No surprise, your government is lying to you. What is interesting is how they are doing it.
So the U.S. is lurching into recession. And you might be saying, well, you know, Nine the Swordsman, that sort of sucks. And you'd be right. But it's actually worse than that. Because our economy is a basket case and has been so for some time.
But wait, you might be saying, we've had full employment since 2003 and the economy was doing really well in the 1990's.
Yeah, Bill Clinton and the government would like you to believe that.
Well, what are you going to do? I mean, other countries have worse economies than we do.
Do they? Really. Sure about that, audience?
Here's an article describing the different ways our United States Bureau of Ignorance Labor Statistics calculates unemployment: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2007/09/a-closer-look-a.html
You'll notice that the government reports U3 as the unemployment rate. Back in 2007, it was 4.6% and has since risen to about 5.4%, which still sounds pretty good. Hell, it's 6.5% now and that doesn't seem completely catastrophic.
Except that the internationally recognized standard is to report U6 as the unemployment rate. Yes, when you compare the U.S. unemployment rate to the rest of the planet, the U.S. government reports U3 and the rest of the planet (mostly) reports U6. Apples and oranges anyone?
Note this awesome disclaimer from the BLS: "The indexes provided by BLS are from the national consumer price indexes as published by each country. They are not adjusted for comparability, except to convert the indexes to a common base year. " Well, isn't that special.
As of October 2008, U6 was not 6.5% but 11.1%.
Well, but poverty rates are still low here, right?
The US government (actually the CIA factbook, if you want source data) reports poverty as around 12%. Ah, but wait. What if they juggle the figures for poverty just as they do for unemployment? If you're thinking this way now, you'd be correct.
Eurostat, the European official statistical warehouse, defines poverty as only having 60% of the median income. I couldn't find those figures for the US, but I did find figures for those only having 50% of the median income.
US poverty rate: 17%. Anyone feeling the love yet? And these figures are from 2007-2008, before the economy cratered.
But you might say our incomes are far and above that of most of those countries. If you look at GDP per capita as per the awesome CIA World Factbook, the US comes out at a robust $45,660 per capita, for seventh place, behind Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland, Ireland, Denmark, and Iceland. Go us.
Well, except GDP per capita really doesn't tell the entire story, since it includes the hyper-rich. Bear with me here. If there are 10 guys in a bar, and 9 of the 10 make minimum wage and the 10th guy is Bill Gates, it looks like on paper, everyone in the bar is rich since the average wage is very high. But that obviously isn't accurate. What we really need to do is compare median incomes across the board.
US median income per person is $26,000, significantly less than the GDP figure (see what I mean?). So let's check this out per person, shall we? US incomes are actually 11th.
And this pisses me off.
I want the US to be the best place on the planet to live. Not 11th.
Now someone will undoubtedly say that we are better off than Yemen or Zimbabwe. So? That's your standard? Really want to go there?
These figures should change people's perspective.
But they won't.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
I Am Curious Yellow
No, sorry, this post is not about a softcore porn film from before you were born. I know, life sucks.
No, this is about the inordinate number of cars and trucks on the road that are yellow.
This seems to have become a trend in about the last five years that there are more and more citizens of this great republic that somehow have come to the erroneous conclusion that a yellow automobile is even marginally cool. Red, black, white, silver, even orange, yes. Could be cool. Yellow not so much.
If you are driving a muscle car like a Ford Mustang and it's yellow, I hope you better not drive it in New York or any other major city because people will assume it's a taxi and will be trying to hail your ass.
If you are driving a large truck and it is yellow, you do not look tough and like you own a construction company, you look like Bob the Builder.
And to those so addled that they have done the interiors of their yellow vehicles in yellow and black, it does not look cool. It looks like your car was decorated by a metrosexual bumblebee who was high on honey-based acid.
Guys, you think you're going to pick up women in a yellow car? What, you think she wants to be seen in a car that should be advertising French's fucking mustard? Unless your name is Oscar Meyer and you have a million dollars, forget it.
What do you people do, pull up to each other at the stoplight, roll down the window and say "Pardon me, I wonder if you could spare some Grey Poupon?"
Ladies, having a yellow vehicle tells a guy you are a Barbie wannabe. And maybe you are. But Ken is gay. And has no sexual organs. So be careful what you wish for.
What are the actual names for these shades of yellow? MusTARD? Mountain Dew? Pissoir?
Stop the madness.
No, this is about the inordinate number of cars and trucks on the road that are yellow.
This seems to have become a trend in about the last five years that there are more and more citizens of this great republic that somehow have come to the erroneous conclusion that a yellow automobile is even marginally cool. Red, black, white, silver, even orange, yes. Could be cool. Yellow not so much.
If you are driving a muscle car like a Ford Mustang and it's yellow, I hope you better not drive it in New York or any other major city because people will assume it's a taxi and will be trying to hail your ass.
If you are driving a large truck and it is yellow, you do not look tough and like you own a construction company, you look like Bob the Builder.
And to those so addled that they have done the interiors of their yellow vehicles in yellow and black, it does not look cool. It looks like your car was decorated by a metrosexual bumblebee who was high on honey-based acid.
Guys, you think you're going to pick up women in a yellow car? What, you think she wants to be seen in a car that should be advertising French's fucking mustard? Unless your name is Oscar Meyer and you have a million dollars, forget it.
What do you people do, pull up to each other at the stoplight, roll down the window and say "Pardon me, I wonder if you could spare some Grey Poupon?"
Ladies, having a yellow vehicle tells a guy you are a Barbie wannabe. And maybe you are. But Ken is gay. And has no sexual organs. So be careful what you wish for.
What are the actual names for these shades of yellow? MusTARD? Mountain Dew? Pissoir?
Stop the madness.
Question to the Republican Party Leadership: Where do you see yourselves 15 years from now?
How do you expect to win elections in the medium to long-term future?
I mean, if the demographics are accurate, and the nation is becoming more Hispanic and more atheist, and gays and feminism is more and more acceptable, who is their target demographic? Can they really win by ignoring or even disparaging blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, young people, seculars?
Because you just got your clock cleaned in 2006 and 2008 because of this.
And stop with blabbering about how this is a center-right nation. No one legitimately believes this.
The conservatives I've talked to who have actually attempted to answer the question basically either denied the demographics (which are especially strong), or pooh-poohed the list of minorities as "special interests". But who are they going to ply for votes, angry white Christian straight males?
If you all truly think Sarah Palin is the future of your party, you are in for a rude shock in 2010 and 2012. Look at the demographics of the people who came to her rallies. 75% male. 90% Christian. 90% at least white. You're rallying an increasingly small base, not appealing to a majority of Americans.
The far right's entire world view is coming undone. Not only their political philosophy, but their entire way of life is becoming extinct. Less government? No one cares. Universal health care? Inevitable. Fundamentalism? Derided. They know that the "values" they love (marriage between a man and a woman, abstinence, states rights, pro-life, pushing their religion on others, intelligent design, anti-stem cells, drugs are evil, gambling is evil, continuing to drive monster SUVs and pickup trucks, etc) are on the way out. Either a majority of the population disagrees with them already or the economics or demographics sometime in the next decade will simply overwhelm them.
Take their opposition to global warming initiatives. Sooner or later, a majority of people are going to have had enough and aren't going to tolerate the silliness any longer. Sooner or later, oil prices will go high enough that the most rabid Republican won't be able to drive his monster HUMMVEE any longer.
After Katrina, after the housing crisis, after the bailouts and the acceptance of socialism - yes, socialism - by the Bush administration as a way to prop up the banks, the idea of rugged individualism is pretty much gone into the dustbin of history as well.
So, are they in denial or what?
They can only hope Obama takes a fall at this point.
I mean, if the demographics are accurate, and the nation is becoming more Hispanic and more atheist, and gays and feminism is more and more acceptable, who is their target demographic? Can they really win by ignoring or even disparaging blacks, Hispanics, Asians, gays, young people, seculars?
Because you just got your clock cleaned in 2006 and 2008 because of this.
And stop with blabbering about how this is a center-right nation. No one legitimately believes this.
The conservatives I've talked to who have actually attempted to answer the question basically either denied the demographics (which are especially strong), or pooh-poohed the list of minorities as "special interests". But who are they going to ply for votes, angry white Christian straight males?
If you all truly think Sarah Palin is the future of your party, you are in for a rude shock in 2010 and 2012. Look at the demographics of the people who came to her rallies. 75% male. 90% Christian. 90% at least white. You're rallying an increasingly small base, not appealing to a majority of Americans.
The far right's entire world view is coming undone. Not only their political philosophy, but their entire way of life is becoming extinct. Less government? No one cares. Universal health care? Inevitable. Fundamentalism? Derided. They know that the "values" they love (marriage between a man and a woman, abstinence, states rights, pro-life, pushing their religion on others, intelligent design, anti-stem cells, drugs are evil, gambling is evil, continuing to drive monster SUVs and pickup trucks, etc) are on the way out. Either a majority of the population disagrees with them already or the economics or demographics sometime in the next decade will simply overwhelm them.
Take their opposition to global warming initiatives. Sooner or later, a majority of people are going to have had enough and aren't going to tolerate the silliness any longer. Sooner or later, oil prices will go high enough that the most rabid Republican won't be able to drive his monster HUMMVEE any longer.
After Katrina, after the housing crisis, after the bailouts and the acceptance of socialism - yes, socialism - by the Bush administration as a way to prop up the banks, the idea of rugged individualism is pretty much gone into the dustbin of history as well.
So, are they in denial or what?
They can only hope Obama takes a fall at this point.
President Swordsman Saves Social Security
Or just call it Social Insecurity.
Or So-So Security.
Either way.
Now, I know many people want to privatize SS. That doesn't work, and we'll see why in a moment. But first, let's define the problem.
Fully 51 percent of Americans own no stocks of any kind. They depend fully on pensions for their retirement, and 35% of all Americans have no retirement other than Social Security. It used to be that you received a pension normally. That has not been true for the majority of workers since about 1990. I honestly think many retirees do not understand this.
Well, you say, an employer today can buy into a defined-benefit plan, and that's true. In 1980, 83% of workers who had a private pension had a defined-benefit plan. Now that figure is 38%. Ooops. Defined-benefit plans, like corporate health care plans, were demolished in part by foreign competition. Many employees who thought their golden years would be secure (and who had agreed to lower wages over the years to fund their pensions) suddenly found that the companies they worked for were not going to keep their promises.
But wait, you say, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation exists to ameliorate this problem. Um...no. They only pay 30% of the agreed pension.
Of course, the people involved can just go back to work, right? No, not if they're elderly, no they can't.
Plus, there's these cool little traps that so far are legal. A company can tell you that if you don't retire by a certain date, you lose your pension. Too bad if you need the wages and are not yet eligible for Medicare. Sucks to be you.
Underfunding of pension plans, as estimated by the PBGC, is as high as $600 billion. And the PBGC insures 44 million Americans.
Well, okay, what about Defined-Contribution Plans, such as 401(k). That works well, right? Well, no, not if people aren't contributing. 17% of people aren't putting in automatic deductions and another 21% of eligible workers are not using 401(k) plans at all. Why? I can tell you why. They need the money for living expenses. Among people earning $40,000 to $60,000, the average contribution to a 401(k) was 1% of wages. Besides, looked at your 401(k) lately? Doesn't it rock? No?
401(k)s rule if you're already rich and have a nice fat salary. It's really a tax shelter for the affluent. Rules allow a million-dollar defined contribution account to be paid out across a 44 year period from the participant's first withdrawal at age 70 until the last dollar is paid out to the children. During this period, assuming an 8% growth rate, this generates a total of $11 million in distributions.
Gets worse. 32% of these funds with 401(k)s for middle income Americans hold no stocks at all. They are invested in money market funds, which are safe but provide low yields and do not compound interest. Worse than useless. A lot of companies require their employees to put their 401(k) investments into company stock. Great. What happens if the company goes under? Also, 45% of those with 401(k)s cash them out when they change jobs. Bye bye compounding those investments.
Most people now have defined-contribution plans, up to 90% of all workers are eligible.
If you are between 45 and 54, you'd better have saved $169,000. The average person in this age range has accumulated $49,000. If you are between 55 and 64, you'd better have $314,000 set aside. The average though is $60,000.
But wait, but wait, I hear from the peanut gallery, I should be able to invest my SS payments and etc in the stock market and really get rich so I can retire a millionaire!
