I was certain, that by this point, the internet would be awash in posts on how to spot fake news. I have seen few such pieces, and those have been rather biased themselves. So here I present a basic primer on how to spot fake news. Or, for the slightly more educated: how to determine if a given news story is biased or manipulative. I will start with the highest quality, and least biased type of news, and wade my way into the sewer from there.
News that does not present a side: You have seen this type of reporting. Most likely as the police blotter in a local newspaper. It reads like a simple rundown of facts, because that is what it is. Even many weather reports do not follow this style any longer. It is boring, and doesn't drive ratings. This type of reporting shows only what happened, when, and to whom. It makes no supposition as to the "why". Stories that present only some of the facts do not fit here.
News that presents every side equally, and without bias: This is the rarest of all birds. I don't recall seeing it at all in my adult life. Many stories that seem to equally represent more than one side actually do not. If they have a quote from one side, damning the other, and no response, a quote from one side presented as a statement of fact, but offset by quotes, or a small mention of a countervailing viewpoint buried near, but not at the end of the story: they do not fall into this category.
News that flagrantly presents only one side of a story: I count this as non-manipulative because they make their intentions clear at the outset. Stories that are presented as news, but are actually opinion pieces, (Looking at you Yahoo!) do not fall into this category.
Anything above this point is not "Fake News". Anything below it is. Pay attention to which type of reporting you actually witness. I'll bet everything above seems foreign and strange. But everything below seems quite familiar. Put on your chest waders. The manure truck is unloading...
News that presents one side in a way that looks neutral: This is the second most frequently seen type of story. An agenda is bolstered either by presenting a quote from someone as a statement of truth, the testimony of an unqualified "expert" (Thunderwood College for example), or by not giving equal representation.
News that presents one side as "good" and the other "bad": This can be anything from: softening the coverage of riots led by Antifa ans BLM, showing one side as educated and the other as rubes, or presenting one side as being affiliated with an undesirable societal element.
News that over-reports sensational topics: "If it bleeds, it leads" has long been the newsroom standard. But that simple ratings -boosting mentality, fed by our love of dirty laundry, can mislead the public. The best example that exists is the public perception that we are living in a very violent period in history, both domestically and globally, When quite the opposite is true. Crime in general, and violent crime in particular, have both been trending downward for decades. But you would never know that, reading or watching the news. This is the most common type of story.
News that presents the findings of a study or survey: This includes both the stories centered on a media-conducted survey showing what a "majority" believe, and stories where the media is reporting on a correctly conducted study, that is either by ignorance or design, presented in a false way. In the first instance there are questions like: "Do you support violent felons being imprisoned?" which is presented as "The majority of Americans support tougher gun laws." (section titled: "Misleading Polls"). In the second instance this would include almost every scientific finding reported on in the last three decades. This may not be their fault.
News that is actually an opinion piece: Depending on presentation, this may, or may not be obvious.
News with a single, unreliable source: Always presented as factual, and the source is always presented as beyond reproach. But always found out, sometimes months later, to be false.
Non-News: "Trending on Twitter" stories, celebrity gossip, stories reporting the findings or reactions of; UFO "experts", Bigfoot "researchers" and any headline that ends in a question mark. If such a story were true, the headline would be a statement, not a question.
Every Blog Ever Written: Even this one.
Showing posts with label right. Show all posts
Showing posts with label right. Show all posts
Saturday, September 9, 2017
Saturday, January 16, 2016
Your bias is showing.
Recently I've seen an image circulating. You know the kind, someone tried to force a meme by putting words over an image. Normally I ignore these things, as they are thoughtless ignorance encapsulated; but this one bothered me. It represented the culmination of assumptions feeding confirmation bias, feeding assumptions, in a vicious circle. Rather than direct traffic to the site hosting it; I, armed with the fair use doctrine, am posting it here.
Let's disassemble the assumptions and biases here. First this assumes that these two people have any intent at all. They may simply have been walking down the street. This isn't likely the case, but I'll cover that shortly. Next, it assumes they are cowards, and that only armed services members and veterans can be brave, or defend themselves or their country. Since the second amendment was born out of the fact that non military people armed themselves to liberate us from the British, this is especially off base. Lastly the assumption that they are "playing army". Because one cannot possibly be engaging in any activity with a firearm, unless you are acting immature. This is an assumption feeding a confirmation bias and back.
The first assumption is the funniest. Ever run into armed people just wandering around? Me neither. That is because it doesn't happen, in this country, unless you are out hunting. This was most likely from one of the many "Open Carry" events in places like Texas, which were to highlight the absurdity of the laws there. It was lawful to carry a rifle openly, or a handgun concealed, but not a handgun where it could be seen. This left enforcement far too open to interpretation.
These protests worked, and as of this January it became legal to carry a handgun openly. Other protests seek to "desensitize" people to the sight of a firearm, which should be no more alarming than the presence of a bat, hammer, or other tool. At no point, that I could find, was the intent of these protests to intimidate anyone. That is why the rifles are slung, and not carried.
I have prepared an image as a rebuttal, which is every bit as ignorant, assumptive, and reinforcing of bias. It was done for satire, and not because I am stating the contained words to be truth.
See how this can be turned around. These people are engaged in the same activity. A collective agreement to protest. Unlike the protesting people carrying rifles, however, their right to intimidate is protected. (http://www.nrtw.org/d/big_labor_special_privileges.htm). Paints a different picture now doesn't it?
Let's disassemble the assumptions and biases here. First this assumes that these two people have any intent at all. They may simply have been walking down the street. This isn't likely the case, but I'll cover that shortly. Next, it assumes they are cowards, and that only armed services members and veterans can be brave, or defend themselves or their country. Since the second amendment was born out of the fact that non military people armed themselves to liberate us from the British, this is especially off base. Lastly the assumption that they are "playing army". Because one cannot possibly be engaging in any activity with a firearm, unless you are acting immature. This is an assumption feeding a confirmation bias and back.
The first assumption is the funniest. Ever run into armed people just wandering around? Me neither. That is because it doesn't happen, in this country, unless you are out hunting. This was most likely from one of the many "Open Carry" events in places like Texas, which were to highlight the absurdity of the laws there. It was lawful to carry a rifle openly, or a handgun concealed, but not a handgun where it could be seen. This left enforcement far too open to interpretation.
These protests worked, and as of this January it became legal to carry a handgun openly. Other protests seek to "desensitize" people to the sight of a firearm, which should be no more alarming than the presence of a bat, hammer, or other tool. At no point, that I could find, was the intent of these protests to intimidate anyone. That is why the rifles are slung, and not carried.
