Ten Years, More Or Less

It was roughly ten years ago.  I was down on my luck.  I'd just lost my job, laid-off from doing phone technical support for an outsourcing company which had, in turn, off-shored my job.  That's the way these things go.

Life had gotten in the way of school, so I had no degree (I wasn't really motivated to get one anyway), and no prospects.  So, feeling a great sense of shame and more than a little depressed, I packed up such belongings as I had and moved out to Clyde, TX where my parents lived.  Clyde, just outside of Abilene, is a vast metropolis of about 3000 souls.  Abilene is closer to a 'real' city, but the area was much more rural than my accustomed surroundings in the Dallas / Fort Worth Metroplex.

Thus I started looking for a job.  The prospects in Abilene weren't great, and I'm sure my moderate circumstantial depression didn't help.  It took quite a while, but eventually I landed a job at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Texas as a claims processor.  I started training in July.

It was in that class that I noticed two other people with whom I had anything in common.  One was a gamer (table-top RPGs) like me, the other was quiet, sardonic, and liked to read- like me.  The first was cute in a "sharp elbows" kind of way, the other in a more full-figured sort of way.  No, you're not getting measurement descriptions.  The first was single, the other married.  Not being stupid, I pursued the one who was single.

That didn't work out so well.  Oh, I'm virtually certain, even to this day, that she was interested, but I refuse to put up with the games most girls play, so it never went anywhere.  On the other hand, I was having fun (like real fun- we'd have conversations and make fun of our co-workers in the breakroom fun) with the other one.  I got her to read Mere Christianity.  I kicked her chair (the first time was just to get her attention as I said 'by' for evening, after that it was to see her jump.  Hey, she was married, and I was in denial.  Sue me.).

It was when she was going through divorce and announced that she was planning to go home to Michigan that I realized I didn't like that idea.  Part of that is because I think everyone should love Texas as much as I do, but part of it was that I realized I wouldn't like it if she left.  So I asked her to stay.

That was how we started dating.  On August 7, 2004, she made the incredible mistake of saying "I do," and signing a marriage license.  I'm not sure how I conned her so completely, but I'm glad every day that I did.

Happy anniversary, honey.

Aphrodite or My wife?

The Growing Police State: DC Cronyism Edition

Living in Texas, and not directly in an urban center, I have my own car.  I love having my own car.  I don't have to wait for a train or a bus; I don't have to call a cab.  I can go wherever I want (within reason) whenever I want (within reason).  That said, I love the concept of the Uber limousine/sedan service.

For those not familiar, Uber works essentially as a dispatcher clearinghouse.  Someone who wishes to use the service makes a request (through a smart-phone app, I believe), and Uber farms out that request to the on-call car service which can most expeditiously pick up the rider.  The service is more expensive than traditional cab service, but the convenience is greater.  It's also less costly than many on-call services.  So it tends to be a win-win for the rider and the driver.

That is, unless the driver is a taxi driver.  In the areas where Uber is most likely to operate, they represent competition to the taxi services.  Taxi companies understandably dislike the added competition.  In most cases there is little, if anything, they can do except knuckle-down and compete.  Most places are not Washington, D.C.

After a price-floor initiative was scuttled, largely because of some citizen involvement and activism to prevent the highly-corrupt DC City Council from enacting it, the Feudal Lords on the Council have not given up on protecting their Vassals in the taxi services.  Now, they have passed an ordinance that explicitly places Uber under the authority of the DC Taxicab Commission.  Included in the ordinance is an amendment to stay the order until January 1, but DC has officially placed one company at the mercy of its competitors.

That is not "regulation," it's extortion.  It's not "for the people" it's for politicians' pocketbooks.  And it is another example of what is wrong with the rampant Police State.

In a free society, where each person was responsible for him- or herself, such ordinances would never pass.  Everyone would understand that more competition is virtually always a good thing, and that government intervention should be rare and as limited as possible.  Instead, the people of DC, who must rely on Nanny Government for their very safety, since they are de facto not allowed to own guns, simply trust that Marion Barry has their best interests at heart.

