The most Selfish Act

My job requires that I spend a fair amount of time on the road. It has become apparent to me that there are many lousy drivers on the road. Maybe they aren't lousy drivers but they are certainly reckless drivers. They drive well over the speed limit, they weave in and out of highway traffic, and they follow way too close to the driver in front of them. I don't care how good your reflexes are, if you are travelling at 75 mph and less than ten feet off the bumper of the car in front of you...your are creating a dangerous situation for yourself and everyone else on the road, which gets to my point.

Reckless driving, speeding well in excess of the posted limit is one of the most selfish acts I see in our society today. I really do not care if someone wants to drive in a reckless manner. If you want to drive in a way that makes it likely you will drive off a cliff or slam into a tree at 70 mph, it's not my business. I think it is sad that someone does not value their life and their relationships enough to ensure that they do not kill themselves on the nations highways, but if driver chooses to endanger their own lives through reckless and careless driving there is little I can do about it. If the only ones potentially hurt by such poor driving decisions were the drivers themselves I would have no issue. However, their driving decisions endanger me, my family, and my friends. On a crowded highway with heavy traffic, a single reckless driver can take out a lot of people who are driving responsibly and minding their own business. This is why I think that the reckless driving I see everyday I am on the highways is one of the most selfish acts in modern society. If you want to drive in a manner that puts your life at risk, go ahead. If you want to drive too fast around a curve and fly off the road down a cliff, then you alone have to live with your poor judgement. When you drive in a manner that not only endangers your life but mine, am outraged and find such decisions to be from people of the lowest character.

BTW, while I have not kept an official tally, I think the casualty insurance companies have it right when they make young male drivers pay more for their car insurance. When I see truly reckless driving practices, the odds are 80% or greater that the person behind the wheel is under 30 and male.

Solving the Healthcare "Crisis"...really not that hard

Want to solve the healthcare crisis? I don't think it is that hard. How about a dramatic increase in the heathcare service sector that goes back to good old fashioned "fee for service". A doctor's office has a set fee for a checkup, sick child, sprained ankle, black eye, stitch up a cut. I have the option to go to whomever I choose, based on their cost and my perception of the quality of their work.

Competition keeps pricing at market rates rather than billing an anonymous third party 50 bucks for a couple of tylenol. Every person has catastrophic coverage for major events and catastrophic can be defined at different levels of cost for different people based on a variety of factors.

There is enough money in the system to make this work today when I look at the money individuals pump into the system, the money employers are paying, as well as government funding. Money is not the problem. The problem is lack of incentive to get the best value for the dollar, lack of competition to keep prices in check, and the money flows for 80%+ of healthcare costs coming from behind the scenes, anonymous insurance companies.

This really isn't that difficult of a problem, to solve. However, it becomes intractable when folks expect healthcare or see it as a right instead of something that they need to provide for themselves, like food, water, and clothes...which are just as critical to sustaining life as health care. The free market can solve the healthcare problem, if we will let a free market work its magic. Unconvinced? Look at the quality of the care and the cost over time for optional, non-covered medical procedures like laser eye surgery. The market has improved the procedure dramatically while decreasing the cost over time. The market works. Why we don't let it solve this problem is a mystery. A lot of problems are hard. This isn't one of them.

College Football...Having it my way

I am not a fan of having the BCS Championship game this far away from New Year's day. After New Year's I quickly get out of college football mode...partly because my Cavaliers season is always over by New Year's day at the latest. Tonight is the BCS championship game and I am just out of the college football frame of mind. I am already thinking about next year's team, wrapping up the current recruiting class, and watching college basketball. I know this is all about advertising dollars and sponsorship money, so I doubt this will change. However, if I were king and could set the date for the BCS championship, I think the evening of January 2nd would be the date. I would smatter all the BCS bowls across January 1st and 2nd with an 8:00 kick for the title game.