I have prepared an image as a rebuttal, which is every bit as ignorant, assumptive, and reinforcing of bias. It was done for satire, and not because I am stating the contained words to be truth.
Tuesday, December 29, 2015
Donald, Ben, and Bernie. Why are Americans so drawn to them.
You may have missed the report today that 3 out of every 4 Americans are unhappy with the way we are being governed. 69% being at least somewhat angry. Now aside from the fact that between 40 and 60 percent of Americans can't be bothered to vote, or perhaps in addition to this, it shows we are not happy with our government. So why are Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Bernie Sanders so popular?
When you don't trust government, you seek the outsiders. All three fit this, more or less. When you feel you aren't getting what you're entitled to, you seek out the extremists. All three, again, fit this, more or less. Sanders wants to create his version of a socialist utopia. Trump wants to "Make America great again" by creating a capitalist utopia. Carson apparently favors theocracy.
The only reason Sanders isn't leading on the left is the flagrant sabotage of his campaign by the DNC. This, one could assume, has something to do with the terribly, massively corrupt, foreign donation seeking, economic powerhouse, that is the Clinton foundation. Sanders has words, Clinton has cash. As the old saying goes: "Money talks, B@!!$#!T walks".
But the undeniable message that Washington should be hearing is that, on both sides, we're fed up, and don't trust them. It's not even tinfoil hat territory any longer; to claim there is only one party, the rich, and that the whole two party system is a farce. Tell me if this plot line sounds anything like the current system. (http://theinfosphere.org/Tastycrats). Americans of every political stripe are fed up with our "leaders" only representing their own interests, and the interests of big business.
Do I have a plan to fix this? No. I do have a plan to fix the system that encourages it, though. First, abolish the electoral college. We have the ability to quickly and accurately tabulate every person's vote and we have for most of a century. It's well past time. Next, make all primaries on the same day. Then no one state's votes count more than any others. One person, one vote, is violated by the current process. These two steps address this.
Also, a two term limit for each office. You can still be in politics a very long time, but a senator for only twelve years, a representative for four, and president for eight (technically ten, under the right conditions). After that, or before, you would work at the state level. Lastly, set the pay of each senator and representative equal to the median income of their district. (state for senators) Gerrymandering would all but disappear, and they would be motivated to actually represent the best interests of their constituency. The current system provides no incentive for elected officials to actually represent the interests of the governed. These two measures address this.
There may be a better way to accomplish this. I would hope so. I'm only one person with some half-baked ideas. But 75% of us are upset with how we are being governed, by people we elect. Something is terribly wrong here.
When you don't trust government, you seek the outsiders. All three fit this, more or less. When you feel you aren't getting what you're entitled to, you seek out the extremists. All three, again, fit this, more or less. Sanders wants to create his version of a socialist utopia. Trump wants to "Make America great again" by creating a capitalist utopia. Carson apparently favors theocracy.
The only reason Sanders isn't leading on the left is the flagrant sabotage of his campaign by the DNC. This, one could assume, has something to do with the terribly, massively corrupt, foreign donation seeking, economic powerhouse, that is the Clinton foundation. Sanders has words, Clinton has cash. As the old saying goes: "Money talks, B@!!$#!T walks".
But the undeniable message that Washington should be hearing is that, on both sides, we're fed up, and don't trust them. It's not even tinfoil hat territory any longer; to claim there is only one party, the rich, and that the whole two party system is a farce. Tell me if this plot line sounds anything like the current system. (http://theinfosphere.org/Tastycrats). Americans of every political stripe are fed up with our "leaders" only representing their own interests, and the interests of big business.
Do I have a plan to fix this? No. I do have a plan to fix the system that encourages it, though. First, abolish the electoral college. We have the ability to quickly and accurately tabulate every person's vote and we have for most of a century. It's well past time. Next, make all primaries on the same day. Then no one state's votes count more than any others. One person, one vote, is violated by the current process. These two steps address this.
Also, a two term limit for each office. You can still be in politics a very long time, but a senator for only twelve years, a representative for four, and president for eight (technically ten, under the right conditions). After that, or before, you would work at the state level. Lastly, set the pay of each senator and representative equal to the median income of their district. (state for senators) Gerrymandering would all but disappear, and they would be motivated to actually represent the best interests of their constituency. The current system provides no incentive for elected officials to actually represent the interests of the governed. These two measures address this.
There may be a better way to accomplish this. I would hope so. I'm only one person with some half-baked ideas. But 75% of us are upset with how we are being governed, by people we elect. Something is terribly wrong here.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
The Facebook cloistering effect
I have a few select friends on facebook that, to the outside observer, I shouldn't. Myself being a staunch libertarian, (A real one, not a tea-party version), also a Lutheran, and all around conservative. I am not one who typically shares my faith, but I am making a point. I have friends that run the gamut from just like me, to atheists, uber-conservatives, socialists, and every possible admixture of these. Unlike most people I don't find this to be a problem.
See, most people have used the power of being connected to anyone on earth, to actually narrow their exposure to new ideas. They winnow down their friends list based on who agrees with the thoughtless political talking-points they spew. In the end they have only like-minded friends. This is nonsense. I add or remove people based on the amount of thought behind what they are saying. And believe me, it is readily apparent.
How did we get to this point?
Before computers united the world, you had talk to people you knew, or had met. Friends of friends, guys at the bar, the local society of Odd-fellows, the Moose lodge, the people at the union hall. That is, people who couldn't be ignored with a single click. Sadly this is what most have reduced themselves to. They cloister themselves in the monastery of online thought policing. The end result being a group of friends that share nothing really in common, other than political opinions.
As for me; why do I maintain a group of friends I disagree with constantly? First, it keeps us all sharper. Second, if I am right, arguing against a well-though-out opposing viewpoint will only strengthen my own arguments. Third, I actually enjoy debating the finer points of political thinking, and so do they. (Which puts us all one-up on the politicians). Fourth, and this is a long-shot; there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that I am wrong. If that should ever occur, I would want to know.
So folks, it may not seem like it; but that irritating
See, most people have used the power of being connected to anyone on earth, to actually narrow their exposure to new ideas. They winnow down their friends list based on who agrees with the thoughtless political talking-points they spew. In the end they have only like-minded friends. This is nonsense. I add or remove people based on the amount of thought behind what they are saying. And believe me, it is readily apparent.
How did we get to this point?
Before computers united the world, you had talk to people you knew, or had met. Friends of friends, guys at the bar, the local society of Odd-fellows, the Moose lodge, the people at the union hall. That is, people who couldn't be ignored with a single click. Sadly this is what most have reduced themselves to. They cloister themselves in the monastery of online thought policing. The end result being a group of friends that share nothing really in common, other than political opinions.