I hold out little hope for DC.  Corruption clings to it like a barnacle, and no one seems to be willing to scrape the hull.  However, it is a stark reminder that we must keep our own city governments in check, and must prevent them from enacting similar commerce killing initiatives. 

"It Worked"

So the new labor numbers are out this morning, and they're quite indicative of the Miserable Failure in office.  The UE3 number (which is much more generous to the sitting president) was 8.3%- that's 42 straight months of official unemployment greater than 8%.  Hiring was up though, 163K "new" jobs added.  So that must mean the labor force expanded, yes?  No.  Labor force shrunk.  Manufacturing down.  Household (as opposed to "payroll") jobs down almost as much as payroll jobs were up.  And last month's new jobs number revised down.  GDP Growth was 1.5% in Q2.

But this is Barack Obama's definition of "it worked."

Well This is Interesting

I'm aware of confirmation bias, so I'm going to reserve judgment on the study itself, but I will say this just makes sense.  According to a recent study, Voter ID laws, by making vote fraud more difficult, actually protect the poor, minorities, and the elderly, rather than disenfranchising them.

And that makes sense.  If, as some claim, it's so hard for people to get a photo Id, then it stands to reason that those same people are more at risk of crime in general.  When you have a hard time interacting with the government, you'll have a hard time calling for help, or filing a police report, or even knowing if you've been a victim in some cases (for instance: identity theft).  The same would apply to vote fraud.

What this really shows, though, is that Democrats are not concerned with people being disenfranchised- if they were, they would support some form of voter Id.  It's not that they say Republicans' plans are flawed, rather they claim the laws are, by their very nature, discriminatory.  That is, they believe having to prove your identity to vote is something beyond the means of a significant portion of the population.

Now, I don't believe they really believe that, which brings us back to the study.  If it is correct, their motives are actually far more sinister.  Rather than caring about people being disenfranchised, they oppose the laws specifically because it will suppress the disenfranchisement that is the result of the voter fraud many of them are perpetrating.

Stop Hyperventilating

It is normal, after a tragedy or monstrous attack, to ask if it could have been prevented.  Invariably the answer is a qualified "yes."  Things could always have gone differently.  Tim McVeigh could have been in a horrible traffic accident while buying the supplies to make his bomb- thus preventing him from blowing up a Federal Building in Oklahoma.  One of the 9-11 attackers could have tripped and fallen on the way to the cockpit, giving the flight crews time to secure the door- preventing at least part of that monstrous attack. 

In some cases, the answer is a much less qualified, and more specific "yes."  The parents of the kids who committed the Columbine massacre could have payed attention to what their kids were doing, for instance.  Back to 9-11, we could have had a robust and efficient illegal immigration policy which would have deported most or all of the attackers when their Visas expired.

In the case of the Aurora, Colorado attack, that question is being asked.  Unfortunately, a lot of hand-wringing is occurring, even though the answer seems to be that more general, "well things could always have gone differently."  Specifically, much hay is being made of the fact that Mr. Holmes's psychiatrist referred him to the college's "Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team," as a potential threat.

The reporting seems to suggest that team somehow let the ball drop.  It is never explicitly stated, but the argument that they "should have done more" is either "just asked" in the headline, or insinuated through the reporting.  However, I'm a firm believer in the facts, and the facts don't bear that out at all.  Not the facts we currently have, at any rate.

Yes, his psychiatrist did, indeed, refer him to the BETA team.  Yes, she considered him a threat.  However, she had no specific information about any specific threat (or she should have called the police).  After she referred him to the BETA team, whose specific powers are unclear from current reporting, he dropped out of school.  At that point, with the possible exception of barring him from campus, the University of Colorado had no interest in Mr. Holmes, nor any authority to do anything to prevent any actions on his part.

This hand-wringing is stupid.  Worse, it is actually counter-productive.  You see, if there was some way to prevent this, then we have someone (other than the shooter) to blame.  If we have someone other than the shooter to blame, then all those people saying, "Hey, if someone had been allowed to carry a concealed handgun, things might have gone differently" can be safely ignored, because "the system broke."  Also, if someone is to blame (other than the shooter), we can safely ignore the question of Evil.

