Observations Along the Road

Roadkill Along the Information Superhighway

Category Archive: 'rant'

Thoughts on the Eve of the RNC

Written By: cahwyguy - Mon Aug 27, 2012 @ 7:14 am PDT
Posted in politics, rant , | No Comments »

On this, the eve of the Republican National Convention, I’ve been thinking a lot about politics, rhetoric, groups, and individuals. A number of articles have been spurring this thinking, from yesterday’s ElectoralVote talking about the R platform, to an article in today’s LA Times about the deepening divide within the Republican party, and how the party is not united by what they are for, but what they are against. Obama.

Let’s start with that hatred. Especially if you read comments on news articles, you’ll see there is a lot of hatred going around. People “hate” Obama and believe the Democrats are socialists. The Republicans “hate” women, and are waging “war” on them.  We are in this increasingly polarized name calling atmosphere. Well I hate it. :-) . We need to tone down the rhetoric. We disagree with positions, but we shouldn’t take that to the personal level. I doubt that any individual Republican truly hates women — they have a different view and mindset (one with which I disagree), but I don’t think it goes to the level of hatred. When we use such rhetoric, we make it harder to make our case.

I’d rather talk about what I’m for, and I support the President because he mostly believes in what I am for. He doesn’t agree with it all, and Congress certainly does not agree, but I will support candidates that align with our views.

  1. I believe religion is a personal matter, and should not be legislated. In other words, government shouldn’t be making our moral decisions for us. If you believe in the Bible, look at Deut. God gives us the choice between good and evil, life and death, and it is our responsibility to do the right thing. Having government make that decision for us takes away our ability to do good. In other words, government shouldn’t be prohibiting things like abortion, contraception, or the types of relationships that people form — they must be legal, and it should be up to the individual to decide what they want to do for themselves. Further, freedom of religion means that I must be free to practice my religion, and your religious beliefs (which might differ from mine) shouldn’t be prohibiting me from acting in accordance with my beliefs (within the realms of public safety).
  2. I respect the hard-working immigrant, be they legal or not. Hard-working immigrants have formed this country, and we should encourage and provide an easy path to citizenship to those who work hard and follow the law (modulo, of course, immigration law where it has gotten stupid). Thus I support efforts to reform and correct our immigration laws that are along these lines.
  3. I strongly believe in the public school system — both K-12 and universities — and believe these are the foundation for a successful society. Our citizens must be able to think and think critically. They must know how to work with technology, and not be afraid or disbelieving of science. Efforts to prevent critical thinking are wrong.
  4. Although I believe we need to reduce (but not eliminate) the national debt, there is a time and place for everything. Sometimes, you need to spend a little to gain a lot, and in recessionary times, appropriate government investment in its people has shortened the recession as well as creating technologies that have permitted America to rebound. We need to do that again: putting people to work repairing infrastructure, doing research and development into new energy and scientific technologies. This short term spending will go a long way to bringing America back.
  5. I also believe in paying our fair share to keep society going. That means when you “have”, you sometimes give more (percentage-wise) than those who do not have to benefit all. This notion has been lost with the idea that we must keep cutting taxes. We either need to increase taxes on the wealthy, or the wealthy have to demonstrate that they don’t need taxes to use their money to do good and put people back to work.
  6. I believe there is a role for government in many areas: building infrastructure, providing national defense–defending our economy as well as our borders, providing directed investments to make our country better. I do not believe in minimal government, but I do not believe in maximal government either. Government needs to be balanced.

When I look at the positions in the Republican platform, I see positions that do not agree with my views. When I read about the divide in the Republican party, I realize that the overall position is something with which I cannot stand. While I might agree with a single position here and there, and I might find individual members of the GOP to be good people, I generally do not agree with their candidates. I find in their positions a desire for a simpler time (some have characterized it as the time of Taft and Roosevelt — Teddy, that is). I can certainly see that in the stances on women, gays, immigration, isolationism, robber barons, and the gold standard. We need candidates that focus on the future, not a past that is being viewed through rose-tinted glasses.

That’s my rant for this morning.

 

--- *** ---

Dealing with the National Debt

Written By: cahwyguy - Sun Aug 19, 2012 @ 7:16 am PDT
Posted in politics, rant | No Comments »

This morning, while taking my shower, I was thinking about the national debt. Most of the debate has been blaming the government for increasing it. But we never talk about the other side of the equation. Who is loaning the government the money? If they shut off the spigot and called in their notes, that would reduce the National Debt as well.