As for me; why do I maintain a group of friends I disagree with constantly? First, it keeps us all sharper. Second, if I am right, arguing against a well-though-out opposing viewpoint will only strengthen my own arguments. Third, I actually enjoy debating the finer points of political thinking, and so do they. (Which puts us all one-up on the politicians). Fourth, and this is a long-shot; there is a chance, however infinitesimal, that I am wrong. If that should ever occur, I would want to know.
So folks, it may not seem like it; but that irritating
Sunday, May 25, 2014
How to prevent multiple murders. The Elliot Rodger Story.
If you didn't know already, Elliot Rodger was a troubled young man in California. His father was an assistant director of the Hunger Games. He killed 6 people on the 23rd of May, as part of a revenge plot. (source). Apparently he felt that not getting laid in college was the fault of the women who didn't sleep with him.
This story is much worse than it sounds, however. The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family. The most recent on April 30th. Each time they completely failed to do what was needed. The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.
So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities. The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to. (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.). These authorities did what they always do. Nothing until someone dies.
So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it. So where he got the guns is no mystery. No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market. (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.) This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say. (Source). Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.
Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman. So on that note I will do the same. Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur". Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". (Hitchens' Razor).
Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms. Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this. To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical. I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.
This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed. They failed each victim. They failed their families. They failed us. Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda. Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help. As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem. More laws wont fix laziness.
This story is much worse than it sounds, however. The police had several run-ins with him, at the behest of his family. The most recent on April 30th. Each time they completely failed to do what was needed. The insane young man even wrote up a long winded rant about how, if they had bothered to search his place, he would not have been able to move forward.
So, in short; his family, feeling concerned for his mental health based on documented, easily referenced, online actions, contacted the authorities. The same authorities we are supposed to trust to protect us, despite supreme court ruling that they are not required to. (Unfortunately factual ruling, source.). These authorities did what they always do. Nothing until someone dies.
So we all know that making something illegal can't keep anyone from getting it. So where he got the guns is no mystery. No one is currently saying if they were attained legally or not, but since legally purchased firearms can be readily traced, I'm guessing they were black market. (Edit: it has since come to light that his firearms were legally purchased.) This has not stopped that paragon of unbiased reporting, the Daily News, (Heavy sarcasm), from employing their typical tactic of demanding more gun control, by quoting someone stating exactly what they want to say. (Source). Oddly, no one is talking about the housemates he stabbed repeatedly, after writing that he would do it.
Apparently it is never too early to politicize the deaths of the innocent at the hands of a madman. So on that note I will do the same. Since it was asserted that more gun control would fix the problem, despite happening in one of the most restrictive states in the country, (funny how often that happens), I will state: "Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur". Or in the modern vernacular: "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". (Hitchens' Razor).
Insane persons are already unable to legally purchase firearms. Logic dictates therefore, that more restrictions would not have fixed this. To be fair the person they quoted was a grieving father, and probably not at his most logical. I pass no judgement on him, only the press who trotted him out as an excuse to forward a misguided agenda.
This is a case where all of the rules were followed, and the authorities failed. They failed each victim. They failed their families. They failed us. Mostly though, they failed the gun-control agenda. Had they acted, when they were informed of the problem, this troubled young man would still be alive, and getting help. As it stands they have proven that lax enforcement, is now as it ever was, the problem. More laws wont fix laziness.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Why I shoot.
Recently a friend on Facebook decided to organize an outing to the range. A group of people expressed interest that could be accurately called: "diverse". In a hobby that was, in the past, dominated by old men, I was seeing a change. Nothing unusual to me. I grew up with my mother embarrassing the men at both the archery, and trap range.
Having just been to the range myself I can say this is no longer a hobby for old men. About 25-35% of the shooters were female. About 70% were under 50 years old. This is a change welcomed by most shooters. The more accessible the hobby is, the more accepted it becomes.
I am not a gun nut. I have a modest collection that is almost entirely comprised of gifts from the enthusiasts that I find myself related to. I do enjoy shooting though. Any means of conveying a projectile from where I stand to a point far away with the best accuracy I can muster is a relaxing way to spend time.
I say any means because I started with a bow. I am not the kind of person who works at things. I know that about myself. If I'm not reasonably good at it the first time around, I typically abandon the hobby. Archery was different. I needed to be good at it. I practiced at least three days a week for years, just to be good enough to suck.
I eventually became better than the league shooters at the local range who used comically long stabilizers, mechanical releases, and levels. They would hold each draw for almost a minute before releasing. I used a finger tab, hunting stabilizer (short), and I drew back and fired in almost one motion. I was their equal on my bad days.
When it came time to try pistols I was a fair shot my first time out. Rifles, the same story. I assume that the practice in archery taught me the basics of form, consistency, breathing, and most importantly, how to quiet the mind.
There are countless movie quotes, and idiot celebrities that will tell you how firing a weapon is a "rush" because it gives you the power of life and death. This is pure idiocy. Make no mistake, one person shooting another is frequently fatal. But a "rush" from shooting is counter productive. Adrenaline makes you shake. A small twitch at your end of the gun makes for a large miss at 100 yards. The guy who yells after a good shot is laughed off the line, or told to calm down.
So why do I shoot? I shoot because for a second, just a second, there are no problems. There are no concerns. There are no other people. There is nothing but you and the target and the beam of concentration between. The entire world has been distilled into a perfect, clear, focus. The timing of the breath comes natural at this point. The form is held, but completely forgotten.
There is a reason the Zen masters chose archery as a means of achieving focus, rather than say, sweeping. Either one would work, but the focus to send a projectile to it's mark makes this transition to pure "empty-mindedness" much easier. The calmness achieved persists long after the guns are cleaned, oiled, and put back into their cases. This too is part of the ritual. This too can quiet the mind.
In today's fast-paced, distraction-filled, mind-scattering world, it is no wonder that a more diverse group of people are taking up the hobby. Word has gotten out. We all need a break from the chaos. Shooting meets that need.
It also doesn't hurt that shooters have long considered themselves a persecuted out-group; and as such, are the most welcoming, friendly bunch of people you are ever likely to meet. They are almost as free with lending tools and helping out, as they are with advice. (Almost). They make new shooters feel welcome. In fact my first trip to the rifle range in Eagle WI. someone asked what I was shooting, only so they could give me a key ring made with the correct caliber round attached to it.
So to the new people at the range: "Welcome. Good to see a new face. I hope you enjoy this hobby as much as I do."