Um...let's check that out. Remember the 1987 stock market crash? 1929? Yeah, I know. You think that on average that stocks return between 7 and 7.5 percent annually. Yet....no one has figured out how to transition between the current system and a privatized system, plus check this out:
It wasn't until 1953 that stocks returned to their 1928 level. If you retired between 1929 and 1952, you basically had to live on SS. The 1968 peak was not seen again until 1972. Better, but not exactly pleasant. If you planned to retire in 1968 or 1969, you might have had to work 5 or more years, adjusting for inflation (which was rife at the time). If you even retired in 1979, you got screwed pretty well. It's a roll of the dice.
Yeah, I know, everyone in Chile got rich when they privatized their system. Just look at this fawning piece by the Cato Institute: www.cato.org/dailys/12-17-97.html.
This is where this meme comes from. This guy Jose Pinera, who has written about this from 1996 through 2006. Yeah, one guy. Who was in bed with Pinochet. His brother lost the 2006 elections because the system wasn't all that rosy. Hmmm....haven't heard much about Chilean Social Security lately have we? Here's why: economistsview.typepad.com/economistsvi ew/2006/01/chile_confronts.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/international/americas/10chile.html?ex=1294549200&en=597516f5ad9fbb0a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.
So much for that.
Then we also have the claim that Social Security was only supposed to be temporary and was supposed to be phased out in 1942. Which is incorrect. It was supposed to be phased into effect in 1942. Careful reading of the actual original Social Security Act, Section 202 (A) states:
"Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:"
Which means that citizens could start receiving benefits in 1942, not that the program ended in 1942.
In fact, Sections 801 and 804 specifically detail payments after 1948 and set no final date. http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
So what do we do to fix our pensions?
1. Mandatory enrollment into 401(k) plans for all workers. You decide how much you want to contribute, just like now.
2. Use the consumer price index to perpetually calculate the cost-of-living increases.
3. Actually fund the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. What a concept.
4. Require corporations to close shortfalls in their pension plans.
5. Stop lump-sum payments to pensioners of all the assets in their defined-contribution account if a company's pension fund assets fall below 70% of its obligations.
6. Replace the federal tax exclusion for 401(k) plans and IRAs as well with a direct federal matching program worth the same for all Americans, of course, going up as they save more.
7. Means test Social Security.
8. Take salary caps off. If people want to work while getting Social Security, let em.
9. Stop companies from breaking promises made to workers by arbitrarily changing plan rules. They made the contract and it should be enforcable in court.
10. Stop companies from breaking pension promises to older employees by their selling off of divisions.
11. Stop companies from breaking pension promises to older employees by reclassifying them.
12. Stop companies from breaking promises to employees about the value of their company’s stock. This was WorldCom's scam.
And, if privatization rocks so much, I want to see all the people who want to vote for it in Congress first pass a law that all their own savings can be privatized...
Or So-So Security.
Either way.
Now, I know many people want to privatize SS. That doesn't work, and we'll see why in a moment. But first, let's define the problem.
Fully 51 percent of Americans own no stocks of any kind. They depend fully on pensions for their retirement, and 35% of all Americans have no retirement other than Social Security. It used to be that you received a pension normally. That has not been true for the majority of workers since about 1990. I honestly think many retirees do not understand this.
Well, you say, an employer today can buy into a defined-benefit plan, and that's true. In 1980, 83% of workers who had a private pension had a defined-benefit plan. Now that figure is 38%. Ooops. Defined-benefit plans, like corporate health care plans, were demolished in part by foreign competition. Many employees who thought their golden years would be secure (and who had agreed to lower wages over the years to fund their pensions) suddenly found that the companies they worked for were not going to keep their promises.
But wait, you say, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation exists to ameliorate this problem. Um...no. They only pay 30% of the agreed pension.
Of course, the people involved can just go back to work, right? No, not if they're elderly, no they can't.
Plus, there's these cool little traps that so far are legal. A company can tell you that if you don't retire by a certain date, you lose your pension. Too bad if you need the wages and are not yet eligible for Medicare. Sucks to be you.
Underfunding of pension plans, as estimated by the PBGC, is as high as $600 billion. And the PBGC insures 44 million Americans.
Well, okay, what about Defined-Contribution Plans, such as 401(k). That works well, right? Well, no, not if people aren't contributing. 17% of people aren't putting in automatic deductions and another 21% of eligible workers are not using 401(k) plans at all. Why? I can tell you why. They need the money for living expenses. Among people earning $40,000 to $60,000, the average contribution to a 401(k) was 1% of wages. Besides, looked at your 401(k) lately? Doesn't it rock? No?
401(k)s rule if you're already rich and have a nice fat salary. It's really a tax shelter for the affluent. Rules allow a million-dollar defined contribution account to be paid out across a 44 year period from the participant's first withdrawal at age 70 until the last dollar is paid out to the children. During this period, assuming an 8% growth rate, this generates a total of $11 million in distributions.
Gets worse. 32% of these funds with 401(k)s for middle income Americans hold no stocks at all. They are invested in money market funds, which are safe but provide low yields and do not compound interest. Worse than useless. A lot of companies require their employees to put their 401(k) investments into company stock. Great. What happens if the company goes under? Also, 45% of those with 401(k)s cash them out when they change jobs. Bye bye compounding those investments.
Most people now have defined-contribution plans, up to 90% of all workers are eligible.
If you are between 45 and 54, you'd better have saved $169,000. The average person in this age range has accumulated $49,000. If you are between 55 and 64, you'd better have $314,000 set aside. The average though is $60,000.
But wait, but wait, I hear from the peanut gallery, I should be able to invest my SS payments and etc in the stock market and really get rich so I can retire a millionaire!
Um...let's check that out. Remember the 1987 stock market crash? 1929? Yeah, I know. You think that on average that stocks return between 7 and 7.5 percent annually. Yet....no one has figured out how to transition between the current system and a privatized system, plus check this out:
It wasn't until 1953 that stocks returned to their 1928 level. If you retired between 1929 and 1952, you basically had to live on SS. The 1968 peak was not seen again until 1972. Better, but not exactly pleasant. If you planned to retire in 1968 or 1969, you might have had to work 5 or more years, adjusting for inflation (which was rife at the time). If you even retired in 1979, you got screwed pretty well. It's a roll of the dice.
Yeah, I know, everyone in Chile got rich when they privatized their system. Just look at this fawning piece by the Cato Institute: www.cato.org/dailys/12-17-97.html.
This is where this meme comes from. This guy Jose Pinera, who has written about this from 1996 through 2006. Yeah, one guy. Who was in bed with Pinochet. His brother lost the 2006 elections because the system wasn't all that rosy. Hmmm....haven't heard much about Chilean Social Security lately have we? Here's why: economistsview.typepad.com/economistsvi ew/2006/01/chile_confronts.html and http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/10/international/americas/10chile.html?ex=1294549200&en=597516f5ad9fbb0a&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss.
So much for that.
Then we also have the claim that Social Security was only supposed to be temporary and was supposed to be phased out in 1942. Which is incorrect. It was supposed to be phased into effect in 1942. Careful reading of the actual original Social Security Act, Section 202 (A) states:
"Every qualified individual (as defined in section 210) shall be entitled to receive, with respect to the period beginning on the date he attains the age of sixty-five, or on January 1, 1942, whichever is the later, and ending on the date of his death, an old-age benefit (payable as nearly as practicable in equal monthly installments) as follows:"
Which means that citizens could start receiving benefits in 1942, not that the program ended in 1942.
In fact, Sections 801 and 804 specifically detail payments after 1948 and set no final date. http://www.ssa.gov/history/35act.html
So what do we do to fix our pensions?
1. Mandatory enrollment into 401(k) plans for all workers. You decide how much you want to contribute, just like now.
2. Use the consumer price index to perpetually calculate the cost-of-living increases.
3. Actually fund the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. What a concept.
4. Require corporations to close shortfalls in their pension plans.
5. Stop lump-sum payments to pensioners of all the assets in their defined-contribution account if a company's pension fund assets fall below 70% of its obligations.
6. Replace the federal tax exclusion for 401(k) plans and IRAs as well with a direct federal matching program worth the same for all Americans, of course, going up as they save more.
7. Means test Social Security.
8. Take salary caps off. If people want to work while getting Social Security, let em.
9. Stop companies from breaking promises made to workers by arbitrarily changing plan rules. They made the contract and it should be enforcable in court.
10. Stop companies from breaking pension promises to older employees by their selling off of divisions.
11. Stop companies from breaking pension promises to older employees by reclassifying them.
12. Stop companies from breaking promises to employees about the value of their company’s stock. This was WorldCom's scam.
And, if privatization rocks so much, I want to see all the people who want to vote for it in Congress first pass a law that all their own savings can be privatized...
President Swordsman Repairs the Educational System
I think most of us have realized that standardized testing doesn't work. The results of the No Child Left Behind Act are pathetic. I thought my education sucked when I was in high school in the 1980s, but it was excellent compared to today.
Please watch the following videos (and let me know if they disappear):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2U_KRpz5NY
61% of Americans believe the creation account of Genesis is literally true. As an agnostic who understands evolutionary theory, this is troubling. But not nearly as troubling as the fact that 60% of Americans cannot name five out of the Ten Commandments (popular version).
Think about that. A bunch of people out there believe in the Bible but have no idea what it states.
Random Lunatic: "I believe that the Bible is literally true!"
Nine the Swordsman: "Okay. What's in the Bible?"
Random Lunatic: "Checking....duhhhh...."
National Geographic found that 11% of all college age adults could not find their own country on a map. 69% could not find England. Less you think the morons in that second video were an unrepresentative sample.
20% of Americans believe the sun orbits the earth. 51% of all professional engineers in the US are foreign-born, as are 45% of all professional computer scientists (and with the closing of the borders and tighter immigration, we'll lose those people). 75% of respondents did not appear to comprehend to the slightest degree what science involves, or what scientists do, or how scientists confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis. 48% of Americans think dinosaurs lived at the same time as early humans.
Only 20% of American students could name ANY one of the five freedoms contained in our First Amendment. The most common answer was that one of the freedoms was the right to own a pet.
Yes, it is time to start praying to the deity of your choice.
We're also ignorant, as Stossel points out (although I disagree with his solutions - they deserve to be heard) 76% of Americans think their own school district is fine.
Our children, again as Stossel correctly points out, are not idiots. We match foreign students grade per grade until about grade 4, and then we start getting stupid.
Our overall ranking of industrialized, modern nations is 24 of 29. We beat Mexico, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, and Italy. Everyone else kicked our butt.
In another study of 41 countries, we tied Latvia. Latvia.
That hurts.
So what can we do?
Well, many of the solutions proposed by Stossel, who wants to promote vouchers and private schools, can be implemented in public schools. In fact, it is more likely that they would be, because public schools have more oversight than private schools, who, let's face it, are mainly in business either to make money or promote an agenda, whether political or religious. This would be an unmitigated disaster. Look at the people who want vouchers: corporations who would make money off the schools. And like health care, education is not a commodity to be bought and sold.
Now, I don't know about you, but I wants kids educated. Period. I want the best education for ALL children, and not subject education to the whims of the marketplace. Morons from rich families should not be able to get a better education than poor geniuses because of the luck of who they were born to.
1. The education system in most school districts is a disaster. They are staffed by zombies who exist solely to justify their own existence in a bureaucracy. We should put less money toward administration and more toward teachers and classroom facilities.
2. Sports? I don't have a problem with sports, but it has to be in perspective. When a school districts spends money on a domed stadium and the kids are in mobile homes that function as classrooms, something is terribly wrong.
3. Teach comparative religions. Yes, I, a childless agnostic, actually am proposing that. How can we expect our children to meet the demands of a global economy if they do not understand Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism? Hell, most of them don't understand Christianity. And let's be real, gang, a lot of Christian kids are raised in such a rigid, controlled environment, and some think Jews eat babies and drink blood. We need children to be able to understand and comprehend their own faiths and also that of others.
4. Teachers must have more knowledge of the subjects they teach. In Finland, which is ranked first in the world, they mandate that all teachers get a Masters Degree. I say we do that too. Too many teaching programs emphasize education and fail the teachers and later students by not grounding the prospective teacher in their actual subject matter.
5. Teachers need continuing education. We expect doctors, pilots, etc. to keep up in their fields. Why not teachers? A physics teacher who is 50 years old is not going to remember what he learned 30 years ago, if it is even relevant today anyway. One month every three years should be added to the teachers' work year, during whcih they would have to take a special, upgraded, and federally financed continuing education course in their chosen field.