Speaking of the BCS, I may be one of the few that feel this way, but I have no interest whatsoever in a playoff system for college football. I think the NCAA would be nuts to implement such a system. College football receives billions of dollars worth of free publicity and public mind share with a completely convoluted and seemingly arbitrary system to pick the teams for a championship game...like the one in place today. The arguments, complaints, and caterwauling are nationwide when BCS selections are announced. Strident discussions and high-pitched arguments over the selected teams, omitted teams, the BCS system...what could be better? At the end of the day, it is just college football. What better topic for bar room chatter and lunchtime debate. I think a definitive playoff system would take half of the fun out of college football for the average fan.

I am going with LSU tonight. I know it is easy to claim in retrospect, but I went with the Gators last year against OSU. I think the SEC remains the best college football conference, probably followed by the Pac-10. I think the Big-10 is behind the evolutionary curve in college football. The power game is out. Speed, Spread, and Special Teams...that is what wins today. LSU should win this on talent alone, although the biggest worry I have about OSU is that they have an axe to grind after they got beat last year in a game in which they were heavily favored. I still think that LSU speed will carry the day.

BTW, if I were king, while I would do a lot of things not related to college football, I would move the date of the Virginia/Virginia Tech game to the Saturday before Thanksgiving rather than the Saturday after Thanksgiving. I think that the home game on a Saturday when many students are still out on break detracts from the game atmosphere. If I were king I would also make all the VPI players who are "Apparel Management" majors sit out one quarter of every game when they play UVa.

One last college football note. FSU suspended a truckload (over 30) players caught up in a cheating scandal prior to the Music City Bowl. I bet you can't name the class the payers were taking that was so difficult they had to cheat. If you said "History of Online Music" move to the head of the class. You have to be kidding me! First, there is a class on the history of online music? Second, I am pretty sure I could get an "A" on that exam right now, not having ever taken the class. How long is that history afterall, maybe 7 years? I know that is alot of history to have to cam into a full college semester. Maybe there is a history of online apparel management class that FSU and VPI can share...on line.

Trouble for Clinton

Hilliary has an historic tightrope to walk if she hopes to get the democratic presidential nomination and ultimately become president of the United States. She has one of the highest, if not the highest "will not vote, ever" ratings in history. Polls show ranges of 44-48% of the voting population of the United States that would not vote for Hilliary Clinton under any circumstance. So she has a very thin margin for error in her campaign which I think has been the basis of her undoing. Net/net - she cannot afford to make many people mad.

If the polling data is close to accurate, and it has been consistent over the past 12-18 months, Hilliary wipes 44-48% of prospective voters off the table as soon as she becomes the democratic nominee. So she is working with only 52-56% of the electorate with which to carve out a presidential victory. Realizing these numbers, she has been working very hard to work every side of an issue and take as many positions as possible on most every issue. It is my opinion that this has hurt her badly.

Now, let's be fair, any candidate for president has some percentage of voters who would not vote for them under any circumstance, so no candidate is ever addressing the full population in trying to win votes. However, Hilliary has such a large anti-Hilliary base that she has very little wiggle room and in her effort to make no mistakes, she has made the largest one of the campaign...waging the campaign that does not offend, that is malleable, and can be construed to meet most any constituent position. This has been a huge strategic error, and one that came to head in the "driver's licences for illegals" issue raised in one of the many pre-primary season debates. I have no idea what Hilliary really thinks about this issue. I have no idea what she thinks about many issues. I know appearance she want to project, but I don't know what she really thinks, what she believes, what she is about...other than she wants to be president as badly as anyone has ever wanted that job.

However, wanting to be president is not a qualification for being president. Hilliary may still win the prize she so zealously covets, but I think she would have a better chance of winning genuine support and actually winning over some of the "under no circumstance" crowd...if she let folks know who she is, what she believes, and why. She needs to make it real however, and not a poll-tested position. What does she really thing about the war on terror, taxes, illegal immigration? If she has solid positions and good ideas, she may surprise a lot of folks and herself with the reaction. However, if she keeps her current course and speed, banking on polls to establish her positions and working every angle she may have more trouble ahead. If she cannot let the voters know what she really thinks versus what she wants us to think she thinks, she either must not trust herself or must be hiding something. Neither of these conclusions is one that is helpful if one wants to be president.