Having just been to the range myself I can say this is no longer a hobby for old men. About 25-35% of the shooters were female. About 70% were under 50 years old. This is a change welcomed by most shooters. The more accessible the hobby is, the more accepted it becomes.
I am not a gun nut. I have a modest collection that is almost entirely comprised of gifts from the enthusiasts that I find myself related to. I do enjoy shooting though. Any means of conveying a projectile from where I stand to a point far away with the best accuracy I can muster is a relaxing way to spend time.
I say any means because I started with a bow. I am not the kind of person who works at things. I know that about myself. If I'm not reasonably good at it the first time around, I typically abandon the hobby. Archery was different. I needed to be good at it. I practiced at least three days a week for years, just to be good enough to suck.
I eventually became better than the league shooters at the local range who used comically long stabilizers, mechanical releases, and levels. They would hold each draw for almost a minute before releasing. I used a finger tab, hunting stabilizer (short), and I drew back and fired in almost one motion. I was their equal on my bad days.
When it came time to try pistols I was a fair shot my first time out. Rifles, the same story. I assume that the practice in archery taught me the basics of form, consistency, breathing, and most importantly, how to quiet the mind.
There are countless movie quotes, and idiot celebrities that will tell you how firing a weapon is a "rush" because it gives you the power of life and death. This is pure idiocy. Make no mistake, one person shooting another is frequently fatal. But a "rush" from shooting is counter productive. Adrenaline makes you shake. A small twitch at your end of the gun makes for a large miss at 100 yards. The guy who yells after a good shot is laughed off the line, or told to calm down.
So why do I shoot? I shoot because for a second, just a second, there are no problems. There are no concerns. There are no other people. There is nothing but you and the target and the beam of concentration between. The entire world has been distilled into a perfect, clear, focus. The timing of the breath comes natural at this point. The form is held, but completely forgotten.
There is a reason the Zen masters chose archery as a means of achieving focus, rather than say, sweeping. Either one would work, but the focus to send a projectile to it's mark makes this transition to pure "empty-mindedness" much easier. The calmness achieved persists long after the guns are cleaned, oiled, and put back into their cases. This too is part of the ritual. This too can quiet the mind.
In today's fast-paced, distraction-filled, mind-scattering world, it is no wonder that a more diverse group of people are taking up the hobby. Word has gotten out. We all need a break from the chaos. Shooting meets that need.
It also doesn't hurt that shooters have long considered themselves a persecuted out-group; and as such, are the most welcoming, friendly bunch of people you are ever likely to meet. They are almost as free with lending tools and helping out, as they are with advice. (Almost). They make new shooters feel welcome. In fact my first trip to the rifle range in Eagle WI. someone asked what I was shooting, only so they could give me a key ring made with the correct caliber round attached to it.
So to the new people at the range: "Welcome. Good to see a new face. I hope you enjoy this hobby as much as I do."
Sunday, April 13, 2014
The invisible tax and you.
In discussing school fees today I became agitated. Both sides, in this two party system, have managed to sneak in "Invisible" taxes. What I mean is the tax that derives itself from indirect means, thus it is not immediately obvious as a tax.
For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them. This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll. Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents. Illinois does. In fact, according to the Illinois constitution: "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed? For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education. (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked). Let them know how you feel, while you're at it. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).
Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare. If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount. (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay. Try doing that to the government. If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
So how is this an invisible tax? The hospital needs that money. Guess who's bill just went up. Joe and Jane insurance-holder. The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest. To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."
In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two. The most egregious examples I could find. There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?) In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed. A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this. "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund" This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls. Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no. No, because you are paying those extra fees already. Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.
In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate. Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values." Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale. So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from. Like you are under the current system.
But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart. They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)
For example: the invisible tax in schools comes from chronically under-funding them. This causes the schools to impose "fees" on the students who enroll. Individual states have, in their constitution, that they will fund schools to make them "free" for residents. Illinois does. In fact, according to the Illinois constitution: "The State has the primary responsibility for financing the system of public education." (http://www.ilga.gov/commission/lrb/con10.htm).
So how on earth, when the state says it is their responsibility to pay for education, are extra fees even allowed? For that matter, why does everyone's property tax bill reflect LOCAL government collecting taxes to fund education. (The largest percentage of the property tax bill for every county I checked). Let them know how you feel, while you're at it. (http://www.ilga.gov/senate/)(http://www.ilga.gov/house/).
Another invisible tax is the under-reimbursement to hospitals, by medicare. If the hospital has spent money treating a patient, and been kind enough to extend credit to the government for those services, (despite being the single worst payer in the system), for a previously agreed upon amount, the least they can do is pay that amount. (mind you, that amount is already less than what everyone else is expected to pay)(Example).
Instead they hire an army of politically-connected consultants to scour through the bills, looking for inconsistencies, and then refusing to pay. Try doing that to the government. If a doctor, or hospital is abusing the system, the government should be forced to make their case and prosecute; not refuse legitimate payments.
So how is this an invisible tax? The hospital needs that money. Guess who's bill just went up. Joe and Jane insurance-holder. The insurance responds by only paying "standard and customary" amounts, and you get stuck with the rest. To fix this: "All rates for services rendered will be paid at the standard and customary rates, determined by averaging all local healthcare providers, or those used by insurance, whichever is lower."
In the interest of brevity I will stop at these two. The most egregious examples I could find. There are countless examples though. (ever pay a fee at a forest preserve?) In the interest of transparency, this cannot be allowed. A simple adjustment to state constitutions can fix this. "The state shall impose no fees, over and above any tax rates, and shall pay all activities out of the general fund" This means no licence fees, no usage fees, no tolls. Would taxes go up? Technically yes, and technically no. No, because you are paying those extra fees already. Your tax percentage would go up, so you would see it, and thus more people would be aware of the abuse.
In fact, while we're at it let's go all crazy-town and propose that: "Only income shall be taxed, and income from all sources, be they interest, sale of property, capital gains, or wages, will be taxed at the same rate. Bartered goods or services will be taxed at listed cash values." Under this system the appreciation of your home would only impact your income, and net worth, at the time of sale. So you would not be taxed on an assumed value you do not benefit from. Like you are under the current system.
But then I live in a dream world where politicians have the interests of their constituency at heart. They don't. (Rules are for thee, not for me.)
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Firearms Education
While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others. Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint. Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all. Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following. (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)
Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum. Much like sex-ed. In fact the arguments against it will be much the same. I will tackle these as they arise.
"It's not the state's place to teach this." Much like sex-ed, actually. But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught. Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.