James Holmes is Evil.  He was a Ph.D. candidate, showing that he at least had the basic skills and judgment to succeed at life, generally.  He may also have had some psychological issues, but we're not talking someone in complete disconnect from reality, here.  James Holmes planned this attack very carefully.  He even, according to reports, set up a trap for the police to give him more time to kill innocent people.  James Holmes is Evil. 

Nothing was going to stop him from attempting this act.  No one had any authority to prevent any of the things he did- up until he started shooting at people- nor should they.  This question of if more could or should have been done is useless at best, and harmful at worst.

Just Kill It, Already Revisited

In my previous series of posts, 'Just Kill It, Already,' I exposed three of ObamaCare's "popular" provisions and explained why they needed to go.  Showing that they still don't get it, the New York Times has a piece from Monday, July 30th, breathlessly reporting about rebates that Insurance Companies are forced to pay if they spent less than 80% of collected premiums on reimbursements.  They mention, in passing, that this will cost the insurance industry $1.1 Billion.  Yep.  That's a 'B' on that word.

Now, I have several problems with this little nugget, and we'll address them, but first I need to address a problem I have with Americans in general, or, at least, with those interviewed for this story.  The problem is encapsulated in this paragraph:

"It almost looked like junk mail," said Ms. Harkenreader, a tax accountant in Mountain Top, Pa., who said she did not love the overall law but was pleased with the unexpected windfall.  "If this is part of Obamacare, I'm happy that somebody is finally coming down on the insurance companies and saying, 'Look, let's be fair here.'"

Fair, Ms. Harkenreader?  Fair?  You want fair, how about you pay 100% of your own medical bills?  I'm willing to bet your patient responsibility plus your premiums is far less than you would pay in normal medical treatment each year.  If you think what you're getting charged is so "unfair," look for a different insurance company.  If that still doesn't work, then stop buying insurance and pay it all yourself.  You'll learn really quickly what "fair" looks like.

Now, then, that said, let's look at the problems with this policy.

Insurance Companies Need That Money
The first and foremost problem with this policy is that the insurance companies were actually using that money.  They were paying employees, yes, but they were also developing new products and strategies.  Many of them were adding it to savings accounts so they could remain solvent if something catastrophic occurred where they didn't make money for some reason.

Remember, Insurance is about risk.  The Insurance companies are accepting the risk that you will get sick, or will be injured, or any number of things.  Act of God exclusions aside, if something catastrophic occurs, the Insurance companies will be out a great deal of money.  They save up for just such an occurrence.  That's something I'd think we'd all support, given what happened to the Mortgage companies not too many years ago.

It Punishes Their Success
Name another industry that has to give rebates to its customers for successfully shepherding their investments.  Seriously, that's what this amounts to.  Even worse than that, though, is this: virtually every insurance company in the United States now has some "wellness" program which provides resources and incentives for its subscribers to get healthy- from losing weight, to smoking cessation programs.  When these programs (which cost money) are successful, claims decrease.  This policy provides a disincentive for continuing such programs.

It Makes Insurance Companies The Enemy
By forcing the insurance companies to make these ill-advised (for the reasons above, among others) payments, it fosters exactly the sentiments of the Ms. Harkenreaders of the world.  The payments are not a nice thing they receive because they didn't use as much health care.  Rather, they are something the insurance company stole from you.

This kind of divisiveness is the hallmark of Liberalism.  Liberalism cannot survive when people realize that they are responsible for their own behavior and circumstances, and that no "evil corporation" is out to get them.  Fostering this distrust is in the best interest of Liberals, because it then leads to people asking for "more regulation" and more laws.

It Makes Employers The Enemy
Hidden within these rules is the fact that most of these checks won't go out to individuals.  They will, instead, be issued to the employers who actually pay for the insurance.  What those employers do with the money is then up to them.

This puts employers in a Catch-22.  They can't count on those premiums, so they can't issue raises.  If they try to divide the rebates, someone will always be mad because they think they didn't get their "fair share."  If they keep the money, they're an "evil corporation" that is just in it for "the profit."  In short, no matter who wins, the employer loses.

