concept. Say it at the first round of GOP presidential debates and you can follow it with a mic-drop. I love this. It aligns with the point I've made in that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. It's completely futile to try to to convince the government to either allow or disallow certain unions when the correct answer is "it's none of their damn business who gets married". This is an important point I often make; When you take a hard stance on an issue like this, regardless of which side you are on, you begin to rely on the government to play "referee" in hopes that they will rule in your favor. By doing so, you inadvertently forfeit that little chunk of "freedom to choose" over to them. They will happily add that to their arsenal of devices used to try and control our lives. It's ironic that the same people continuously lobbying the government in efforts to stop gay marriage are often the same people that spend enormous amounts of energy complaining that the government is too big already. Stop feeding the pig!
Any one of the current GOP candidates would be wise to adopt this concept. Say it at the first round of GOP presidential debates and you can follow it with a mic-drop. I love this. It aligns with the point I've made in that the government should get out of the marriage business all together. It's completely futile to try to to convince the government to either allow or disallow certain unions when the correct answer is "it's none of their damn business who gets married". This is an important point I often make; When you take a hard stance on an issue like this, regardless of which side you are on, you begin to rely on the government to play "referee" in hopes that they will rule in your favor. By doing so, you inadvertently forfeit that little chunk of "freedom to choose" over to them. They will happily add that to their arsenal of devices used to try and control our lives. It's ironic that the same people continuously lobbying the government in efforts to stop gay marriage are often the same people that spend enormous amounts of energy complaining that the government is too big already. Stop feeding the pig!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)