"This is a parent's job" Yes, yes it is. But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly. Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.
"I don't want my child exposed to this" There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.
"This would encourage bad behavior" (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm) You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way. Many of my friends attended rural high schools. Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class. Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.
Now the arguments in favor.
There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry. In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.
The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something. The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right. This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt. (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real. Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)
The general population would be properly educated about firearms. With education comes the removal of fear. More education is always better. This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic. They spread misinformation. Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.
You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends. Self explanatory.
In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Affordable Protection Act Part 2. Implementation and Constitutionality.
In part one we examined why the Affordable Protection Act is necessary and cost-effective. Now we will examine how it could roll out, and why it is constitutional.
Implementation:
This would not require any major preparation, or pre-collection of taxes (which the Affordable Care Act did require), to work. We simply make a law that every member of the militia, as defined previously, is required to own, and carry, a firearm. I did not say pistol, and I did not say concealed. Others may carry a firearm (insurance) on a voluntary basis, unless otherwise ineligible.
The legal reason given for the requirement for concealment is to not incite alarm or panic in the public. If everyone is armed, then the sight of a gun will not incite anything. (Except Hoplophobes, but we don't ban bridges or clowns just because of a few peoples' neuroses). In fact seeing a firearm should never incite anything, unless it is pointed at you. People who panic at the sight of a holstered weapon are the problem, not the person peacefully carrying it.
If anyone in the militia decided they did not want to carry a firearm, they would not be forced. But, due to the added strain they would be putting on the system, they would have to pay a penalty. (Just like the Affordable Care act.) Unlike the Affordable Care Act however, I will allow for those of means, who do not wish to carry a firearm (insurance) to opt out if they can prove they have people in their employ for such a purpose. (adequate money set aside for healthcare)
Constitutionality:
In their landmark decision in favor of the Affordable Care Act, the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty, and in fact the insurance requirement itself, could be construed as a tax. By that measure it is constitutional. They are required, it was stated, in cases where there are multiple interpretations of a law, and one of them is constitutional; to use that interpretation in their decision, and disregard any other interpretation.
That same rationale would dictate that requiring the purchase, or proof of current ownership, of a firearm, and the penalty for non-compliance; would be a tax, and therefore within the scope of congressional authority to legally require.
Please forward this to your representatives in Washington D.C.
The Affordable Protection Act Part 1. History and justification of need.
I am going to suggest a new law, based on the legal precedent set by the affordable care act. But first, let's look at how we arrived at the need for each. The current problems, and the laws allowing them, came about because of the political pull of special interest groups with very deep pockets. The laws put in place by the politicians representing them allowed for the creation of two classes of people.
While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not. I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms. The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name. The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns. If you are out on parole, for example. Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example. But the list is about that short. Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals). Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
Sounds funny? Allow me to continue. The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right. Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution. We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue. What we don't hear is historic context. The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry. A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence. They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations. Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do. (Go ahead, laugh. It was meant as a joke)
Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone. (emphasis added)
(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.
While I could be talking about the insurance companies, and people who either do, or do not, have insurance; I am not. I am talking about those allowed to carry firearms. The special interest groups are the police unions, certain politicians, and the exceedingly rich fool from NY who I do not respect enough to name. The classes I refer to; are those who are allowed to protect themselves, and those who are not.
Before I continue I will state, for the record, that I do not believe everyone should be allowed guns. If you are out on parole, for example. Those who have been found, by a court, to be mentally incompetent are another example. But the list is about that short. Everyone else, using the same legal justification behind the Affordable Care Act, should be required to carry a weapon (insurance) or pay a penalty if they require the intervention of police (hospitals). Government will subsidize the purchase of a firearm, (provide an affordable option) if you need it.
Sounds funny? Allow me to continue. The need can be best illustrated by pointing out that jails (hospitals) are already full of people who are consuming vast amounts of government dollars, at the expense of those who are paying in to the system and not getting anything from it.
Clearly it would be more cost effective if everyone could patrol their own neighborhoods, (take charge of their health) protect themselves and their families, (have insurance) and generally not require so much assistance from police (public aid)
Protecting yourself (healthcare) is a basic human right. Comically enough though, unlike those who claim that healthcare is a right; I can show you where protecting yourself is defined as a right in the Constitution. We have all heard many arguments on the whole second amendment interpretation issue. What we don't hear is historic context. The reason for the "tricky" wording is that many of the founding fathers believed that we did not need a standing army.
Many felt that it was better to simply have an armed citizenry. A strategy that had just won us a war for our independence. They felt that countries who have standing armies tend to exploit the world around them, and force their will on other sovereign nations. Clearly that is something the newly formed United States of America, would never do. (Go ahead, laugh. It was meant as a joke)
Thus we have the introductory first part, that clarifies the need for a "militia", which, if you want to read it, is damned near everyone. (emphasis added)
(Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled, "Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety:
"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are —
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.")
More in part 2.
Thursday, October 3, 2013
Why we are really shut down.
A recent (cough) debate on facebook sparked this piece. It followed the opinions of a person, clearly of a liberal bent, and another, decidedly of a conservative one. It went about like you'd expect. I threw in a few things too. Mostly because both sides were right, and both sides were wrong, in equal measure.
Let me explain. The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act. The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided. This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative. It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.
The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home." This is exactly correct. Yes, I said it. We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws. If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be. If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again. To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes. This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act. No Gay marriage, etc. These things are of course, also true. (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)
I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground. Which brings me to my point. The thing I have made the point of my existence actually. Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt. Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.
See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican. From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist. (bravo, see you at the meetings). Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican. Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.
A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place. They would be fixing the education system. As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher. We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.
A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business. As in they wouldn't care who married whom. They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing. And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.
Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys. Really. We need better options.
Let me explain. The debate was (well began anyway) over the government shutdown / affordable care act. The liberal posted a rather inflammatory image from a liberal page, that was unthinkingly one-sided. This of course, elicited an even more one-sided response from the aforementioned conservative. It then went quickly off the rails into other partisan talking (as opposed to thinking) points.
The liberal's actual point, I have surmised, is that the Republicans in congress are being juvenile, spoiled, jackanapes, who are "taking their ball and going home." This is exactly correct. Yes, I said it. We have, in the history of our country, repealed bad laws. If they are so convinced this is a bad law, they should let it be. If it turns out as bad as they are saying, no one will ever vote Democrat again. To quote the most famous Republican president, Abraham Lincoln: "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly."