6. We need to mandate that no classes be over 25 students. Again, Finland and many other countries have done this and are outperforming us left and right.
7. We need pre-kindergarten programs. A recent study showed that over the last 20 years, 70% of the children of college graduates attended pre-kindergartener programs but only 38% of the children of high school dropouts did so. We're creating an ignorant, uneducated underclass.
8. Barack Obama was correct. We need federally mandated, age-appropriate sex education. Period. I'm tired of living in a ignorant country of ignorant children that has a higher teen pregnancy rate and a higher STD rate than most of the rest of the planet. Again, we are failing our children because of our own hangups. And screw you, John McCain, for trying to make this into some kind of pedophilic implication.
9. We need to let parents choose the school district they send their kids to within each district. Every kid gets a per capita amount of funding, which travels to the school that he or she attends, and which the principal can use to improve education at that school.
10. We need more, and better teachers. In response to requiring teachers to get a graduate degree and take continuing education classes, they need to become true professionals. Which means we have to pay them as true professionals. The difference between what a first year lawyer at a Manhattan firm and what a first year teacher was paid on average in 1970 was $2,000.00 a year. Today it is $103,000. Even if you adjust for inflation, that's an outrage. Teacher salaries should be as much as doubled and allocated based on student performance against standards developed by the teachers themselves. Math and science teachers should be paid even more.
11. With regard to performance, the schools should be graded, not the teachers. When teachers know that they will be rewarded if their entire school makes substantial progress, they will have an incentive to build a better school.
12. Principals should be given new authority, in cooperation with the NEA, to eliminate bad teachers.
13. All these proposals unfortunately require federal mandates and federal funding. No school district would be able to deal with these kinds of radical changes on their own. And in the global marketplace, it makes no sense at all that we still rely on local school boards to make decisions about curriculum. As seen in Kansas, some of these people are completely ignorant, and try to govern against the will of the parents, much less the teachers and administrators. Like it or not, we live in an interconnected world, and rigid local control is not going to work. You know darn well that there are school districts out there that would happily teach the Bible as a required course, along with Intelligent Design and would eliminate all sex ed from the curriculum, as well as all geography, resulting in more and more videos like the two I linked to.
14. College is too expensive. When people graduate from college today, they are shackled with debt that many cannot pay off until their 30s. This is not true of other countries, which offer free college education. In an economy which demands college educations for nearly every job, this is not unreasonable. I'm not certain of where to draw the line here, but we need to fund at least the top 35% in each class so they can go to college (and not just through scholarships and only if they cannot afford it themselves). Education should be for the masses, not just the classes. This student loan program is just a way to crush and demoralize people when they are at the most financially vulnerable in their lives.Is this expensive? Yeah. About $100 billion worth. I say we pay for part of it by shifting Title I Education to higher salaries for teachers and principals and save $5 billion right there. That means $95 billion.
And I say: so what? Either we do this or we get left behind sometime in this century with a third rate citizenry and a second rate economy.
Please watch the following videos (and let me know if they disappear):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2U_KRpz5NY
61% of Americans believe the creation account of Genesis is literally true. As an agnostic who understands evolutionary theory, this is troubling. But not nearly as troubling as the fact that 60% of Americans cannot name five out of the Ten Commandments (popular version).
Think about that. A bunch of people out there believe in the Bible but have no idea what it states.
Random Lunatic: "I believe that the Bible is literally true!"
Nine the Swordsman: "Okay. What's in the Bible?"
Random Lunatic: "Checking....duhhhh...."
National Geographic found that 11% of all college age adults could not find their own country on a map. 69% could not find England. Less you think the morons in that second video were an unrepresentative sample.
20% of Americans believe the sun orbits the earth. 51% of all professional engineers in the US are foreign-born, as are 45% of all professional computer scientists (and with the closing of the borders and tighter immigration, we'll lose those people). 75% of respondents did not appear to comprehend to the slightest degree what science involves, or what scientists do, or how scientists confirm or disconfirm an hypothesis. 48% of Americans think dinosaurs lived at the same time as early humans.
Only 20% of American students could name ANY one of the five freedoms contained in our First Amendment. The most common answer was that one of the freedoms was the right to own a pet.
Yes, it is time to start praying to the deity of your choice.
We're also ignorant, as Stossel points out (although I disagree with his solutions - they deserve to be heard) 76% of Americans think their own school district is fine.
Our children, again as Stossel correctly points out, are not idiots. We match foreign students grade per grade until about grade 4, and then we start getting stupid.
Our overall ranking of industrialized, modern nations is 24 of 29. We beat Mexico, Turkey, Greece, Portugal, and Italy. Everyone else kicked our butt.
In another study of 41 countries, we tied Latvia. Latvia.
That hurts.
So what can we do?
Well, many of the solutions proposed by Stossel, who wants to promote vouchers and private schools, can be implemented in public schools. In fact, it is more likely that they would be, because public schools have more oversight than private schools, who, let's face it, are mainly in business either to make money or promote an agenda, whether political or religious. This would be an unmitigated disaster. Look at the people who want vouchers: corporations who would make money off the schools. And like health care, education is not a commodity to be bought and sold.
Now, I don't know about you, but I wants kids educated. Period. I want the best education for ALL children, and not subject education to the whims of the marketplace. Morons from rich families should not be able to get a better education than poor geniuses because of the luck of who they were born to.
1. The education system in most school districts is a disaster. They are staffed by zombies who exist solely to justify their own existence in a bureaucracy. We should put less money toward administration and more toward teachers and classroom facilities.
2. Sports? I don't have a problem with sports, but it has to be in perspective. When a school districts spends money on a domed stadium and the kids are in mobile homes that function as classrooms, something is terribly wrong.
3. Teach comparative religions. Yes, I, a childless agnostic, actually am proposing that. How can we expect our children to meet the demands of a global economy if they do not understand Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism? Hell, most of them don't understand Christianity. And let's be real, gang, a lot of Christian kids are raised in such a rigid, controlled environment, and some think Jews eat babies and drink blood. We need children to be able to understand and comprehend their own faiths and also that of others.
4. Teachers must have more knowledge of the subjects they teach. In Finland, which is ranked first in the world, they mandate that all teachers get a Masters Degree. I say we do that too. Too many teaching programs emphasize education and fail the teachers and later students by not grounding the prospective teacher in their actual subject matter.
5. Teachers need continuing education. We expect doctors, pilots, etc. to keep up in their fields. Why not teachers? A physics teacher who is 50 years old is not going to remember what he learned 30 years ago, if it is even relevant today anyway. One month every three years should be added to the teachers' work year, during whcih they would have to take a special, upgraded, and federally financed continuing education course in their chosen field.
6. We need to mandate that no classes be over 25 students. Again, Finland and many other countries have done this and are outperforming us left and right.
7. We need pre-kindergarten programs. A recent study showed that over the last 20 years, 70% of the children of college graduates attended pre-kindergartener programs but only 38% of the children of high school dropouts did so. We're creating an ignorant, uneducated underclass.
8. Barack Obama was correct. We need federally mandated, age-appropriate sex education. Period. I'm tired of living in a ignorant country of ignorant children that has a higher teen pregnancy rate and a higher STD rate than most of the rest of the planet. Again, we are failing our children because of our own hangups. And screw you, John McCain, for trying to make this into some kind of pedophilic implication.
9. We need to let parents choose the school district they send their kids to within each district. Every kid gets a per capita amount of funding, which travels to the school that he or she attends, and which the principal can use to improve education at that school.
10. We need more, and better teachers. In response to requiring teachers to get a graduate degree and take continuing education classes, they need to become true professionals. Which means we have to pay them as true professionals. The difference between what a first year lawyer at a Manhattan firm and what a first year teacher was paid on average in 1970 was $2,000.00 a year. Today it is $103,000. Even if you adjust for inflation, that's an outrage. Teacher salaries should be as much as doubled and allocated based on student performance against standards developed by the teachers themselves. Math and science teachers should be paid even more.
11. With regard to performance, the schools should be graded, not the teachers. When teachers know that they will be rewarded if their entire school makes substantial progress, they will have an incentive to build a better school.
12. Principals should be given new authority, in cooperation with the NEA, to eliminate bad teachers.
13. All these proposals unfortunately require federal mandates and federal funding. No school district would be able to deal with these kinds of radical changes on their own. And in the global marketplace, it makes no sense at all that we still rely on local school boards to make decisions about curriculum. As seen in Kansas, some of these people are completely ignorant, and try to govern against the will of the parents, much less the teachers and administrators. Like it or not, we live in an interconnected world, and rigid local control is not going to work. You know darn well that there are school districts out there that would happily teach the Bible as a required course, along with Intelligent Design and would eliminate all sex ed from the curriculum, as well as all geography, resulting in more and more videos like the two I linked to.
14. College is too expensive. When people graduate from college today, they are shackled with debt that many cannot pay off until their 30s. This is not true of other countries, which offer free college education. In an economy which demands college educations for nearly every job, this is not unreasonable. I'm not certain of where to draw the line here, but we need to fund at least the top 35% in each class so they can go to college (and not just through scholarships and only if they cannot afford it themselves). Education should be for the masses, not just the classes. This student loan program is just a way to crush and demoralize people when they are at the most financially vulnerable in their lives.Is this expensive? Yeah. About $100 billion worth. I say we pay for part of it by shifting Title I Education to higher salaries for teachers and principals and save $5 billion right there. That means $95 billion.
And I say: so what? Either we do this or we get left behind sometime in this century with a third rate citizenry and a second rate economy.
Legalize Victimless Crimes #3: Prostitution
Before I start, let me make clear: I have never used the services of a prostitute, an escort, or a masseuse who offered a happy ending. I have gone to a strip club once, and found it incredibly boring. Mind-numbingly so.
I blogged about drug use and gambling and now I want to talk about prostitution. When I first wrote this essay over a year ago, I was a lot more certain of my position on this one. Yes, even I, fount of all knowledge in the universe, re-think my positions from time to time. And this is why:
I am no longer certain we can make sure that prostitution is completely a victimless crime.
But, let's forge ahead nonetheless. Probably the most controversial of the three because it involves (gasp) sex (gasp) and that seems to send various people into frenzies of righteous condemnation.
But....consider it. Why should two consenting adults be prohibited from conducting a business transaction? I mean think about what IS legal now:
- It is legal for a person to take off all their clothes while being ogled by others in a bar.
- It is legal for people to have sex for money as long as there's a camera present. If there's no camera, then and only then is it illegal. HUH?
- It is legal to pay two men or two women to beat each other to a pulp in a boxing ring
But it is illegal for two people of any gender to pay each other to have sex. This makes no sense.
Nevada has legalized prostitution in rural counties. So has - and I didn't know this until I wikipedia'd it - Rhode Island (Rhode Island????? WTF?). So have the UK, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland, Estonia, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, the Czech Republic, Mexico (in various areas), Australia, and New Zealand. None of these places has fallen into ruin, despair, or moral degredation. Except perhaps Rhode Island. But seriously. Las Vegas has a lower crime rate than Brunswick, Georgia, as stated in my last post.
Think about some benefits here. Ladies, do you want to be accosted by pervs in bars or on online dating sites? Prostitutes will take care of them. Those men that would not use prostitutes, how do you like the 500 players for every woman out there? Care to cut down on some competition? Men who would use prostitutes as outlets: whatever they charge, I guarantee it's less than you cads are paying now to take a woman out to dinner, drinks, a movie, and some other event, and then have her say "sorry, not interested."
Yeah, I know someone out there is going to say "but prostitution would ruin marriage" but think about it, do you really think driving it underground is going to keep your pervert of a husband from straying? And if he has an affair, which is worse, him doing it with a prostitute or his secretary at work?
What about these maniacs who are trafficking in prostitute slavery?
Yes, I know, these people are scumbags and part of the problem is that the prostitutes can't go to the authorities because what they are forced to engage in is a crime. Last time I looked it was still illegal to enslave someone or keep them against their will, so that really is the crime here.
However, this is the sticking point for me (okay, so it's a double entendre, YOU try writing a blog on prostitution and see how far YOU get without making jokes that would make Beavis and Butthead cringe). What with illegal aliens and lack of economic safety nets, a lot of women might be forced into prostitution not by slavers or human traffickers, but just because of economic necessity.