Presidential Kids

I am not a big celebrity watcher (understatement) but it is hard to not see and hear some of the top tier celebrity gossip in our society. I am glad that I have no clue what Chelsea Clinton is doing. I know she went to a swanky private school in DC (Sidwell Friends I think) and then to one of the top notch universities...that is about it. I am also glad that I have no idea what the Bush twins are doing these days. I heard that one of them recently got engaged, but that may be more of a local than a national story. I am glad all 3 of these presidential kids are pretty much out of the media spotlight. I am sure there is gossip out there, but it seems that the press has chosen the right path in not making their every action a headline in celebrity magazines and mind-numbing Hollywood TV shows. If someone wants the "dirt" on these ladies they are going to have to make a concerted effort to find it, which is about as good of an outcome as they can get given their famous families. These ladies did not choose to be presidential, so I am glad they at least seem to have at least a modicum of privacy. I wish them well in the their private lives, I hope I rarely hear anything about them. They seem like nice young ladies, but I really have no idea...which is how it should be.

When did "profit" become a dirty word?

When did profits become a bad thing? If you listen to all the universal healthcare crybabies, environmental ninnies, and John Edwards, there is nothing more evil in the world than profits...and even worse..."corporate profits". When asked how any big new social program or societal tax is to be funded the answer is always tax the rich and take unjustified corporate profits. What are unjustified profits? I understand illegal profits...those achieved breaking the rules or breaking laws, but unjustified profits? In a world of free choice, who defines what profits are justifiable?

If you spend any time listening to these Utopian tower dwellers there is a limitless well of taxable or "takeable" profits that really belong to "the people". I don't think that these folks realize that without profits, nothing happens...nothing gets produced, no service is delivered, everything stops. Maybe for the few who dream up ways to spend other people's money and usurp value created by the corporate world, they would work for free or produce good just for societal benefit, however for those of us who live in the real world, profits are the motivator to work, create, invent, innovate. If the fruits of my labor are not mine, guess what, I am not going to produce anything. Why should I? Why would any rational person work hard if the benefits of their efforts were not theirs...the profits from their time not in their pockets at the end of the day? Beats me.

Maybe before the do-gooders who are so eager to fund pet programs on the backs of those who actually produce something and generate profits, maybe before they decry the profits people and corporations earn, they should stop and consider a world without profits. Oh wait, we had that already, it was the Soviet Union...and we saw how well that turned out, but they did have universal healthcare. They also had new construction that was so shoddy that the buildings fell down before they were completed. Why? No one was going to make any money (aka profit) if the building stood or fell, so guess what? It fell. So will everything we cherish if we take the profits out of our daily motivation.

Oh, have a happy and profitable new year! We are going to need it!

Help me understand....the Deer Hunter's Quiz

While a waterfowl hunter and sympathetic to hunter's rights, conservation, and habit protection for wildlife, I have always been perplexed by some of deer hunting practices I see each season. I just have a few questions to pose to some in the deer hunting population, who give the rest of us who hunt a bad name:

When hunting in a ditch beside a state road, who has the right of way if a deer presents itself on the other side of the road? In other words, does a passing car have to yield to your shot?

When driving during hunting season, is it best to keep the shot gun fully loaded or with just one chambered shell in case you see a deer on the side of the road?

What is the optimal number of beers to consume before legal shooting time?

Is it possible to hunt deer without a CB radio?

When trespassing on some one's land, does a bag limit apply? Since you really aren't there legally in the first place, do all the rules fly out the window?

What in the world is a "sound shot"?

Again, when trespassing and confronted by the land owner, are you ever concerned about ceding thought leadership for your hunting practices to your dog? When informed that a deer hunter is hunting posted land, the most common answer is "my dog can't read your signs". Well, your dog can't open its own bag of dog food either, but does he decide where you are going our for dinner on Saturday nights?