On the other side it was pointed out that blind allegiance to the Democrats was ridiculous, and that the Affordable Care Act (you probably call it Obamacare because you obey your programming) was passed through backroom dealing and abusing procedural loopholes. This, it was said, was because despite a long stretch with a super majority, not one progressive agenda item was passed, save for the Affordable Care Act. No Gay marriage, etc. These things are of course, also true. (although they, admittedly, had little to do with the argument... er, debate.)
I got the impression though that both of these assumed adversaries, if they listened to each other rather than talk past each other, would find much common ground. Which brings me to my point. The thing I have made the point of my existence actually. Both parties (if you can even say there are really two) are completely corrupt. Please, for the love of all that once made this country great, vote for a third party.
See the "liberal" is progressive, and the conservative stated he was certainly not a Republican. From the sounds of it he is a Libertarian, bordering on Anarchist. (bravo, see you at the meetings). Being Progressive should not condemn you to a lifetime of being a Democrat, any more than being Conservative should brand you a Republican. Both parties do a grand disservice to those causes.
A progressive would not impose a fine for not having insurance, on the very people who can't afford it in the first place. They would be fixing the education system. As in taxpayer funded college for all who earn "B"s or higher. We wouldn't have most of the other problems they claim to be trying to fix, if they got that one thing done.
A conservative (as opposed to a Zealot claiming to be conservative) minds their own business. As in they wouldn't care who married whom. They would also be fixing the procedural loopholes that were abused; something they, very tellingly, are not doing. And they certainly would accept that a law that was passed, tested by the Supreme Court, and still law, should be allowed to stand or fail on its own merits.
Vote Libertarian or Green party next time guys. Really. We need better options.
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
NSA and other violations
I know many of you have been waiting to see my take on the NSA spying on Americans. There is only one take, and that is it cannot, in any way, be accepted. Right now it looks like at least the senate also knew about this, and not one of them, even the ones voting against, broke ranks to tell the people that their government was spying on them. That means they all have to go. Every last senator needs to be voted out.
It got me thinking though, what other rights are being trampled by our government. Let's look at the Bill of Rights. (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html) The preamble to the Bill of Rights states that it exists as a limit to government power, to prevent abuses. So let's see if government has been exceeding those limits, and we have been allowing abuses.
1. Google has been ordered to not report on what the NSA has been requesting from them, or about whom. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/06/18/google-nsa-fisa-petition/2435499/) Clear violation of the first amendment.
2. Anyone who has been awake the last 6 months knows they have been trying to violate the hell out of this. Also, since the limits on the federal government apply to the states, as per amendment 10, any state laws prohibiting access to firearms is a violation of this amendment, by extension.
3. Not quartering soldiers in homes yet, so OK here.
4. Unreasonable searches and seizures. Since random, or even 100 percent "traffic safety check points" have been ruled as unreasonable; why is this current NSA nonsense tolerated. This is violated so bad the NSA should be brought up on sexual assault charges.
5. Addresses due process. Funny thing, the NSA has been recording everything, then getting a warrant if it finds something. That is the opposite of due process. Like having the police search your home, then if they find something, getting a warrant. This also states that property may not be taken without just compensation. What is the value of intellectual property? Ever e-mail a story idea?
6. Speedy trial by jury of peers. So far this is mostly in tact.
7. Right to trail for civil suits. Ok.
8. Excessive fines, bail, cruel and unusual punishment not allowed. I'll give them this, only because that would be another whole post.
9. The presence of these rights being named, does not imply they are the only ones. Such as privacy, which I would say is also covered by the language in the 4th amendment. Violated here as well.
10. Powers not listed here, and NOT DENIED here, are for the states and the people. SO states can clearly not regulate the 2nd amendment either. Clearly violated.
So how did we score? 4 rights left intact. ONLY 4. U.S.A. you have failed a test that you wrote, and you know the answers to. Other countries are rioting over far less. We have a means of evicting bad government without violence. We can vote the rats out of the house. Unless they take that from us next. We have given lawyers their chance; instead of electing them, maybe we should start electing working stiffs. They certainly could not do a worse job.
NOTE TO THE NSA: Every one of you know what you are doing is wrong, even if, especially if, it is ordered by the President, and the whole of congress. We should not have to ask you to stop.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
How to be angry: A basic primer.
As any regular reader, anyone who knows me, indeed anyone who has ever met me knows, I am an expert on being angry. I am well read on the topic, (One must forgive one's enemies, but not before they are hanged. -Heinrich Heine-), and I am observant enough to be an expert based purely on experience. So I will present to the rest of you a simple review of how to be angry.
I have often told my children not to look for things to be mad about; the world will give you plenty of reasons. That is more true than anything I have ever written. But simply being angry is doing nothing more than shortening your life, and diminishing the quality thereof. You must act on it. First though, you must know who to direct the anger toward.
Let's say you are angry that you don't get enough respect, or make enough money, at work. I'm guessing that is most of you. Take that anger, frustration, and bile, direct it at the person responsible; yourself, and go sign up for school. Or go put in resumes at other companies. Most of you reading this live in America, which means although it might be hard, nothing is stopping you from bettering yourself. If you fail, you failed while trying.
(It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
Now let's say you are angry at the government, for any of a thousand legitimate reasons. Did you vote? Judging by the turnout numbers, no. But if you did, was your candidate elected? No? Did you actively campaign for that person? I'm not saying it's your fault they didn't win, just that the other side tried harder and you did not. So direct that energy again toward the person responsible for your situation, which again is you, and next time try harder to campaign for your person. (A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
By now, since you are clever enough to have read this far, you have noticed a pattern. Only you are responsible for your situation. I would also point out that one thing to not do, is just complain to strangers on the internet. Hypocritical? Not in my case. I also make it a point to write, call, harass, pester, and badger my elected officials to do things the way I want. I am currently in school again. I try to guide others to do what they know is right. (notice I did not say "gently guide", I don't do gentle.)
I leave you with a parting thought. I am trying to make you mad at me, for telling you to blame yourself. Take that anger, and hate me. It's not like I care. But use it as a source of inspiration to better your situation. (It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. -Samuel Adams-) And when you do act, remember you have been trolled into doing it. (Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance. -Heinrich Heine-)
I have often told my children not to look for things to be mad about; the world will give you plenty of reasons. That is more true than anything I have ever written. But simply being angry is doing nothing more than shortening your life, and diminishing the quality thereof. You must act on it. First though, you must know who to direct the anger toward.
Let's say you are angry that you don't get enough respect, or make enough money, at work. I'm guessing that is most of you. Take that anger, frustration, and bile, direct it at the person responsible; yourself, and go sign up for school. Or go put in resumes at other companies. Most of you reading this live in America, which means although it might be hard, nothing is stopping you from bettering yourself. If you fail, you failed while trying.