The Chinese? Other governments?

Nope. Much of the national debt is owned by you and me. Every time we buy a savings bond or we put anything in an institution backed by treasury notes, we are supporting the government’s habit. So, for those of you up in arms about the national debt, here’s what you do. Sell all your savings bonds. Close all your bank accounts (even those at credit unions), for they keep the money safe and secure by investing in government bonds. Sell all your mutual funds, for they park their cash in treasury notes. Keep your cash under your bed, where it is, umm, safe and secure.

You see, the national debt is important to you and me because it is a safe and secure investment that you can trust to return some small value for your investment. Would you feel as comfortable if your bank had to invest in Greece or Italy or Portugul because the US was no longer issuing treasury bonds.

Yes, we need to reduce the national debt, but not eliminate it. We need to realize that the national debt is important to the nation because it is a safe and secure investment.

 

--- *** ---

Belief in God, and Its Impact on Society

Written By: cahwyguy - Thu Aug 16, 2012 @ 11:30 am PDT
Posted in politics, rant , , | 2 Comments »

For the last couple of weeks, my mind has turned to God. Not anything particularly religious, mind-you, but the question of why we believe in God in the first place. As I pondered the subject, I could see two reasons for it.

First, a supernatural being provides an explanation for existence of the world. Our universe needs to come from somewhere, and to those lacking in scientific knowledge, God is as good as an explanation of anything else. Of course, there is disagreement on the actual mechanism, and I think many would agree that creation stories are just that — stories — used to illustrate larger points. Today, I don’t know of many people that believe in the literal creation stories (although there are, surprisingly, some); some hold on a modified version that the initial whatever that created the universe had to come from somewhere. Do we need God to explain the creation of the universe? Probably not; recent scientific findings (such as the recent Higgs Particle) indicate that the universe can indeed come from nothing.

So if we don’t need God to create the universe, why have the notion of God. I’ll posit that there is a more important reason to need the concept of God — as moral authority. Just like we need our parents as a moral authority to “lay down the law”, God serves a similar purpose. God provides the mechanism to reward good and punish bad for whatever moral system a particular society chooses to invent. Without this authority, people would succumb to their animalistic nature and just do what is best with them, and to hell with everyone else. God provides the authority to say — if you do right, you will be rewarded in some way, and if you do wrong, you’ll pay for making that choice. I think this notion of God is universal across the various religions, whether you see God as an old man on a throne or the determinant of your karma. Does this mean God actually exists? I’ll argue that’s irrelevant to the question; as long as we agree on the authority, that’s what is important.

This, of course, begs the question of what is right and wrong? Are there larger and smaller rights? If we look at the Torah, traditional thought is that all commandments are equal. But is that true? This is a debate that is playing out in the political arena, where some politicians place more importance in telling people what they can and can’t do (such as same-sex marriage or abortion) and others place more importance on doing good for society. Alas, we have no evidence that there is a God who punishes; it may happen, but those who are rewarded or punished have never come back to confirm it.

I was thinking about this again today as I read the papers over lunch. In particular, I was reading an article about the Republican and Democratic divides over society (in particular, the approaches to Catholicism from the two VP candidates). The Republican view seems to be moving to the Ayn Rand side of the argument overlain with certain moral precepts: it is our responsibility to look out for ourselves first and foremost; the only one responsible for our success is ourselves; government serves a minimal role in this process; and we select particular moral precepts from our religious doctrine to enforce on everyone. The particular moral doctrines were what we should “not” do: what government shouldn’t do, what people shouldn’t do. In many ways, this is a view from the turn of the 20th century (the time of Taft): government should stay out of the way; people should be the ones responsible for their success or failure; and government has the responsibility to impose morality (think prohibition). The LA Times has a nice editorial cartoon on this.

The Democratic view, as I see it, is actually the more “Christian” view: care about people first, do good for others and make society better, wealth for wealth’s sake is a bad thing, one should use wealth as a way to make society better. In doing this, they are making different selections about what God wants us to do. Politically, their view is reflective of the “Great Society” of the later 20th century: the approach taken by FDR, JFK, LBJ, and even folks like Richard Nixon and Jimmy Carter. The focus is on how to do good — how to be more accepting — how to be more accommodating. The only religious precept they seemed to want to enforce was the notion of doing good for others; each individual’s religion was free to dictate to that individual other moral aspects.