How many pickup trucks rushing to the spot of a sighted deer broadcast over the CB radio does in take to constitute a demolition derby?

Do earplugs help when shooting from the cab of your pickup?

Does a deer killed spotlighting at night count against your season limit?

I know most deer hunters are good and ethical hunters who respect the outdoors and follow the rules. I know many such deer hunters. However, the small minority of hunters who road hunt, who travel with their loaded shotguns in the rack in case they see a deer, and who rarely hunt without beer really make it tough on the rest of us. If the animal rights and suburbanites who think a goose is born with a bow around its neck ever outlaw hunting, we will know who we have to thank.

Whaddaya Think?

When George Bush declared the economy "pretty good", democrat Chuck Schumer made sure he came out with the retort that the president is out of touch with real people. If the sitting president were a democrat and made the same statement about the economy, would Chuckles have made the same comment?

How long will it be before every college and high school student has an iPhone or similar device?

Is there any doubt that our republic would be better off with term limits - for everyone, congress, state legislatures, local councils? Two terms for the House, one term for the Senate.

As we stand today, does anyone have any doubt that all members of congress have this priority list 1) Get re-elected 2) Support the party line, if it does not get in the way of getting re-elected 3) Get federal money for the district/state so they can get re-elected?

Since Iran has supposedly shut down its nuclear enrichment program, how long will it take before George Bush gets the media "high-five" for stopping this dangerous activity?

Two years ago the press was aghast about the lack of affordable housing. Now the housing market is correcting and home prices in many places have fallen. Guess what the press is? Aghast.

Okay, I admit it...I watch"The Hills"

So let's get the cat out of the bag early...MTV was pretty new when I was in college. I know there are many walking the planet today who cannot imagine life before MTV, but such was the reality once upon a time, and shockingly we muddled through. I started watching MTV in college, and like a lot of things in college, like drinking too much once in a while, it just sort of stuck. I am not sure there are too many people my age that still watch MTV, but I do on occasion. I realize from the advertisements on MTV that I am far removed from the target audience. I don't need acne medicine, I don't use TAG body spray, and thankfully it has been many years since I have had to wear a condom.

As I learned many years ago, nothing is ever totally worthless, because it can always serve as a bad example. Watching "The Hills" the past couple of years, like the slow motion train wreck that grabs your attention and won't let go, I have learned several things and recognized that bad examples abound on popular culture. I know that just because you are good looking doesn't mean you have anything of substance to offer anyone or to society at large. This applies to both males and females. I have learned that males on "The Hills", and possibly many males in LA, have a limited command of the English language. They rarely speak in complete sentences with subjects and predicates and they rarely convey thoughts beyond single word answers to posed questions. They also wear wool stocking caps in Southern California during the day time. Isn't part of the allure of Southern California the fact that you can leave your woolly caps in the closet year round? Maybe sweating heads is a fashion statement, maybe they simply forgot that they are wearing wool caps in 85 degree weather, or they forgot to take them off their heads 5 years ago when they arrived in LA from Northern New England. I have concluded that the male characters on "The Hills" must be dumber than the average dolphin...not intending to slight the intelligence of dolphins.