(It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
Now let's say you are angry at the government, for any of a thousand legitimate reasons. Did you vote? Judging by the turnout numbers, no. But if you did, was your candidate elected? No? Did you actively campaign for that person? I'm not saying it's your fault they didn't win, just that the other side tried harder and you did not. So direct that energy again toward the person responsible for your situation, which again is you, and next time try harder to campaign for your person. (A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user. -Theodore Roosevelt-)
By now, since you are clever enough to have read this far, you have noticed a pattern. Only you are responsible for your situation. I would also point out that one thing to not do, is just complain to strangers on the internet. Hypocritical? Not in my case. I also make it a point to write, call, harass, pester, and badger my elected officials to do things the way I want. I am currently in school again. I try to guide others to do what they know is right. (notice I did not say "gently guide", I don't do gentle.)
I leave you with a parting thought. I am trying to make you mad at me, for telling you to blame yourself. Take that anger, and hate me. It's not like I care. But use it as a source of inspiration to better your situation. (It does not take a majority to prevail... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. -Samuel Adams-) And when you do act, remember you have been trolled into doing it. (Mark this well, you proud men of action: You are nothing but the unwitting agents of the men of thought who often, in quiet self-effacement, mark out most exactly all your doings in advance. -Heinrich Heine-)
Friday, March 8, 2013
The United Home-Owners Association of America
Everyone online seems to be using readily understood ideas to represent more complex ones. These are rarely appropriate, and always a gross over-simplification. But hey, I'll hop right on that bandwagon. I have a concept that is actually accurate however. One that will explain why the two-party system is broken beyond repair.
Imagine the entire country as a subdivision. A tidy little 50 home neighborhood. Each household has an average of 2 people. Most have only 1, but some have many more. Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association. Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole. That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent. That was the vision of the founding fathers.
What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs. Let's call them Dueces and Royals. (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense). Neither side represents the interest of any household. Neither side is making the neighborhood any better. The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas. The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories. Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging. (claiming to represent your interests)
The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim. Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying. Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party. They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics. They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate. You are either with us, or against us. They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors. The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over. This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.) You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse. The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.
Imagine the entire country as a subdivision. A tidy little 50 home neighborhood. Each household has an average of 2 people. Most have only 1, but some have many more. Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association. Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole. That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent. That was the vision of the founding fathers.
What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs. Let's call them Dueces and Royals. (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense). Neither side represents the interest of any household. Neither side is making the neighborhood any better. The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas. The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories. Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging. (claiming to represent your interests)
The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim. Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying. Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party. They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics. They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate. You are either with us, or against us. They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors. The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over. This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.) You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse. The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.
Friday, August 10, 2012
Healthcare: A Uniquely American Solution.
After much thinking, and more discussion, (yes, that was intentional) I have arrived at a solution, agreeable to both sides, for the problem with America's healthcare system. Again, this is why it is important to think before you act. (ahem, Congress, Mr. President) I hope that whichever person wins the Presidency, and the new Congress, will see this and at least think it over.
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
First, let's discuss what the problems are. Insurance costs too much. Many people are denied it because of this. Insurance is allowed to deny coverage for any reason they want, leaving the consumer to argue for coverage they already have, and have already paid for. And finally, any discussion on fixing the issue results in claims of socialism. (pass a law that states insurance companies can't run at a profit, socialized medicine etc.)
We all know it needs to be fixed. We all know that the cost of insurance is driven by the uninsured, not the insured. Hospitals have to charge those who can pay, more; to cover those who can't, because government is asleep at the wheel. Lawyers only serve to drive the prices higher with lawsuits that are largely without merit. I could go on...
The fix is simple. Treat insurance like any other contract business. That's it. Every problem we have is because they are allowed to operate under a different set of rules than the rest of the business world. If insurance was merely a coverage contract and was denied the power to deny coverage, like any other contract business, it would fix almost everything.
This would not require you to have coverage if you didn't want it. (making the wealthy happy) It would not demand that an American company operate without profit. Free trade is the cornerstone of the American way of life. That is the problem currently, there is nothing in the insurance industry that is the same as any other industry. The safety net preventing abuse by doctors and the insured, would be co-pays and delectables, which would be regulated like utilities, to prevent abuses by the insurers.
Insurance companies would cover anything ordered by a doctor, that was performed on a patient. (cosmetic surgery would be denied, unless required to restore appearance after a surgery or other treatment.) Any issues about necessity would be handled in court, after payment was made, just like any other contract dispute. (keeping the lawyers employed) That is to say the burden of proof would be shifted to the accuser, not the defendants. If that standard seems oddly familiar, there is a reason for that. This would have the side affect of lowering the profitability of insurance companies, since they would be unable to randomly deny coverage. (making the middle class happy)
Doctors and hospitals would no longer need to employ an army of people to work in the offices, just to untangle the individual policy quirks. Claims sent to the insurance company would be paid. End of story. The cost of doing business in medicine would drop overnight. To a point where more people could afford it.
If you have noticed that I make no mention of coverage for the uninsured, there is another fix for that. We need to further reduce costs by limiting a physician's, and a hospital's liability. Then apply that standard evenly in all states. Right now Illinois has a shortage of certain specialties, because they are relocating to states with liability caps.
This would reduce costs further. Then, we need to make insurance a part of employment. If you have a job, part of your wages are insurance coverage. (making the "working poor" happy) While there are those who see this as punishing small business, some quick math would show that , if government were honest, (see end of paragraph) taxes would go down an amount nearly equal to the cost of providing insurance; due to the savings realized, and the number of people who would no longer need public aid. (Governmental honesty is the only real problem with this plan)
Remember there is a large part of our workforce who have jobs, but no insurance. What happens when they go in to the hospital? Either they don't pay, or they get public aid. Either way serves to either increase taxes, or increase medical charges to those with insurance, in order to cover it.
With these fixes in place, the current public aid system would cease being overburdened, thus enabling government to pay their bills. (pleasing the unemployed, doctors and hospitals)
As always, I welcome responses. (clean and well thought out)(I promise not to moderate you out based on opinion)
Friday, September 9, 2011
Agenda for America
I will admit it freely. I have an agenda. Not a unabomber-manifesto type agenda. Or a tea-party agenda. Certainly not a socialist agenda. I am a centrist. By that I mean I hold x- number of reactionary /libertarian views, and an equal number of socialist views. So they kinda balance out. (example, pro gun, don't care if gays marry) In other countries, such as the Nordic Socialist- democracies, they have names for that. Here we do not. My agenda is simple, and detailed below:
Keep them from f-ing it up. By "them" I mean politicians. You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate. An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
You may be asking, "Why is that good?" I'll tell you my friends, right this way. The eternal dance we call a representative democracy. You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government. They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years. Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will. No I have not been drinking. Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
Equal opportunity bashing: The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year. 3 for 3 as I recall. For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it. (I know, bad grammar) Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will. Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
Now for the righties. Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech. Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks. Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong. Especially if that were part of my job description. But then I'm no congressman. The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong. Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass. Just sayin'.