And I'm definitely not cool with that.
What about sexually transmitted diseases?
That's where regulation comes in. I would think that any local health care inspection program should be offset by taxing the crap out of the people who would hire prostitutes. This is how it works in at least the Netherlands and Germany and Nevada. Each prostitute has to get a regular checkup. They pay taxes (as do their clients) just like everyone else. Number of prostitutes tested for AIDS that came back positive in the Netherlands and Germany? Zero.
Oh, and that means we get even more tax revenues. Just like with gambling and drug decriminalization.
I don't need to see prostitutes on street corners.
I don't either. Again, most of the localities that have decriminalized it do not allow "curb crawling". What they do allow is bordellos or escort services or massage parlors. Again, no one under 18 should be involved on either side. Allow cities to zone certain areas too, if they want.
Ever watch COPS? Yeah, I know they bust people who are grade A morons on that show. But think about it. Most people they bust are because some guy has a marijuana brownie in his car or some gal has a rock of meth or some idiot is trying to pick up a hooker. Yes, this is your tax dollars at work. Keeping the republic safe from.....losers. Yeah, no thanks.
Disclaimer: The original blog this essay was based on included a proposal to simply outlaw pimping and make free-lance prostitution legal. This was disputed by an actual prostitute and the head of the Erotic Service Providers Union (yeah, I know, they have their own union now, and you thought the AFL-CIO was bad) who replied and made compelling arguments that pimps and madams should be legalized as well if prostitution was itself legalized.
Still, I'm in the process of rethinking this whole position, and I'm not comfortable with legalization at this point. If you have pragmatic thoughts about it, let me know. I'm not really interested in a debate about the morality of it all since I don't think we should legislate morality.
I blogged about drug use and gambling and now I want to talk about prostitution. When I first wrote this essay over a year ago, I was a lot more certain of my position on this one. Yes, even I, fount of all knowledge in the universe, re-think my positions from time to time. And this is why:
I am no longer certain we can make sure that prostitution is completely a victimless crime.
But, let's forge ahead nonetheless. Probably the most controversial of the three because it involves (gasp) sex (gasp) and that seems to send various people into frenzies of righteous condemnation.
But....consider it. Why should two consenting adults be prohibited from conducting a business transaction? I mean think about what IS legal now:
- It is legal for a person to take off all their clothes while being ogled by others in a bar.
- It is legal for people to have sex for money as long as there's a camera present. If there's no camera, then and only then is it illegal. HUH?
- It is legal to pay two men or two women to beat each other to a pulp in a boxing ring
But it is illegal for two people of any gender to pay each other to have sex. This makes no sense.
Nevada has legalized prostitution in rural counties. So has - and I didn't know this until I wikipedia'd it - Rhode Island (Rhode Island????? WTF?). So have the UK, Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Finland, Estonia, Austria, Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, the Czech Republic, Mexico (in various areas), Australia, and New Zealand. None of these places has fallen into ruin, despair, or moral degredation. Except perhaps Rhode Island. But seriously. Las Vegas has a lower crime rate than Brunswick, Georgia, as stated in my last post.
Think about some benefits here. Ladies, do you want to be accosted by pervs in bars or on online dating sites? Prostitutes will take care of them. Those men that would not use prostitutes, how do you like the 500 players for every woman out there? Care to cut down on some competition? Men who would use prostitutes as outlets: whatever they charge, I guarantee it's less than you cads are paying now to take a woman out to dinner, drinks, a movie, and some other event, and then have her say "sorry, not interested."
Yeah, I know someone out there is going to say "but prostitution would ruin marriage" but think about it, do you really think driving it underground is going to keep your pervert of a husband from straying? And if he has an affair, which is worse, him doing it with a prostitute or his secretary at work?
What about these maniacs who are trafficking in prostitute slavery?
Yes, I know, these people are scumbags and part of the problem is that the prostitutes can't go to the authorities because what they are forced to engage in is a crime. Last time I looked it was still illegal to enslave someone or keep them against their will, so that really is the crime here.
However, this is the sticking point for me (okay, so it's a double entendre, YOU try writing a blog on prostitution and see how far YOU get without making jokes that would make Beavis and Butthead cringe). What with illegal aliens and lack of economic safety nets, a lot of women might be forced into prostitution not by slavers or human traffickers, but just because of economic necessity.
And I'm definitely not cool with that.
What about sexually transmitted diseases?
That's where regulation comes in. I would think that any local health care inspection program should be offset by taxing the crap out of the people who would hire prostitutes. This is how it works in at least the Netherlands and Germany and Nevada. Each prostitute has to get a regular checkup. They pay taxes (as do their clients) just like everyone else. Number of prostitutes tested for AIDS that came back positive in the Netherlands and Germany? Zero.
Oh, and that means we get even more tax revenues. Just like with gambling and drug decriminalization.
I don't need to see prostitutes on street corners.
I don't either. Again, most of the localities that have decriminalized it do not allow "curb crawling". What they do allow is bordellos or escort services or massage parlors. Again, no one under 18 should be involved on either side. Allow cities to zone certain areas too, if they want.
Ever watch COPS? Yeah, I know they bust people who are grade A morons on that show. But think about it. Most people they bust are because some guy has a marijuana brownie in his car or some gal has a rock of meth or some idiot is trying to pick up a hooker. Yes, this is your tax dollars at work. Keeping the republic safe from.....losers. Yeah, no thanks.
Disclaimer: The original blog this essay was based on included a proposal to simply outlaw pimping and make free-lance prostitution legal. This was disputed by an actual prostitute and the head of the Erotic Service Providers Union (yeah, I know, they have their own union now, and you thought the AFL-CIO was bad) who replied and made compelling arguments that pimps and madams should be legalized as well if prostitution was itself legalized.
Still, I'm in the process of rethinking this whole position, and I'm not comfortable with legalization at this point. If you have pragmatic thoughts about it, let me know. I'm not really interested in a debate about the morality of it all since I don't think we should legislate morality.
Legalize Victimless Crimes #2: Gambling
Before I start, let me make clear: I have gambled probably a few dozen times. I have never gambled more than five dollars at a time, if I recall correctly. I have played nickel slots in Vegas, quarter slots at an Indian Reservation Casino, and have bought lottery tickets for $1.00. But that's it.
I'm sick of the police being wasted and my tax dollars being wasted and the courts being tied up to prosecute victimless crimes. Besides, are we or are we not supposed to be the freest nation on the planet. Well, we're not, and I'm sick of that too.
Why legislate against gambling? Legalize it. Period.
Nevada has legalized it. Last time I was there it wasn't exactly a cesspool of crime and degredation. I mean, Detroit is far worse....In fact, there are quite a few cities who have higher crime rates than Las Vegas. Detroit, Amarillo, Lubbock, Stockton, Albuquerque, Miami, even that obvious cesspool of iniquity, Brunswick, Georgia.
But still. The government lets you buy lottery tickets. Hello? Why should the government get to engage in the gambling industry and everyone else can't? When did it get to be a government monopoly? There's off track betting too in most states. What's the difference between betting on greyhounds or horses and with betting on a roulette wheel?
Heck, the Native American reservations have casinos. Are they cesspools? No, most Reservations have actually improved thanks to the additional revenue.
Speaking of that, Nevada has very low taxation. And other nations that have legal gambling, like Britain or France, are not exactly known as total de-evolved uncivilized cesspools.Thanks to the legalized gambling...So I say like drugs, legalize it. Everywhere. Who cares?
But gambling can be addictive.
Yes, but we don't outlaw something because it is addictive. Many things are addictive, including drugs, alcohol, chocolate, shoes for women, sex, religion, and blogging (especially by demented self-important Texans).
What about kids gambling?
Well, like drugs and alcohol, no one under 18.
If we allow gambling, it will hurt the poor most and people will be wiped out.
Actually, it will hurt the STUPID more than the poor. Right now, you have the ability to blow your paycheck on lottery tickets, jewelry, the stock market, shoes, or any other number of asinine purchases. Clearly, gambling is not the issue here. Fiscally irresponsible people are fiscally irresponsible, no matter whether you legalize gambling or not.
Again, I don't want my tax dollars going for this. I don't want criminals to make money off of stupid laws, and I don't want police to take the time to bust up illegal poker games (because we know they are obviously a danger to the Republic).
And also, like legalizing drugs, legalizing gambling is a nice way to free up police to actually, you know, stop crime. And raise tax revenues. Another win-win situation which also is not addressed by any politicians.
I'm sick of the police being wasted and my tax dollars being wasted and the courts being tied up to prosecute victimless crimes. Besides, are we or are we not supposed to be the freest nation on the planet. Well, we're not, and I'm sick of that too.
Why legislate against gambling? Legalize it. Period.
Nevada has legalized it. Last time I was there it wasn't exactly a cesspool of crime and degredation. I mean, Detroit is far worse....In fact, there are quite a few cities who have higher crime rates than Las Vegas. Detroit, Amarillo, Lubbock, Stockton, Albuquerque, Miami, even that obvious cesspool of iniquity, Brunswick, Georgia.
But still. The government lets you buy lottery tickets. Hello? Why should the government get to engage in the gambling industry and everyone else can't? When did it get to be a government monopoly? There's off track betting too in most states. What's the difference between betting on greyhounds or horses and with betting on a roulette wheel?
Heck, the Native American reservations have casinos. Are they cesspools? No, most Reservations have actually improved thanks to the additional revenue.
Speaking of that, Nevada has very low taxation. And other nations that have legal gambling, like Britain or France, are not exactly known as total de-evolved uncivilized cesspools.Thanks to the legalized gambling...So I say like drugs, legalize it. Everywhere. Who cares?
But gambling can be addictive.
Yes, but we don't outlaw something because it is addictive. Many things are addictive, including drugs, alcohol, chocolate, shoes for women, sex, religion, and blogging (especially by demented self-important Texans).
What about kids gambling?
Well, like drugs and alcohol, no one under 18.
If we allow gambling, it will hurt the poor most and people will be wiped out.
Actually, it will hurt the STUPID more than the poor. Right now, you have the ability to blow your paycheck on lottery tickets, jewelry, the stock market, shoes, or any other number of asinine purchases. Clearly, gambling is not the issue here. Fiscally irresponsible people are fiscally irresponsible, no matter whether you legalize gambling or not.
Again, I don't want my tax dollars going for this. I don't want criminals to make money off of stupid laws, and I don't want police to take the time to bust up illegal poker games (because we know they are obviously a danger to the Republic).
And also, like legalizing drugs, legalizing gambling is a nice way to free up police to actually, you know, stop crime. And raise tax revenues. Another win-win situation which also is not addressed by any politicians.
Legalize Victimless Crimes #1: Drug Use
Before I start, let me make clear: I have never injested an illegal substance, not once. I have gotten drunk on legal alcohol. I have not once inhaled marijuana nor anything stronger.
I'm sick of the police being wasted and my tax dollars being wasted and the courts being tied up to prosecute victimless crimes. Besides, are we or are we not supposed to be the freest nation on the planet. Well, we're not, and I'm sick of that too.
#1 example: drug use.
The Drug War. Yeah. How's that working out? $60 billion a year and we've destabilized how many countries and have how many people in jail? And for what? Has drug use gone down?
No.
In fact, as you can see here, criminalizing drugs actually likely creates MORE drug use, not less. That's not just true in the Netherlands, it's been proven in Portugal, Switzerland, and at least a half-dozen other countries.
In the US, our number of people incarcerated for drug related offenses is more than the ENTIRE number of people incarcerated by the European Union for ALL offenses. And they have a higher population total than we do. And it exceeds it by 100,000. Not by a few.
Besides, it didn't work with alcohol, did it? Prohibition back in the 1930s created MORE crime, because a legal activity was criminalized and attracted a criminal element. Today's drug importer cannot take someone who cheats him to court for fraud, he has to live and die by the gun. This creates violence and crime where before, there wasn't any. Furthermore, the addict cannot go to a doctor or hospital for treatment as his addiction is treated as a crime, not as a medical problem. I know of at least one man that refused to get treated for diabetes because he was terrified that doctors or hospitals will be required to report the fact that he does crystal meth.
Drug money also funds international terrorism. It also destabilizes our borders. Over 2,000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006, many of them complete innocents. That alone sickens me.
Making hypodermically injected drugs illegal also leads to a scarcity of needles which causes an increase in HIV infections.