It Misses The Point
It's quite obvious that politicians don't understand health insurance.  I was in the industry for years, and I only just scratched the surface.  The fact is that insurance companies still have to be competitive, even with the restrictions imposed upon them by the US Congress.  These restrictions include, but are not limited to, the inability to sell across state lines, and various coverage mandates.

Despite this, insurance companies, especially those catering to businesses, have to remain highly competitive.  Any that do not will lose subscribers, and eventually go out of business, just like any other business which fails.  So when an insurance company charges a premium, that amount is calculated fairly precisely to do three things.  First, to help spread the risk associated with the policy so that all legitimate claims are covered.  Second, to pay administrative costs like facilities, utilities, and payroll.  Third, to reinvest in the company, either through new offering R&D or by saving against future claims.

This policy completely ignores the third part.  Without that money, though, new products don't come to market.  Health Savings Accounts were not an invention of Government; the Government took an idea Insurance Companies had created and proven to work, and modified it to work for Government (for a given value of "work.")  Those same wellness programs previously mentioned cost money, but provide no revenue.  Insurance companies have to have a hedge against disaster.  The policy completely ignores all of these things in pursuit of the kind of divisiveness that Liberals love.

Rebates from insurance companies are not something to rejoice over, but yet another symptom of the disease that is ObamaCare.

The Growing Police State: Do As We Say, Not As We Do Edition

We all see the trite commercials from the cell-phone industry warning us about the evils of texting and driving.  We're told that even reading a one word text will lead you to flip your car and die.  Yet, across the State of Texas, police seem to be ignoring this accepted wisdom.

In some places, this is worse than others.  A distracted-officer crash in Austin maimed a Louis Olivier.  In Tarrant county, a deputy rolled through a stop sign and injured the driver of the SUV with which he collided.  Tarrant county disciplined the officer; their policy about distracted driving is apparently one of the most strict in the State.

That brings us to my home town.  The City of Arlington, TX is apparently immune to these kinds of things, so says Mayor and SCOAMT-in-training, Robert Cluck.  Apparently the training that the Arlington PD receives is so good, it allows them to drive while composing the Great American Novel on their in-car computers.

That's ridiculous enough.  But then we get to the "Police State" part of this equation.  You see, the City of Arlington is the only one in Texas with an outright ban on texting and driving.  Many municipalities have bans on the practice under certain circumstances- especially in active school zones- but it is a blanket ban in Arlington.  Never mind that we already have laws against running your car into people or things, and we could punish people under those rules, no, we also needed an additional revenue stream from the tickets that could be issued.

Yet Arlington Police Officers, while on duty, are exempt from this ban to the extent that they can even type on their dash-mounted computers while driving.  You'll excuse me if I think that's a bigger distraction than merely texting while driving.  Mayor Cluck displayed an incredible sense of "it could never happen here," when he said to the NBC investigation staff, "I just think our officers are above the fray there."

Even without my cynical hat on, that seems really stupid to me.  With my cynical hat on, it sounds exactly like something a petty tyrant would say in defense of one of his fiefdoms.  You see, whether they will admit it or not, the discrepancy in the rules here is one designed to signify status.  It sets the Rulers apart from the Subjects.  The mere peasants who pay the salaries of the city employees, including the Mayor and Police Officers, are assumed to be 'lesser,' in some way.  We are not capable of texting and driving safely. 

Oh, but the Police Officers, well, they're Picked Men.  They're positively superheroes capable of great feats of concurrent multitasking.  Merely completing fairly complex paperwork on a dash-mounted laptop which requires you to look off to the side instead of straight ahead while driving is positively menial.  They could do that, compose the Great American Novel, send cell-phone text messages, and drive safely all at the same time.  Or something.

This hypocrisy is the hallmark of the Police State.  It says that those who enforce the law are not subject to it.  If they are not subject to it, they are not the same as those who are.  There's a name for a social order where one class makes the rules for another to obey, we call it Feudalism (if we're being nice) or Tyranny (if we're not).  Either system says that one class of Men is superior to all others, and is owed fealty and obeisance.  Neither system is compatible with Freedom.