With the recent VP choice of Mr. Ryan, this distinction is becoming stronger. I think we need to be asking ourselves what our moral authority wants us to do: it is more important to do good for others, or is it more important to do good for our personal interest? Where do we want society to go in general?

It is important to remember this is not about the debt. Both sides want to reduce the debt (and trust me, you don’t want to pay off the debt completely). It is about what our priorities should be and what type of society we want.

[And if you want my opinion, I don't believe we should return to the era of the Robber Barons, where power was concentrated in the hands of a privileged few, and where the financial goals were the exploitation of people and rules to gain more power. Your opinion may differ.]

 

 

 

--- *** ---

What’s In A Name?

Written By: cahwyguy - Mon Aug 06, 2012 @ 9:12 pm PDT
Posted in rant, roadgeeking | No Comments »

I’ve been working on the highway pages again, and I’m up to the legislative changes. I just finished with the Assembly, and ran into the updated version of ACR 100, the Mark Bixby Memorial Bicycle Pedestrian Path, the Ohlone Kallentaruk Highway, the Oceanside Police Officer Daniel S. Bessant Memorial Highway, the Los Angeles Police Officer Ian J. Campbell Memorial Highway, the Officer Ryan Stringer Memorial Highway, the Officer Dale M. Krings Memorial Rest Area, the Ronald Ledford Memorial Bridge, the Hawthorne Police Officer Andrew Garton Memorial Highway, the Donald Mark Lichliter Memorial Highway, the Christopher Meadows Memorial Highway, the California State Engineer Memorial Interchange, and the Christian Vasquez Memorial Highway Resolution. You read that right. 26 names.

So, as part of my updates, I’m reading about these people and getting more and more upset. Now, I have no problem with recognizing people for meritorious service. We all owe a debt and immense gratitute to our service men and women who give their lives, to our public safety officers who die in the line of duty, and all who give public service. But naming a 2 mile stretch of highway or an intersection after them, especially when all people will see is the name, is not the way to do it. Tell their story. Give a thank you to their family. But not this way.

By picking one person to name something after, you cheapen the service of all those who are not named. Why name after this Iraqi vet when you don’t name after all of our other WWI, WWII, Korea, or Vietnam vets? Why name after this particular officer who was killed by a drunk driver and not some other one? It just seems the wrong way to do it to me.

Further, a number of these resolutions give loads of personal details: wives, children, grandchildren and birthdates. Where they were born, where they went to school. This information opens up the opportunity for identity theft or spearphishing attacks on the family. They don’t deserve it.

This, of course, is just one example. I encourage everyone to go to the state legislature website. Look at all the “work” your legislature is doing (2700 bills in the Assembly alone). The new website allows you to comment on the bills and subscribe to updates. I encourage you to do so.

 

--- *** ---

UCLA and The Garden

Written By: cahwyguy - Tue Jul 31, 2012 @ 8:34 pm PDT
Posted in rant , | No Comments »

It’s been a busy day, what with two appointments and splitting a 1700+ page document into a 1500+ page document and a 400+ page document…. but I still wanted to share an article with you about a judge preventing UCLA from selling the Hannah Carter Japanese Garden. This is a garden that was willed to UCLA; they’ve been maintaining it for years. Now they want to sell it. Why? According to the article:

“The university believes that resources are best directed toward our academic mission and not toward a garden that serves no teaching or research purpose,” said university spokesman Phil Hampton in an emailed statement.

Read that closely. They want to sell the garden because it serves no teaching or research purpose. Really now? So why are they building a hotel on campus. There are plenty of hotels in the neighborhood, and I’m unaware of UCLA having a hotel management program. Building an ungodly expensive hotel serves no teaching or research purpose. Neither does the artwork that adorns the buildings. Utilitarian buildings are cheaper; why waste the money on making university buildings pretty. Why have an arts program for the public? Hell, why have an athletic program–that serves no teaching or research purpose.

Gardens can have a research and teaching purpose if used properly. They can provide research into botany. They can be used for art classes. They can be used for history classes. Don’t use teaching and research as an excuse; use it as a challenge to make your programs better.

Oh, and if you are trying to rationalize selling the gardens, at least be honest about it. UCLA needs the money. But somehow, I doubt it will go towards reducing registration fees or student costs.