Libertarian Party opponents to the drug war have stated that if the US government legalized only marijuana, US taxes could be reduced by one third. I doubt that, but it's certainly true that state and federal agencies are blowing $60 billion a year on the Drug War. And that doesn't include the increased revenue through taxation.
The drug war is killing more people, getting more people addicted, and destroying more lives than just letting people have drugs and putting them into rehab.
What about people driving a car while high?
Same laws as drunk driving I think should apply, but that's a local issue, not federal.
What about all these drug addicts?
Treatment, not incarceration. Putting them in jail is not helping them. These people are addicted and it may have been their choice and they may be scum regardless, but warehousing them is not the solution.
What about kids?
No consumption of drugs under the age of 18. Just like tobacco or alcohol.
But tobacco and alcohol consumption is legal at 21.
Well, true, but that's asinine. Anyone who is old enough to be a soldier and to vote is old enough to make adult decisions about alcohol and drugs. I think 18 year olds should also be able to drink and smoke. By the way, if a city has outlawed public indoor tobacco smoking, smoking anything else should be included. I've been to Amsterdam, and they have about sixteen murders a year. You feel safe walking through the worst areas. A similarly sized city in the United States probably has about 200 or more murders a year. I am not kidding.
If the feds wouldn't be stopping drug cartels, what would they be doing?
Oh, I don't know...here's a thought: stopping terrorists? Breaking up organized crime? Tracking murderers and the like? You know, solving actual crimes perhaps?
But drug use is immoral.
So? So is adultery. So is gluttony. Big deal. You cannot legislate morality. It isn't going to work and it hasn't. We've spent 30 years fighting the drug war and we've lost.
And the sad thing is that only a handful of politicians are talking about this because they fear that they will alienate a large percentage of the electorate who are so moribund, so rigid in their thinking, and so reality-challenged, that they will never agree to legalizing any victimless crimes at all.
I'm sick of the police being wasted and my tax dollars being wasted and the courts being tied up to prosecute victimless crimes. Besides, are we or are we not supposed to be the freest nation on the planet. Well, we're not, and I'm sick of that too.
#1 example: drug use.
The Drug War. Yeah. How's that working out? $60 billion a year and we've destabilized how many countries and have how many people in jail? And for what? Has drug use gone down?
No.
In fact, as you can see here, criminalizing drugs actually likely creates MORE drug use, not less. That's not just true in the Netherlands, it's been proven in Portugal, Switzerland, and at least a half-dozen other countries.
In the US, our number of people incarcerated for drug related offenses is more than the ENTIRE number of people incarcerated by the European Union for ALL offenses. And they have a higher population total than we do. And it exceeds it by 100,000. Not by a few.
Besides, it didn't work with alcohol, did it? Prohibition back in the 1930s created MORE crime, because a legal activity was criminalized and attracted a criminal element. Today's drug importer cannot take someone who cheats him to court for fraud, he has to live and die by the gun. This creates violence and crime where before, there wasn't any. Furthermore, the addict cannot go to a doctor or hospital for treatment as his addiction is treated as a crime, not as a medical problem. I know of at least one man that refused to get treated for diabetes because he was terrified that doctors or hospitals will be required to report the fact that he does crystal meth.
Drug money also funds international terrorism. It also destabilizes our borders. Over 2,000 people in Mexico alone have been murdered in drug trafficking related violence in 2006, many of them complete innocents. That alone sickens me.
Making hypodermically injected drugs illegal also leads to a scarcity of needles which causes an increase in HIV infections.
Libertarian Party opponents to the drug war have stated that if the US government legalized only marijuana, US taxes could be reduced by one third. I doubt that, but it's certainly true that state and federal agencies are blowing $60 billion a year on the Drug War. And that doesn't include the increased revenue through taxation.
The drug war is killing more people, getting more people addicted, and destroying more lives than just letting people have drugs and putting them into rehab.
What about people driving a car while high?
Same laws as drunk driving I think should apply, but that's a local issue, not federal.
What about all these drug addicts?
Treatment, not incarceration. Putting them in jail is not helping them. These people are addicted and it may have been their choice and they may be scum regardless, but warehousing them is not the solution.
What about kids?
No consumption of drugs under the age of 18. Just like tobacco or alcohol.
But tobacco and alcohol consumption is legal at 21.
Well, true, but that's asinine. Anyone who is old enough to be a soldier and to vote is old enough to make adult decisions about alcohol and drugs. I think 18 year olds should also be able to drink and smoke. By the way, if a city has outlawed public indoor tobacco smoking, smoking anything else should be included. I've been to Amsterdam, and they have about sixteen murders a year. You feel safe walking through the worst areas. A similarly sized city in the United States probably has about 200 or more murders a year. I am not kidding.
If the feds wouldn't be stopping drug cartels, what would they be doing?
Oh, I don't know...here's a thought: stopping terrorists? Breaking up organized crime? Tracking murderers and the like? You know, solving actual crimes perhaps?
But drug use is immoral.
So? So is adultery. So is gluttony. Big deal. You cannot legislate morality. It isn't going to work and it hasn't. We've spent 30 years fighting the drug war and we've lost.
And the sad thing is that only a handful of politicians are talking about this because they fear that they will alienate a large percentage of the electorate who are so moribund, so rigid in their thinking, and so reality-challenged, that they will never agree to legalizing any victimless crimes at all.
Pascal's Wager
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) was a French mathematician who came up with the idea of "Pascal's Wager". I bring this up because it has been mentioned to me numerous times as a method to encourage agnostics (including me) and atheists (not including me) into believing in god or gods.
Apparently an inordinate number of believers think that Pascal's Wager is a great argument for belief and are unaware that it is not. It was torn apart by Voltaire and Diderot. Considering both of these gentleman lived 200 years ago, it is somewhat odd to see this still given credence. Briefly, Pascal's Wager states:
Apparently an inordinate number of believers think that Pascal's Wager is a great argument for belief and are unaware that it is not. It was torn apart by Voltaire and Diderot. Considering both of these gentleman lived 200 years ago, it is somewhat odd to see this still given credence. Briefly, Pascal's Wager states:
- If you believe in God and God exists, you go to heaven: your gain is infinite.
- If you believe in God and God does not exist, you gain nothing & lose nothing.
But Pascal assumes several things that are not logical. First, no one can just flip a switch in their head and start believing. Not sincerely. Would you be able to stop believing in God tomorrow? Could you honestly say that you could switch to Judaism tomorrow and immediately stop believing that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? Could you suddenly start believing in Allah and Mohammed as the prophet of Allah?
Obviously not. No more than the atheist or the agnostic can suddenly start believing in your god tomorrow. In fact, to suggest that they do so is offensive and condescending. It implies that their beliefs (or lack thereof) are not as strongly held as your own or that their beliefs (or lack thereof) do not matter. What you are really telling people to do is to feign belief in your God. If you feign belief, you go to heaven? Really? Do you really believe that your god will reward false belief and cowardly bet-hedging as opposed to rewarding honest skepticism? Why do you suppose your god thinks that belief in him is more important than kindness, generosity, or humility? Since you believe your god knows all, he would immediately know that the so-called "believer" is a faker and a liar.
Would a just and benevolent god not judge people based on their own merits? If he judges people based on if they believe in him, then most of the planet is roasting in Hell despite them being decent human beings. Now, someone out there will probably quote scripture to back up the idea that the Judeo-Christian God puts more emphasis on the appearance of belief than on honest disbelief. Let's think for a second how moral that concept is. But it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter because Pascal's Wager doesn't work for a second reason. Pascal and I might both be wrong and the creator and designer of the universe might be Baal. Or a number of different gods. When you die, you could be held to account by a god that is not the Judeo-Christian God. And you and I in that case would meet up again in the Hell of that religion.
It also doesn't work for a third reason: anyone who is promoting Pascal's Wager is promoting fear. It is fear of Hell and eternal damnation that they are advocating. If you believe in God, so the saying goes, you will be rewarded or get no reward. But the opposite is accurate as well, is it not? If you do NOT believe, you will burn in Hell for all eternity according to Pascal. An unfriendly wager indeed.
As usual, I welcome your comments!
What is Agnosticism? Whole lot of people have no clue.
Let me preface this by saying I am not attempting to start an argument here, condemn anyone, or get condemned by anyone (although I would be surprised if some usual suspects didn't show up).
I am attempting to explain, nothing further than that.
Okay, so I'm agnostic. Some of you know what that means, but I bet some of you don't. Three people lately whom I know and who I consider quite intelligent, educated, and well-rounded people, did not know what agnosticism actually means.
So I figure I'll tell you. A theist believes there is a god or gods of some sort. An atheist does not believe there is a god. An agnostic (and there are different types of us running around just like there are different types of theists) believes that it is logically impossible to prove the existence of god or gods, and also that it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of god or gods. Personally, I think the existence of God more unlikely than likely, but that's me. Another agnostic might think that it likely there is a god or gods, but that it cannot be proven.
This is not a position of indecision in any way, shape, or form. At least not for me. Again, other agnostics might disagree. It is not that I am not sure. I am quite secure and quite certain in my ethics and beliefs. It has been a very difficult journey to get where I am philosophically, and not one that I expected nor wanted to make. Having said that, the end result very much works for me. I feel very good about life and the universe and much better about myself as a person. It has brought clarity to me where once I found only confusion.
But that's me. Your mileage may vary (YMMV), and I totally respect your own beliefs, as long as you respect mine. And that's sort of the key here. Frankly, too many people do not respect others' beliefs. They instead try to cajole or encourage you to change your beliefs to match theirs. It seems to me that their faith in their religion must be quite weak for them to feel the need to do that.
I absolutely do not begrudge anyone practicing the religion of their own choice. Go for it. Heck, I encourage it. Go to church, temple, mosque, whatever. Put up placards outside your churches, build monuments, compose songs. I mean, really, how far less of a culture would we have without Christmas, the Sistine Chapel, and Handel's Messiah, just to name three random things religion has given us. I am not hostile to religion.
The only thing that sets me off is when people try to use government to force me to ascribe to their beliefs or use government to promote their own religious propaganda. That I cannot stomach.
I welcome your comments.
I am attempting to explain, nothing further than that.
Okay, so I'm agnostic. Some of you know what that means, but I bet some of you don't. Three people lately whom I know and who I consider quite intelligent, educated, and well-rounded people, did not know what agnosticism actually means.
So I figure I'll tell you. A theist believes there is a god or gods of some sort. An atheist does not believe there is a god. An agnostic (and there are different types of us running around just like there are different types of theists) believes that it is logically impossible to prove the existence of god or gods, and also that it is logically impossible to disprove the existence of god or gods. Personally, I think the existence of God more unlikely than likely, but that's me. Another agnostic might think that it likely there is a god or gods, but that it cannot be proven.
This is not a position of indecision in any way, shape, or form. At least not for me. Again, other agnostics might disagree. It is not that I am not sure. I am quite secure and quite certain in my ethics and beliefs. It has been a very difficult journey to get where I am philosophically, and not one that I expected nor wanted to make. Having said that, the end result very much works for me. I feel very good about life and the universe and much better about myself as a person. It has brought clarity to me where once I found only confusion.
But that's me. Your mileage may vary (YMMV), and I totally respect your own beliefs, as long as you respect mine. And that's sort of the key here. Frankly, too many people do not respect others' beliefs. They instead try to cajole or encourage you to change your beliefs to match theirs. It seems to me that their faith in their religion must be quite weak for them to feel the need to do that.
I absolutely do not begrudge anyone practicing the religion of their own choice. Go for it. Heck, I encourage it. Go to church, temple, mosque, whatever. Put up placards outside your churches, build monuments, compose songs. I mean, really, how far less of a culture would we have without Christmas, the Sistine Chapel, and Handel's Messiah, just to name three random things religion has given us. I am not hostile to religion.
The only thing that sets me off is when people try to use government to force me to ascribe to their beliefs or use government to promote their own religious propaganda. That I cannot stomach.
I welcome your comments.
President Swordsman Plans Energy Independence
Since transportation accounts for 67% of oil consumption and our cars and trucks are 56% alone, we need to do things to reduce our fuel consumption.
For several reasons:
1. Oil is getting more expensive
2. We're running out of it
3. Emissions are creating air pollution
4. I hate OPEC
5. The Middle East is an unstable mess
6. Did I mention I hate OPEC?
I think the proposed raise in CAFE standards is a good start. However, if we raised our level of miles per gallon to the same standard that is average in Europe, we'd reduce our oil consumption by 25% and would no longer need to import oil from OPEC at all. That bears repeating. If we lowered our mpg to the standard that Europe has already shown is possible, we'd no longer care about OPEC.