Therefore it is a complete mystery to me, why the girls on "The Hills" spend time with these guys. Okay some of the relationships I can figure out. For those who saw Forrest Gump...Stupid is and Stupid does. If there is any doubt that I can haul the mail with respect to my acumen of "The Hills" I am getting ready to blow that out of the water. I can understand why Audrina dates guys like Justin Bobby...any questions there? Justin, the fake hard-ass who probably couldn't throw a football past his shadow and likely has no clue what hand his baseball glove goes on as a righthander. Let's just make this clear, the only person I have seen on television dumber than Audrina is Justin. At first I liked Audrina, I thought she was good to Lauren after the Heidi debacle. However the way she let herself be completely manipulated by someone as obtuse as Justin is beyond comprehension. The most creative deflection he could think of when he got busted making out with the redhead in front of his pseudo girlfriend was "you just see what you want to see". What is he talking about? Uhhh, okay Justin, what is your plan-B to get out of this jam. Thankfully Audrina sent him packing back to the hair salon where he works. Next up? Jason. Why would someone cute, seemingly bright, and as genuine as one can be on "The Hills" waste their time chasing Jason? Lauren seems to have a lot going for her. She is an intern who drives a $ 60K car, so something must be going right for her. She wasted how many years chasing Jason, who mastered his lines of "Huh?" and "I don't know" better than anyone in television history. Does this make any sense? I thought Heidi was going to be a good character and seemed to be a good friend to Lauren, until she met Spencer, whereupon she dumped her entire life for a guy who wants to fill his dining room with arcade games. I am not sure Spencer is smart enough to play the arcade games however, since they sat unused in the dining room the entire season. He could have had his friends over to play them, or show them how they worked, but he has no friends....but he does have a beach house...or mommy and daddy have a beach house. Remember when Heidi stabbed her friend in the back to get promoted and then asked her to transfer all the contacts from her old cell phone to her new one? That was great. Oh, and didn't she quit on the next episode? The train wreck really was in slow motion then because most people would have quit on the spot. I do like Whitney, I think she is the best of the bunch. She seems very well grounded has never been played by the morons parading around as the male characters on the show. I think she is bright and is lone admirable character on the show.

So I am totally embarrassed that I watch this show. I thought the season finale was a dud. Couldn't Heidi have started balling for us instead of standing there with a quivering lip when Spencer walked out? I have also learned that I do not want my daughters to emulate anyone on the show (okay maybe Whitney) and if they bring home a doofuss like Justin, Jason, or Spencer expect him to sit outside by himself in the cold when we have dinner together. He will finally get to make use of his woolly stocking cap that way.

I Think it Comes Down to Trust, or Lack of it

I am not sure why the Dems are so enamored with raising taxes. They hope to get new taxes enacted ASAP by hoisting the populist message that their new taxes are only on "the rich".

There are several problems with this however for all of us. First, what is the hard definition of the mushy term "the rich"? Is this based on net worth? Is this based on W-2 earnings? What level is determined to be "rich" and who gets to decide? There have been proposed tax schemes in the past where rich has been defined as a household earning more than $ 200,000 per year, or $ 100,000 per year, or $ 78,000/ per year. Get the picture? Rich is a term that bends to meet the need of the argument for the specific tax increase. I can tell you that when raising a family of 3 kids, $ 100,000 and even $ 200,000 is not rich. It is a good foundation to support your family and gives you some options in education and lifestyle, but rich? Hardly.

The next problem is this; when has there been a tax, once enacted that went away, or shrank without tremendous angst and taxes hikes elsewhere so any reduction is revenue neutral? Answer, somewhere between never and rarely. The problems with increased taxes are obvious, the question I have is why, when the economic risks are so great, are the Dems willing to take these risks to increase the federal coffers?

I think it is because the Dems do not trust people and markets. They cannot fathom that the market, the aggregate of millions of people making independent decisions on a daily basis that will determine their daily state if not the long term outcome of their lives, can arrive at a state through the invisible hand that can be better than the heavy hand of government intervention. The Dems want a minimum of guaranteed success for everyone, no matter the individuals role in their own outcome. They do not trust democratic process nor capitalist free markets. Therefore, like a nosey mother who cannot cut the apron strings with her children, the Dems have to micro manage decisions for everyone, no matter how little people may want government meddling.

The Democrats have been called arrogant and elitist in their notion that they know better than the citizenry how to spend their assets produced through a lifetime of work. I think there may be an element of truth to this, but I think the larger driver is that they just do not trust the free market to allocate resources in the most efficient and just manner. This is where the democrats have left the building that our founding fathers created for all of us. They just don't trust markets and by extension they do not trust you and me and the decisions we make. The truth is that markets are "smarter" and more effective than any individual or group of leaders. If they could just learn to trust markets and trust those who exist in those markets, they might fare better at the ballot box and also leave a little more cash in the private sector...where it belongs.