 

--- *** ---

Doing All They Can For _(noun)_

Written By: cahwyguy - Wed Jul 25, 2012 @ 7:52 pm PDT
Posted in politics, rant | No Comments »

While reading through the news the other day, I ran across an interesting article on airline fees. No, it’s not the fact that airlines made $22 Billion in fees last year. Rather, it is the story of an airline passenger who had to pay $60 for Economy Plus seating on United. But, you’re probably thinking, those seats are optional. He could ride in Economy for free. Wrong. It appears that certain United flights (supposedly all flights LAX-JFK and SFO-JFK) are what are termed “Premium Service” flights, and they have no economy seats. Still, the pricing of the flight reflects free economy seats; you don’t learn you need to pay $60 more until you select your seats. Evidently, this is a loophole around displaying the total price they are mandated to post.  We all know this isn’t the only sneaky airline fee.  It’s yet another example of corporations going after the profit whereever they can.

We’ve seen this in lots and lots of places. Bank profits are up, but are they doing more for their customers. Probably not (I wouldn’t know — I use a credit union). Look at energy companies. In the wake of the Enron scandal and their manipulation of California energy prices, California instituted new rules to prevent manipulation of the market. JP Morgan figured out a loophole, and has been manipulating the market to make billions of dollars. Recently, Capitol One has been ordered to pay millions of dollars in fines for deceptive practices.

What are these companies doing with the profits? Hiring more workers and solving the employment problem? No. Paying obscene salaries to executives? Ding-ding-ding. Meanwhile, the middle class can’t afford to purchase products, and the belief, at least in certain political sectors, is that if you reduce taxes on those obscenely well-paid executives and the people making lots of money off of interest income, this will make the companies hire more.

This is why I believe there is a role for government. Left to their own devices — free of government intervention and regulation — people will take advantage of other people. This is why these laws came into being in the 19th century and early 20th century — to stop the abuses by corporations. Right now, Corporate America has far too much power and greed for their own good.

Music: Johnny Guitar (2006 Off-Broadway Cast): What’s In It For Me?

--- *** ---

Political Rant: Blaming the Man in Charge? Gotta Figure Out The Right One.

Written By: cahwyguy - Fri Jul 13, 2012 @ 4:30 pm PDT
Posted in politics, rant , | No Comments »

The news today is all abuzz about the question of whether Romney was in charge of Bain Capital in the period when they laid off a bunch of people. NPR’s Planet Money blog has a nice exploration of the question of whether he was in charge… and more importantly, what does it mean? It ends with an interesting question: “Is the CEO responsible for the actions of different units of his company, whether or not he’s making day-to-day decisions?”

Both parties should think about the implications of this question. It may very well be, fellow Democrats, that Romney being in charge of Bain during that period doesn’t mean he was responsible for the outsourcing decisions. There are other reasons not to vote for him, this isn’t one of them.

And, my Republican friends, think about this question when you blame Obama for everything. Obama has no control over what bills are introduced in Congress, the specific form they take, whether they progress through committee or come to a floor vote. All he can do is issue executive orders, sign or not sign what comes across his desk, and try to influence people. Therefore, to blame Obama for actions that were not done is incorrect: if the bills were never introduced or never made it out of Congress, it isn’t his fault. Similarly, if a flawed bill such as the Affordable Care Act comes across his desk, his only choice is to decide whether to veto it entirely, or whether the good in the bill outweighs the bad… and whether to trust that Congress will adjust and correct it in the future. As for influencing people — the situation in Congress is so polarized that Obama has little influence outside of his party; even when he has worked to adjust things to appease the other party, this hasn’t satisfied them and they’ve moved further to the right.

If you look closely at what Obama is being blamed for, it really isn’t his fault. The problem, my friends on both sides of the aisle, is Congress. They are not doing their jobs and working in the interest of the country–they are working for their party and to score political points (why else would the House waste its time voting to repeal Obamacare when they know it will not pass, instead of working to fix it).

Let’s hold politicians responsible for what they had the capability to fix… and didn’t. If something is out of their hands, let’s blame the folks whose hands are really dirty.