Some might say that ecologists won't let us drill here in the US for more oil. That's correct, but only to an extent. This is a common misperception. ANWR has about four billion barrels of oil, give or take (http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm). That sounds like a lot, but US daily consumption is near 7 million barrels of oil per year. Even given higher estimates of what is in ANWR, it'll power us about a year. Big deal. Gulf of Mexico? About 16 billion barrels of oil. Well, drilling everywere imaginable will gain us about 3-4 years of oil. Clearly, "drill, baby, drill" is not a long term solution.
I think nearly everyone agrees ethanol is a stopgap at best and is going to drive up food prices which we don't want.
We can't build enough solar power or wind power plants to meet demand (although that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those sources of energy).
Coal is incredibly dirty and polluting and yes, there's this concept of clean coal, but it isn't reality. They call it 'clean coal' power, but it's marginally less polluting than the way they were processing it before. Besides, it's still a non-renewable fuel resource and will eventually run out.
We also need to start NOW. Any change to our economy and lifestyle as large as this one needs to be planned and implemented before the wolf is at the door.
So, here are my proposals:
1. Increase mpg standards to the level of Europe over time and allow common rail diesels to be sold in the US. As I said, raising CAFE was a good first step.
2. We need massive public transportation in the form of light rail, commuter rail, subways, elevated rail, and bus-only lanes. This will work in the major cities. Between some cities (like DC to NY), we can build bullet trains. We get the technology from Japan. Is this expensive? Yes. Is it going to be necessary when we run out of oil? Yes.
3. We need to go back to giving tax breaks to those who buy hybrids. Subsidize R&D to get all-electric cars and buses so that we don't use ANY fuel for them eventually. You just go home and plug them into your electrical grid.
4. Which brings up the point, how do you fuel the battery operated cars, bullet trains, light rail, and the like? Nuclear energy. France and South Korea have built massive nuclear power plants, and while I recognize the spent fuel rods are toxic as Hell, there is currently no other reasonable power source that is massive enough to meet our demands. The last nuclear power plant in this country hasn't been built for 25 years. Time for the federal government to give tax breaks, cut through all local red tape, and if necessary, massively (and I mean MASSIVELY) subsidize the building of nuclear plants.
5. We need more biodiesel plants like Germany has (they want to phase out nukes though which I think is silly but understandable I guess). They have over 200 and are building more. I'd rather burn pig excrement (which they are) and other waste products to make fuel then just dump them in a landfill somewhere.
What do you think? Any other ideas out there?
For several reasons:
1. Oil is getting more expensive
2. We're running out of it
3. Emissions are creating air pollution
4. I hate OPEC
5. The Middle East is an unstable mess
6. Did I mention I hate OPEC?
I think the proposed raise in CAFE standards is a good start. However, if we raised our level of miles per gallon to the same standard that is average in Europe, we'd reduce our oil consumption by 25% and would no longer need to import oil from OPEC at all. That bears repeating. If we lowered our mpg to the standard that Europe has already shown is possible, we'd no longer care about OPEC.
Some might say that ecologists won't let us drill here in the US for more oil. That's correct, but only to an extent. This is a common misperception. ANWR has about four billion barrels of oil, give or take (http://www.sibelle.info/oped15.htm). That sounds like a lot, but US daily consumption is near 7 million barrels of oil per year. Even given higher estimates of what is in ANWR, it'll power us about a year. Big deal. Gulf of Mexico? About 16 billion barrels of oil. Well, drilling everywere imaginable will gain us about 3-4 years of oil. Clearly, "drill, baby, drill" is not a long term solution.
I think nearly everyone agrees ethanol is a stopgap at best and is going to drive up food prices which we don't want.
We can't build enough solar power or wind power plants to meet demand (although that doesn't mean we shouldn't use those sources of energy).
Coal is incredibly dirty and polluting and yes, there's this concept of clean coal, but it isn't reality. They call it 'clean coal' power, but it's marginally less polluting than the way they were processing it before. Besides, it's still a non-renewable fuel resource and will eventually run out.
We also need to start NOW. Any change to our economy and lifestyle as large as this one needs to be planned and implemented before the wolf is at the door.
So, here are my proposals:
1. Increase mpg standards to the level of Europe over time and allow common rail diesels to be sold in the US. As I said, raising CAFE was a good first step.
2. We need massive public transportation in the form of light rail, commuter rail, subways, elevated rail, and bus-only lanes. This will work in the major cities. Between some cities (like DC to NY), we can build bullet trains. We get the technology from Japan. Is this expensive? Yes. Is it going to be necessary when we run out of oil? Yes.
3. We need to go back to giving tax breaks to those who buy hybrids. Subsidize R&D to get all-electric cars and buses so that we don't use ANY fuel for them eventually. You just go home and plug them into your electrical grid.
4. Which brings up the point, how do you fuel the battery operated cars, bullet trains, light rail, and the like? Nuclear energy. France and South Korea have built massive nuclear power plants, and while I recognize the spent fuel rods are toxic as Hell, there is currently no other reasonable power source that is massive enough to meet our demands. The last nuclear power plant in this country hasn't been built for 25 years. Time for the federal government to give tax breaks, cut through all local red tape, and if necessary, massively (and I mean MASSIVELY) subsidize the building of nuclear plants.
5. We need more biodiesel plants like Germany has (they want to phase out nukes though which I think is silly but understandable I guess). They have over 200 and are building more. I'd rather burn pig excrement (which they are) and other waste products to make fuel then just dump them in a landfill somewhere.
What do you think? Any other ideas out there?
President Swordsman Gets Everyone Universal Health Care
So back in 1993, everyone beat up on Hillary Clinton for saying we had a health care crisis in this country. Very few would dispute that today. And it looks that with 60% approval ratings for universal health care, we have a good shot at it being enacted in the next decade. I'd say Obama probably will enact something resembling this unless enough people are ignorant enough to buy into some Republican plan that doesn't even cover themselves. Yes, you read that correctly.
In debates with people over health care, a common mantra is to disparage nearly any kind of proposed program or reform as "socialized medicine". Oooo, socialism, ooo, bad. Nice boogyman. Except "socialism" means a specific thing. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production or that government actually employs the people involved in the industry. No one other than perhaps Dennis Kucinich has proposed such a sweeping plan.
In fact, most countries that have universal health care uses a combination of private and public health care, including the US. If you think we don't have socialized medicine, check out Medicare. And anyone who states they are opposed to socialized medicine: I want to know when you intend to renounce any and all Medicare benefits for yourself. And if you don't, you are what normal people call a "hypocrite".
Unlike most of the rest of the world, our health care is dependent upon which job you have, which is from a legal loophole back in the 1970s and makes zero sense. Quite a few people, probably some on this very site, have been denied perfectly legitimate claims by insurance companies. Stopping frivolous malpractice claims will not help despite what the President would have us believe. The real costs of health care are profit taking by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.
Now I'm not one to begrudge anyone a fair profit. My problem with these two industries is that they're using government regulation and lobbying to make money off us. This is not the free market at work and it isn't good for any of us. Pharmaceutical companies get to use the research funded by the US government (our tax dollars), move the labs and drug factories offshore, and then charge us exorbitant prices (since the administration passed a law that the US government cannot negotiate prices), and use their willing dupes in Congress to pass laws saying we cannot buy THE SAME DRUGS from overseas.
Yet they make money selling these same drugs for much less everywhere else in the world.
I think we definitely want a system that allows doctors to practice wherever they want, and patients to be able to choose which doctor they go to. We want a system that has no long waiting lines and which doesn't allow everyone and their dog to show up at the ER because they have the sniffles. We want a system that is run as much as possible by the doctor and the patient. Not the government. Not some big corporation. By the people it immediately affects. We also want a system that isn't expensive. Not difficult, I think, since we already spend almost twice as much per person as most countries, including France.
I mean, check this out: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/c%20hcm010307oth.cfm
So here's my plan:
Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors and hospitals at all times. No waiting times or lists. In a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions would be left to patients and doctors, not to insurance companies or the government.
Health care sellers would stay private, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care sellers, to minimize disruption to the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from unduly influencing physicians, so there would be no structured incentives to recommend too much or too little care.
A transition fund would be established for insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
The system should be monitored by a non-profit organization that is NOT governmental in origin or design. A federally-chartered non-profit membership organization be created through a Congressional charter to serve as a national patient watchdog (with state chapters). Essentially, this is the ORIGINAL Blue Cross organization writ large. It would be illegal for this organization to turn a profit or to be sold to any corporation, individual, or stockholder.
Patients would be able to sign up at their local doctor's office, hospital, or clinic. This organization (let's call it Public Health Oversight Association) would have full-time advocates overseeing relevant governmental agencies, Congress, and the private health sector. The non-profit organiation would have all the rights that corporations and individuals have: advocacy, lobbying, litigation, research, etc., and the ability to ally with other similar pro-citizen groups. This modest organization would be chartered so as to ensure that public policies affecting the provision, quality, and cost of health services reflect fairly the needs and concerns of consumers and continue to be informed by their organized voices.
Patients and doctors could certainly sue the oversight organization if they felt they were unfairly treated.
No corporations making profits off of people's illnesses. No government taking control of people's lives. Not socialism. If you truly believe this proposal is socialistic, I suggest immediate and massive therapy. This plan actually REDUCES the size of government since it takes the place of Medicare and Medicaid, two large government boondoggle programs.
Okay, how do we finance this?
The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments.
For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. The 7% payroll tax is less than what many corporations pay now for health care for their employees. GM and Ford should love this plan. Currently, the average cost is 8.5% of payroll.
This helps small businesses most of all. Now they cannot compete for employees, since they cannot easily afford to give health care plans to their employees. Right now, some of these guys get hit with 25% of their payroll expense going to health care. That's insane.
How can we do this for less? First, currently Medicare has an administrative cost of 3% and private health insurance companies is about 18%. Each insurance provider also has their own regulations, paperwork, rules, etc. We reduce that. Also, no profit motive means no jacking up insurance premiums or pharmaceutical costs.
The American Nursing Association wants universal health care and so do most physicians, but they are understandably wary about it. Since many companies are moving plants overseas (and not to Mexico, but to Canada and Europe where they do not have to get soaked for health care), even the conservative Heritage Foundation is for a similar plan.We also require neighborhood clinics to take cases that the ER shouldn't have to deal with. Think of them as mini-ER's without the emergency quotient.
If you make $100,000 a year (and no one in their right mind is going to argue that someone who does isn't fairly well off unless you are John McCain), the different costs stack up like this:
Current Summary:
YOU
$28,000 Fed W/H
$1,450 FICA-HI
$2,400 HMO
Your total out of pocket: $31,850
COMPANY
$1,450 FICA-HI
$8,500 HMO
Company's total: $9,950
My Plan:
YOU
$30,000 Fed W/H
$1,450 FICA-HI
Your total: $31,450
Savings: $450
COMPANY
$7,000 FICA-HI
Company's total: $7,000
Savings: $2,950
When various economists list more socialized countries such as - and this varies - Canada, the UK, and Holland as better places to invest and build factories as opposed to the US, this is why.
Plus, we already pay $730 billion of federal dollars for health care. And that doesn't include state budgets or the dollars paid to the insurance or pharmaceutical companies.
Under this plan, private health insurance would mostly not exist. There would be no reason for it unless people wanted it over and above the regular health care. The non-profit group would set costs and payments so that people could afford health care. It basically replaces private insurance companies with a separate non-profit organization. The NPO does not approve treatments, your doctor does.
And by the way, no grousing about how there are long waits under universal health care. The only nation that has longer waits for medical care than the US is Canada. Which is why opponents always cite it.
Thoughts?
In debates with people over health care, a common mantra is to disparage nearly any kind of proposed program or reform as "socialized medicine". Oooo, socialism, ooo, bad. Nice boogyman. Except "socialism" means a specific thing. Socialism is government ownership of the means of production or that government actually employs the people involved in the industry. No one other than perhaps Dennis Kucinich has proposed such a sweeping plan.
In fact, most countries that have universal health care uses a combination of private and public health care, including the US. If you think we don't have socialized medicine, check out Medicare. And anyone who states they are opposed to socialized medicine: I want to know when you intend to renounce any and all Medicare benefits for yourself. And if you don't, you are what normal people call a "hypocrite".