To the (ahem) neutral media: Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners. Bachman is last in almost every poll. Put Ron Paul on the television. He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate. Perhaps the only one.
Never wanted to be this guy but here I am: I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites. For the record, it was narrated by a white male. Presumably affluent. That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism." (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first". I have been that guy. Low income, Republican voter. I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone. Although if a candidate promised world domination...
It all starts with assumptions. We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right. We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -Henry Ford-
Keep them from f-ing it up. By "them" I mean politicians. You see, I am quite happy with our current political climate. An unpopular president, a congress controlled by the other major party, and a split supreme court, means nothing gets done.
You may be asking, "Why is that good?" I'll tell you my friends, right this way. The eternal dance we call a representative democracy. You see, better minds than ours devised a way that no one could mess up too badly in government. They contrived a method by which our "king" rotates when he would ordinarily be consolidating power, and our other representatives can be ousted without war every few years. Only Justices are lifers, and generally speaking, the only smart ones in the group.
This post will ramble a bit, one out of every dozen will. No I have not been drinking. Ask my friends, I am much more focused when I have been.
Equal opportunity bashing: The president has asked for an extension of payroll tax cuts for another year. 3 for 3 as I recall. For an idea he said was idiotic when another President did it. (I know, bad grammar) Secretary Clinton said we needed to keep our troops deployed overseas, and "Stay the course" if you will. Again, its only a bad idea when someone else does it.
Now for the righties. Congressman Walsh, all around buffoon, held a press conference to explain why he wouldn't be attending the President's speech. Apparently, he feels that the President is wrong, even before he speaks. Now I will at least give the leader of the free world the chance to tell me an idea before I tell him he's wrong. Especially if that were part of my job description. But then I'm no congressman. The audience apparently voiced some disagreement at this point and was told by the August Mr. Walsh that they were wrong. Joe, (see you get no respect) when the people you invited, your base as it were, tell you that you are not representing their interests; and your damned job title is Representative, perhaps they are not the ones who are wrong, jack-ass. Just sayin'.
To the (ahem) neutral media: Ron Paul is one of the Republican front runners. Bachman is last in almost every poll. Put Ron Paul on the television. He may be boring because he never speaks before thinking, but he is a LEGITIMATE candidate. Perhaps the only one.
Never wanted to be this guy but here I am: I was watching a vlog about how poor people who vote Republican are only voting that way because of the Republican promise to oppress minorities for the gain of whites. For the record, it was narrated by a white male. Presumably affluent. That is like saying; "Any rich person who votes Democrat is clearly corrupt and expects a loophole in the tax code, since all Democrats want is communism." (Note, that was for illustrative purposes only, I do not believe that) I will say this: "Try talking to one first". I have been that guy. Low income, Republican voter. I was never promised anything, nor was it under the premise of oppressing anyone. Although if a candidate promised world domination...
It all starts with assumptions. We assumed, up through the forties, that our way was better, and we were right. We now assume we are no better than any other country, and our way is no better, and we are right.
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -Henry Ford-
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
Welcome to Illinois, your vote doesn't count.
I feel compelled to do some coat tugging about a subject near and dear to me. The fact that my vote, and the majority vote in my district, means absolutely nothing. You see, McHenry county has always been a Republican county. Odd in Illinois. Especially this close to the Peoples Republic of Chicago (Thanks Gobbie). Now the election before last, a Democrat was elected because the man filling the seat was... worthless. (trying not to curse) He was the stereotype of a Republican and worse, didn't show up to his job. Sadly, the woman voted in to replace him was just as bad. So last election we found ourselves with a hotly contested race with a dark horse Republican eventually winning. In fact they won a few seats out here.
But this being Illinois, the majority party in the state creates the districts, and this is a redistricting year. They made no pretense about ethnic, or socio-economic shifts. They flagrantly Gerrymandered the districts to put the freshmen Republicans in other districts, against incumbent Republicans for the next elections. So no matter who wins the Republicans will lose some seats. This is Chicago machine politics at its lowest.
I apologize to any Democrats who may chance upon this as it does not paint a pretty picture of the party. I do not mean to identify these corrupt toadies with any persons who simply have a politically left ideology. The Illinois machine is not a fair representation of the Democrats. It is an analogue of the dark ages in Europe. People kept intentionally poor, ignorant, and powerless. Being told it is their lot in life and someone else's fault. And being victimized by the very people purporting to help them. But I digress...
Back to McHenry. The people have voted. a narrow majority in one race, and a wide one in many others, chose to have Republicans represent them. Their votes are being subverted by a corrupt power-brokering machine. You need not side with the right or left to see that when this happens the people's will is not being acted on. The people of this county do not have a say in their own affairs. I would say we should annex to Wisconsin, (I actually have said that before), but given their current climate, I want no truck with that either. I'm trying to remember; what did people here do the last time an oppressive government subverted their will?
But this being Illinois, the majority party in the state creates the districts, and this is a redistricting year. They made no pretense about ethnic, or socio-economic shifts. They flagrantly Gerrymandered the districts to put the freshmen Republicans in other districts, against incumbent Republicans for the next elections. So no matter who wins the Republicans will lose some seats. This is Chicago machine politics at its lowest.
I apologize to any Democrats who may chance upon this as it does not paint a pretty picture of the party. I do not mean to identify these corrupt toadies with any persons who simply have a politically left ideology. The Illinois machine is not a fair representation of the Democrats. It is an analogue of the dark ages in Europe. People kept intentionally poor, ignorant, and powerless. Being told it is their lot in life and someone else's fault. And being victimized by the very people purporting to help them. But I digress...
Back to McHenry. The people have voted. a narrow majority in one race, and a wide one in many others, chose to have Republicans represent them. Their votes are being subverted by a corrupt power-brokering machine. You need not side with the right or left to see that when this happens the people's will is not being acted on. The people of this county do not have a say in their own affairs. I would say we should annex to Wisconsin, (I actually have said that before), but given their current climate, I want no truck with that either. I'm trying to remember; what did people here do the last time an oppressive government subverted their will?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)