Music: Parade! A Musical Review (Dody Goodman): Maria in Spats

--- *** ---

Why I Support the “Individual Mandate”

Written By: cahwyguy - Sat Jun 30, 2012 @ 3:15 pm PDT
Posted in politics, rant , , , | 1 Comment »

Way back in 1984, columnist Art Buchwald wrote a piece on the insurance industry that has always struck with me. It began as follows (you can read the whole piece here):

I’m not a betting man by nature, but I have this bookmaker. He works for the Reluctant Insurance Company of America. This is how we bet. Every month I give him a certain amount of money, and he takes a gamble that my house won’t burn down or be broken into or damaged by a falling tree. Another bet I place with him is that my car won’t hit someone in an accident, or I won’t be hit by somebody else. Still a third one is that my family will not be stricken with an illness that will require hospitalization.

Funny enough, I was never anxious to win one of those bets. I didn’t want to collect from the bookie on any of them. He seemed to feel the same way I did. So much so that if, for some reason, I forgot to send him a check for one of our bets, he would mail me a nasty letter wanting to know where the money was. He was not, he told me, in the bookmaking business for his health.

Recently, due to an illness in my family, my bookie lost one of my bets. Since this was the first time I had won, I thought he would be happy to pay off. After all, even in Las Vegas the house expects to lose once in a while.

You can guess where the piece goes from there, with the bookie refusing to pay out, and even threatening to break his legs.

Thinking about insurance as legalized gambling is very instructive. Currently, we’re in a situation where a lot of people have employer-subsidized casinos where they can gamble. These casinos pay very well, but they are open only to the employees. They are like credit unions: they know their community, and they pay very well.

Those who aren’t so lucky to have employer-subsidized casinos have a problem. Playing at the other casinos are very expensive, and some of them are quite shady. Some of them have really bad odds: they collect in lots of money, and pay out an extremely small percentage, with the rest going to the mob bosses that control the casino. Others only allow you to gamble if they know you will lose; if you have ever won before, they do not permit you to play the game because their oddsmakers tell them that if you have won once, you’re going to win again. Further, there are a group of players that only want to go into the casino when they know they will have a winning streak. When their luck is cold, they avoid the casinos. Casinos could not stay in business very long if the house regularly lost; it depends on the balance of winners to losers.

Let’s now translate the above into the affordable care act, often called “Obamacare”. One thing Obamacare does is mandate that the house pay a certain percentage to the winner, and not to the mob bosses — in other words, that a significant portion of premiums (I think 80%) must go to medial payments, not administrative costs. Obamacare also mandates that individuals who have ever “won” can continue playing — in other words, that individuals with preexisting conditions must be able to get coverage. It also mandates that the casinos must pay out when people win — in other words, that when you get sick, the insurance companies cannot retroactively drop your insurance. It also mandates that players just learning the game can come in the casino with their parents — in other words, that children who are unlikely to get sick must be covered under their parent’s policies. All off these have the potential to cost the casino money. To counter this and balance the system, Obamacare mandates that people cannot play only when they know they will win — in other words, that people must get health insurance when they are young and healthy. This is the basis of the “individual mandate”: to provide incentives for people who do not carry insurance to carry insurance, and those premiums offset the additional coverage costs.

Now, Obamacare recognizes that not all players have the same ability to gamble. For those that have the ability, they have the choice: they can regularly gamble and lose, or they can pay a fee (lower than their gambling costs) for not playing (this is the tax that the Supreme Court just ruled as legal). For those that can’t afford to play at all, the government will provide the casino and pay for them to play — this corresponds to Medicare and similar programs. For those that can barely afford to play, the government will provide subsidies to help them play — in other words, low income people can get financial support on buying insurance. Lastly, the government will maintain a list of available casinos (the “registries”) that tell people the best places for them to play; it is the states that have the option of setting up state-run casinos for those that can’t find anyway to play.

Continuing the analogy: Does the government dictate when people can win and when they lose: in other words, are there “death squads”. In the government run casinos, yes — but this is what we have today with Medicare dictating what they will cover (in other words, this isn’t new). For private-run casinos, only partially. The government does dictate some cases where the people can win — that is, coverage that must be provided. The government, with some exceptions, does not dictate when people lose (i.e., when things aren’t covered). That’s up to the private insurers  (oops, casinos). The exception: abortion, and this restriction came not from Obama but from the Conservatives in government.

So there you have it. Insurance is legalized gambling. The individual mandate is simply a way to get more people into the casino so that the casino operators can afford to let more people play and have better payouts.

 

--- *** ---

<<34567>>