Unlike most of the rest of the world, our health care is dependent upon which job you have, which is from a legal loophole back in the 1970s and makes zero sense. Quite a few people, probably some on this very site, have been denied perfectly legitimate claims by insurance companies. Stopping frivolous malpractice claims will not help despite what the President would have us believe. The real costs of health care are profit taking by pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies.
Now I'm not one to begrudge anyone a fair profit. My problem with these two industries is that they're using government regulation and lobbying to make money off us. This is not the free market at work and it isn't good for any of us. Pharmaceutical companies get to use the research funded by the US government (our tax dollars), move the labs and drug factories offshore, and then charge us exorbitant prices (since the administration passed a law that the US government cannot negotiate prices), and use their willing dupes in Congress to pass laws saying we cannot buy THE SAME DRUGS from overseas.
Yet they make money selling these same drugs for much less everywhere else in the world.
I think we definitely want a system that allows doctors to practice wherever they want, and patients to be able to choose which doctor they go to. We want a system that has no long waiting lines and which doesn't allow everyone and their dog to show up at the ER because they have the sniffles. We want a system that is run as much as possible by the doctor and the patient. Not the government. Not some big corporation. By the people it immediately affects. We also want a system that isn't expensive. Not difficult, I think, since we already spend almost twice as much per person as most countries, including France.
I mean, check this out: http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/c%20hcm010307oth.cfm
So here's my plan:
Everyone would be included in a single, comprehensive public plan covering all medically necessary services, including acute, rehabilitative and long-term care, mental-health services, dental care, prescription drugs and medical supplies.
Everyone would have access to personalized care with a local primary care physician, and free choice of doctors and hospitals at all times. No waiting times or lists. In a publicly-financed, universal health care system medical decisions would be left to patients and doctors, not to insurance companies or the government.
Health care sellers would stay private, and the health plan would provide for different payment schemes for health-care sellers, to minimize disruption to the existing system. The payment schemes would be designed to prevent profit motives from unduly influencing physicians, so there would be no structured incentives to recommend too much or too little care.
A transition fund would be established for insurance-company employees whose jobs would be eliminated due to the simplicity of the single-payer system.
The system should be monitored by a non-profit organization that is NOT governmental in origin or design. A federally-chartered non-profit membership organization be created through a Congressional charter to serve as a national patient watchdog (with state chapters). Essentially, this is the ORIGINAL Blue Cross organization writ large. It would be illegal for this organization to turn a profit or to be sold to any corporation, individual, or stockholder.
Patients would be able to sign up at their local doctor's office, hospital, or clinic. This organization (let's call it Public Health Oversight Association) would have full-time advocates overseeing relevant governmental agencies, Congress, and the private health sector. The non-profit organiation would have all the rights that corporations and individuals have: advocacy, lobbying, litigation, research, etc., and the ability to ally with other similar pro-citizen groups. This modest organization would be chartered so as to ensure that public policies affecting the provision, quality, and cost of health services reflect fairly the needs and concerns of consumers and continue to be informed by their organized voices.
Patients and doctors could certainly sue the oversight organization if they felt they were unfairly treated.
No corporations making profits off of people's illnesses. No government taking control of people's lives. Not socialism. If you truly believe this proposal is socialistic, I suggest immediate and massive therapy. This plan actually REDUCES the size of government since it takes the place of Medicare and Medicaid, two large government boondoggle programs.
Okay, how do we finance this?
The public financing already funneled to Medicare and Medicaid would be retained. The difference, or the gap between current public funding and what we would need for a universal health care system, would be financed by a payroll tax on employers (about 7%) and an income tax on individuals (about 2%). The payroll tax would replace all other employer expenses for employees' health care. The income tax would take the place of all current insurance premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and any and all other out of pocket payments.
For the vast majority of people a 2% income tax is less than what they now pay for insurance premiums and in out-of-pocket payments such as co-pays and deductibles, particularly for anyone who has had a serious illness or has a family member with a serious illness. The 7% payroll tax is less than what many corporations pay now for health care for their employees. GM and Ford should love this plan. Currently, the average cost is 8.5% of payroll.
This helps small businesses most of all. Now they cannot compete for employees, since they cannot easily afford to give health care plans to their employees. Right now, some of these guys get hit with 25% of their payroll expense going to health care. That's insane.
How can we do this for less? First, currently Medicare has an administrative cost of 3% and private health insurance companies is about 18%. Each insurance provider also has their own regulations, paperwork, rules, etc. We reduce that. Also, no profit motive means no jacking up insurance premiums or pharmaceutical costs.
The American Nursing Association wants universal health care and so do most physicians, but they are understandably wary about it. Since many companies are moving plants overseas (and not to Mexico, but to Canada and Europe where they do not have to get soaked for health care), even the conservative Heritage Foundation is for a similar plan.We also require neighborhood clinics to take cases that the ER shouldn't have to deal with. Think of them as mini-ER's without the emergency quotient.
If you make $100,000 a year (and no one in their right mind is going to argue that someone who does isn't fairly well off unless you are John McCain), the different costs stack up like this:
Current Summary:
YOU
$28,000 Fed W/H
$1,450 FICA-HI
$2,400 HMO
Your total out of pocket: $31,850
COMPANY
$1,450 FICA-HI
$8,500 HMO
Company's total: $9,950
My Plan:
YOU
$30,000 Fed W/H
$1,450 FICA-HI
Your total: $31,450
Savings: $450
COMPANY
$7,000 FICA-HI
Company's total: $7,000
Savings: $2,950
When various economists list more socialized countries such as - and this varies - Canada, the UK, and Holland as better places to invest and build factories as opposed to the US, this is why.
Plus, we already pay $730 billion of federal dollars for health care. And that doesn't include state budgets or the dollars paid to the insurance or pharmaceutical companies.
Under this plan, private health insurance would mostly not exist. There would be no reason for it unless people wanted it over and above the regular health care. The non-profit group would set costs and payments so that people could afford health care. It basically replaces private insurance companies with a separate non-profit organization. The NPO does not approve treatments, your doctor does.
And by the way, no grousing about how there are long waits under universal health care. The only nation that has longer waits for medical care than the US is Canada. Which is why opponents always cite it.
Thoughts?
President Swordsman Solves Immigration
Here's my idea of immigration reform.
First, let us dispense with the concept of 'amnesty'. It's a loaded term and it's used by hobgoblins like Senator Jeff Sessions to gin up the base. I think it's a silly term because with 12 million illegal immigrants, we can't even find them all much less round them all up and deport them. And even if we did, they'd be back here next month anyway.
I don't like giving people who have broken the law any sort of reward, but I would much rather have them legally working so we can track them (and for other reasons which I will get to) then working in hiding, anonymously.
I mean, what are we going to do, cry about it? What's done is done. Let's pull up our big-boy and big-girl britches and get something done that's useful.
So I'd like a Guest Worker Program. Make it open to everyone who is not a criminal or on a terrorist watch list. Putting quotas on for various things are not going to work because it's just going to make more illegal immigration for those that are denied guest worker visas. Limiting it by time is also a loser for the same reason. Yes, I know you fear that we'd be overwhelmed. I'll get to that in a moment as well.
The guest worker program should have a simple background check. Check with INTERPOL, the FBI, and any other agencies that track terrorists and criminals. If the potential guest worker is a terrorist, arrest them. If they are a criminal in their native land, send them back. Guest workers get a guest worker card. They have to report once a month to an INS office and prove they are gainfully employed. If they don't, they'd better have a good excuse, like hospitalization, or they're deported. Since you're registered with a government agency, that means you also get registered with the Social Security Administration and the IRS.
No system is ever going to work unless we dry up demand for cheap labor. Yeah, I know I've heard the hype about how illegal aliens do the jobs Americans won't do. I say that's total BS. What anyone means who says that is that they'll do the jobs for less than what the jobs are worth. I have zero respect for anyone who runs a company who hires illegal aliens that he knows are breaking the law. It's one thing for a guy to try and make more money to feed his family breaking the law. It's quite another for someone well off to do it so he can exploit a poor person.
We also need an exemption for seasonal agricultural workers and visas that are available for a finite limited period of time that the job actually exists.
I say we need Massive Penalties for Employing Illegal Aliens. Particularly with the legal guest worker program, there's no excuse for this. Hit them good and hard with fines. If they're caught twice, really slam them. If they're caught a third time, they get five years in jail. These people are some of the worst people we have in this country. They know they can treat illegal aliens like human garbage because they know they can't go to the police. They're willing to sell out American workers and break American laws and exploit poor people to make a lousy buck. No mercy. Oh, Mr. Burns? The IRS and the EEOC would like to have a word with you.
Make certain that anyone hiring guest workers has to treat them like regular workers. No more does anyone get to get around labor laws, minimum wages, OSHA regs, or anything else because you hired a desperate person trying to work for a living. If they break these laws, you go after them just like anyone else. If the illegal is discriminated against, abused, etc. they can go to the authorities just like anyone else.
Also, we require employers to report immediately when they have engaged the guest worker and immediately when the employment is terminated. This would work particularly well with seasonal workers, because the employer could tell ICE when a worker's contract is up and let them know when he's on his way out of the country. I have no problem with burdening employers with compliance needs if they feel it is so necessary to bring in someone from outside the country to work. I'd also like it to be a law that the company tries to hire a citizen first before they look elsewhere.
They also have to collect FICA, Federal Withholding, and health care just like anyone else. They also have to be paid a prevailing wage. No more hiring some guy from the other side of the planet because he'll work cheaper.
We also need Family Reunification, which we do now, but within reason. Spouses and children are not kept apart. Children born here are citizens, just like the Constitution states in the 14th Amendment. If their parents are paying taxes and are law-abiding citizens, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Likewise spouses. If they're husbands/wives are supporting them, so be it. If you don't like the concept of anchor babies, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to repeal part of the 14th and that's patently unreasonable.
This means that ICE and INS will have a lot less border crossings to deal with and those that do try to come in illegally are likely bad apples and should be dealt with accordingly. Leave the guys coming here for work alone. Go after the terrorists, the criminals, etc.
We do need More Agents on the Border, but only if we first have the guest worker program and the drying up of demand for cheap labor. Otherwise, extra agents won't make a dent. A fence is useless. Just for clarification: tunnels, airplanes, boats, Canada, wirecutters...
Oh, and with all the extra immigrants paying tax revenues and FICA, I just saved Social Security and Medicare for a while longer.
We also need a Path to Citizenship. I don't want a generation or more of some kind of underclass that can't get work and can't leave like France has. Who can blame these people for finally losing it and rioting? I don't condone it, but I understand their frustration at French society. I say that it takes 5 years. You have to be continually employed and you need to have no felonies on your record. If an illegal immigrant loses his job through no fault of his own, I have no problem with him collecting unemployment. He's paying for it through taxes like everyone else anyway. If the unemployment runs out, he gets deported if he doesn't get another job. I also don't care about misdemeanors. I'm not interested in deporting people for jaywalking. So, 5 years, you pass the test (which is hard already, BTW) and you're in. Take an oath and you can vote, etc. You're now a citizen. Enjoy.
If you're not okay with letting people slide because they broke the law when they came here, then tell me your solution. If they don't want to be citizens, that's cool. Obey the law, pay taxes, have a good life. I have no problem with that.
The process for becoming a citizen needs to be streamlined. Most people I know (and I don't know if this applies to you all or not) have zero idea how hard it is to get into this country for most people. If you are Caucasian and educated, it's easy. If you are just educated, it's relatively easy. If you're a regular guy who works on a farm, forget it. You might never get in. That's just ridiculous. We're telling people "you can't come here because of your race or education" and then we're surprised when they come here anyway.
What say you?
First, let us dispense with the concept of 'amnesty'. It's a loaded term and it's used by hobgoblins like Senator Jeff Sessions to gin up the base. I think it's a silly term because with 12 million illegal immigrants, we can't even find them all much less round them all up and deport them. And even if we did, they'd be back here next month anyway.
I don't like giving people who have broken the law any sort of reward, but I would much rather have them legally working so we can track them (and for other reasons which I will get to) then working in hiding, anonymously.
I mean, what are we going to do, cry about it? What's done is done. Let's pull up our big-boy and big-girl britches and get something done that's useful.
So I'd like a Guest Worker Program. Make it open to everyone who is not a criminal or on a terrorist watch list. Putting quotas on for various things are not going to work because it's just going to make more illegal immigration for those that are denied guest worker visas. Limiting it by time is also a loser for the same reason. Yes, I know you fear that we'd be overwhelmed. I'll get to that in a moment as well.
The guest worker program should have a simple background check. Check with INTERPOL, the FBI, and any other agencies that track terrorists and criminals. If the potential guest worker is a terrorist, arrest them. If they are a criminal in their native land, send them back. Guest workers get a guest worker card. They have to report once a month to an INS office and prove they are gainfully employed. If they don't, they'd better have a good excuse, like hospitalization, or they're deported. Since you're registered with a government agency, that means you also get registered with the Social Security Administration and the IRS.
No system is ever going to work unless we dry up demand for cheap labor. Yeah, I know I've heard the hype about how illegal aliens do the jobs Americans won't do. I say that's total BS. What anyone means who says that is that they'll do the jobs for less than what the jobs are worth. I have zero respect for anyone who runs a company who hires illegal aliens that he knows are breaking the law. It's one thing for a guy to try and make more money to feed his family breaking the law. It's quite another for someone well off to do it so he can exploit a poor person.
We also need an exemption for seasonal agricultural workers and visas that are available for a finite limited period of time that the job actually exists.
I say we need Massive Penalties for Employing Illegal Aliens. Particularly with the legal guest worker program, there's no excuse for this. Hit them good and hard with fines. If they're caught twice, really slam them. If they're caught a third time, they get five years in jail. These people are some of the worst people we have in this country. They know they can treat illegal aliens like human garbage because they know they can't go to the police. They're willing to sell out American workers and break American laws and exploit poor people to make a lousy buck. No mercy. Oh, Mr. Burns? The IRS and the EEOC would like to have a word with you.
Make certain that anyone hiring guest workers has to treat them like regular workers. No more does anyone get to get around labor laws, minimum wages, OSHA regs, or anything else because you hired a desperate person trying to work for a living. If they break these laws, you go after them just like anyone else. If the illegal is discriminated against, abused, etc. they can go to the authorities just like anyone else.
Also, we require employers to report immediately when they have engaged the guest worker and immediately when the employment is terminated. This would work particularly well with seasonal workers, because the employer could tell ICE when a worker's contract is up and let them know when he's on his way out of the country. I have no problem with burdening employers with compliance needs if they feel it is so necessary to bring in someone from outside the country to work. I'd also like it to be a law that the company tries to hire a citizen first before they look elsewhere.
They also have to collect FICA, Federal Withholding, and health care just like anyone else. They also have to be paid a prevailing wage. No more hiring some guy from the other side of the planet because he'll work cheaper.
We also need Family Reunification, which we do now, but within reason. Spouses and children are not kept apart. Children born here are citizens, just like the Constitution states in the 14th Amendment. If their parents are paying taxes and are law-abiding citizens, I don't see why anyone should have a problem with it. Likewise spouses. If they're husbands/wives are supporting them, so be it. If you don't like the concept of anchor babies, it will take a Constitutional Amendment to repeal part of the 14th and that's patently unreasonable.
This means that ICE and INS will have a lot less border crossings to deal with and those that do try to come in illegally are likely bad apples and should be dealt with accordingly. Leave the guys coming here for work alone. Go after the terrorists, the criminals, etc.
We do need More Agents on the Border, but only if we first have the guest worker program and the drying up of demand for cheap labor. Otherwise, extra agents won't make a dent. A fence is useless. Just for clarification: tunnels, airplanes, boats, Canada, wirecutters...
Oh, and with all the extra immigrants paying tax revenues and FICA, I just saved Social Security and Medicare for a while longer.
We also need a Path to Citizenship. I don't want a generation or more of some kind of underclass that can't get work and can't leave like France has. Who can blame these people for finally losing it and rioting? I don't condone it, but I understand their frustration at French society. I say that it takes 5 years. You have to be continually employed and you need to have no felonies on your record. If an illegal immigrant loses his job through no fault of his own, I have no problem with him collecting unemployment. He's paying for it through taxes like everyone else anyway. If the unemployment runs out, he gets deported if he doesn't get another job. I also don't care about misdemeanors. I'm not interested in deporting people for jaywalking. So, 5 years, you pass the test (which is hard already, BTW) and you're in. Take an oath and you can vote, etc. You're now a citizen. Enjoy.
If you're not okay with letting people slide because they broke the law when they came here, then tell me your solution. If they don't want to be citizens, that's cool. Obey the law, pay taxes, have a good life. I have no problem with that.
The process for becoming a citizen needs to be streamlined. Most people I know (and I don't know if this applies to you all or not) have zero idea how hard it is to get into this country for most people. If you are Caucasian and educated, it's easy. If you are just educated, it's relatively easy. If you're a regular guy who works on a farm, forget it. You might never get in. That's just ridiculous. We're telling people "you can't come here because of your race or education" and then we're surprised when they come here anyway.
What say you?
Why Country Western Dancing Blows
Or, how not to pick up girls at dance clubs.
Yes, country western dancing blows.
I know, this post is probably going to offend nearly everyone. Sigh. Oh well.
A while ago, I went to a party thrown for two friends of mine who were getting married. The party was at a country western dance hall.
Now, as I remember it from being there before, they intersperse country songs with rock songs, which I can dance to. I cannot dance to country western songs.
And here's why.
Country Western dancing sucks.
No, it really does. It's designed to maximize physical exhaustion while minimizing physical intimacy and contact. All other dance forms I can think of off the top of my head (hip hop, club, salsa, merengue, tango, waltz) try to increase the intimacy of the dancing partners. Not two-stepping. And what's with the name two-stepping? We all have two feet. What, we're going to be one-stepping? Three-stepping?
But I digress. Dancing is supposed to be about having fun and/or getting romantic with your partner. Two-stepping involves so much whirling and walking and movement that it is impossible to talk to your partner - impossible to touch your partner other than their hands - and impossible to have any intimacy whatsoever.
Plus, it's complicated as Hell. I'm sorry, when I want to dance, I just want to dance, I don't want to have to re-set myself, or try to figure out where I'm supposed to put my left foot three moves from now. That's chess, not dancing.
Add to this that you are constantly moving around the dance floor. And since you get to share the dance floor, you are constantly bumping into other couples who are moving faster or slower than you are.
Now, I realize I went to this country western place so I shouldn't complain, but I never realized how absurd country western dancing actually is. I would not be shocked if it was originally invented by some chastity-obsessed weirdo to keep boys and girls from ever touching one another.
I did dance to several rock and rap songs. About one per hour to my estimate. And I did ask three women I didn't know and three that I did know to dance. One of the ones I didn't know and two of those I did know accepted. Asking women to dance is actually pretty easy. Wait for a dance that you know you won't make a complete ass of yourself dancing to, sidle up to a woman, smile, and say "Wanna dance?"
And then do so. Even if you don't dance well, the woman will likely appreciate the effort. If it doesn't lead anywhere, that's fine, at least it was good practice. Plus, the other hotties in the audience see you dancing and think, a-ha, a guy who dances. Guys that are willing to hit the dance floor are few and far between, believe you me.
The zenith of absurdity was reached when the ignorant idiots who can only two-step kept two-stepping during the rock songs. Now, this is passable during Bill Haley and the Comets' "Rock Around the Clock", but imagine watching idiots trying to two-step to Justin Timberlake's "I'm Bringing Sexy Back" or "Back That Ass Up". Ludicrous. Plus, they're still twirling around the dance floor two-stepping and bumping into the rest of us who are attempting to dance like normally-evolved humans.
Also, rock songs and rap songs in dance clubs generally are not about how much life sucks. I'm sorry, but country western music being played in a dance club should not be emo. I don't want to dance to (or in my precise case, watch other people dance to) a song about how some loser lost his horse, his wife, his dog, etc. Play some upbeat or romantic stuff, or stop playing. Period. Rock clubs don't make you dance to James Blunt, okay? I'm there to have fun, not cry in my beer. Who wants to get their sexy on to depressing music anyway?
Oh, and I'm not trying to beat up anyone, but this is soul destroying to even watch: guys, many of them in their 50s, fully decked out in country western gear, standing on the side of the dance floor, sipping a beer. Doing nothing else. Just staring. Not there with friends, not there with a girl, just standing and staring. If you haven't the confidence to ask a girl to dance, probably going to a dance club is going to make your night suck even more. And standing and staring is not going to make a girl (or anyone else) come up and talk to you because it's creepy and off-putting.
Take dance classes, guys. I did, and might take more. And I have two left feet. Hell, if nothing else, it gets you out of the house and meeting people. Plus, if you go to a club, you won't be one of those guys standing their sipping beer and looking lonely and pathetic. I don't even know what to do for them. So get out there and shake some leg, okay people?
Yes, country western dancing blows.
I know, this post is probably going to offend nearly everyone. Sigh. Oh well.
A while ago, I went to a party thrown for two friends of mine who were getting married. The party was at a country western dance hall.
Now, as I remember it from being there before, they intersperse country songs with rock songs, which I can dance to. I cannot dance to country western songs.
And here's why.
Country Western dancing sucks.
No, it really does. It's designed to maximize physical exhaustion while minimizing physical intimacy and contact. All other dance forms I can think of off the top of my head (hip hop, club, salsa, merengue, tango, waltz) try to increase the intimacy of the dancing partners. Not two-stepping. And what's with the name two-stepping? We all have two feet. What, we're going to be one-stepping? Three-stepping?
But I digress. Dancing is supposed to be about having fun and/or getting romantic with your partner. Two-stepping involves so much whirling and walking and movement that it is impossible to talk to your partner - impossible to touch your partner other than their hands - and impossible to have any intimacy whatsoever.
Plus, it's complicated as Hell. I'm sorry, when I want to dance, I just want to dance, I don't want to have to re-set myself, or try to figure out where I'm supposed to put my left foot three moves from now. That's chess, not dancing.
Add to this that you are constantly moving around the dance floor. And since you get to share the dance floor, you are constantly bumping into other couples who are moving faster or slower than you are.
Now, I realize I went to this country western place so I shouldn't complain, but I never realized how absurd country western dancing actually is. I would not be shocked if it was originally invented by some chastity-obsessed weirdo to keep boys and girls from ever touching one another.
I did dance to several rock and rap songs. About one per hour to my estimate. And I did ask three women I didn't know and three that I did know to dance. One of the ones I didn't know and two of those I did know accepted. Asking women to dance is actually pretty easy. Wait for a dance that you know you won't make a complete ass of yourself dancing to, sidle up to a woman, smile, and say "Wanna dance?"
And then do so. Even if you don't dance well, the woman will likely appreciate the effort. If it doesn't lead anywhere, that's fine, at least it was good practice. Plus, the other hotties in the audience see you dancing and think, a-ha, a guy who dances. Guys that are willing to hit the dance floor are few and far between, believe you me.
The zenith of absurdity was reached when the ignorant idiots who can only two-step kept two-stepping during the rock songs. Now, this is passable during Bill Haley and the Comets' "Rock Around the Clock", but imagine watching idiots trying to two-step to Justin Timberlake's "I'm Bringing Sexy Back" or "Back That Ass Up". Ludicrous. Plus, they're still twirling around the dance floor two-stepping and bumping into the rest of us who are attempting to dance like normally-evolved humans.
Also, rock songs and rap songs in dance clubs generally are not about how much life sucks. I'm sorry, but country western music being played in a dance club should not be emo. I don't want to dance to (or in my precise case, watch other people dance to) a song about how some loser lost his horse, his wife, his dog, etc. Play some upbeat or romantic stuff, or stop playing. Period. Rock clubs don't make you dance to James Blunt, okay? I'm there to have fun, not cry in my beer. Who wants to get their sexy on to depressing music anyway?
Oh, and I'm not trying to beat up anyone, but this is soul destroying to even watch: guys, many of them in their 50s, fully decked out in country western gear, standing on the side of the dance floor, sipping a beer. Doing nothing else. Just staring. Not there with friends, not there with a girl, just standing and staring. If you haven't the confidence to ask a girl to dance, probably going to a dance club is going to make your night suck even more. And standing and staring is not going to make a girl (or anyone else) come up and talk to you because it's creepy and off-putting.
Take dance classes, guys. I did, and might take more. And I have two left feet. Hell, if nothing else, it gets you out of the house and meeting people. Plus, if you go to a club, you won't be one of those guys standing their sipping beer and looking lonely and pathetic. I don't even know what to do for them. So get out there and shake some leg, okay people?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
