Remember in junior high when you had these cliques? The jocks, the band geeks, the popular girls, the smart kids, the skaters, comic book and dungeons and dragons guys, chess club, etc.? When you were 12, it sure seemed like you needed to belong to one of these cliques in order to fit in, somehow to fit in.
I think internet forums are kind of like junior high cliques for grown-ups. But as adults, it's a little different. I mean, you may find that you suddenly have a common interest with some other people and then you stumble upon this congregation on the internet in some forum, and there is a lot of benefit to joining it at first.
Let's say you buy a widget. You spend months researching widgets, select your widget, and then you buy one. Now you are not exactly sure how to get the most out of your widget. Maybe you need to install some applications on your widget. Maybe you want to use your widget for some specific use that is not well-documented. Maybe you are going to accessorize or upgrade it or you just can't figure out how to use it. Then you find the widget-talk forum on the internet! Wow! Suddenly there's this giant community of helpful widget experts, users of all kinds of needs and experiences, mobile widget users, home widget users, multiple-widget users, you name it. And they are all to ready to help you with your widget and accept you into the fold.
This seems all sunny and fine at first. Maybe eventually you figure out the things you wanted to know about your widget and then you just lose interest in the forum. I think this is typical, and probably 80% or more of the subscribers to most internet forums are these kind of transient users. They sign up, gather information from the collective for a while (maybe a year), then just drift off. Or maybe for some reason you find that the widget guys are just not really your kind of people. You don't want to go to widgetfest every month, you don't have a widget tattoo, you actually do things with your life other than spend it fooling with your widget, so you are not compatible with the widget clique and you move on. I think there are some percentage that wind up this way too. But then there's the rest.
The die-hards. Maybe 10%. Those people who have been on widget-talk for a decade. They always chime in with the answers. They seemingly welcome the newbies with open arms. They have all the answers. They are a little creepy.
Maybe all of the sudden you find that since you are not a perfect fit for the widget clique, you begin to feel the heat to either move on or conform. "Why are you even on this forum, if you don't love the widget like we do?"
I have seen this behavior on dozens of forums. I have been, at times, a member of multiple bicycling forums (local, international, road bikes, mountain bikes, single-speeds, bicycle mechanics...), musician forums (guitarists, Christian guitarists, recording engineers & producers, guitar brand-loyalty, etc.), engineering type stuff (guitar amp builders, analog circuit engineers, etc.), audio equipment forums (vinyl/LPs & turntables, tube amp guys, speaker builders, home theater guys, etc.), gun forums (local gun owners, CHL and concealed-carry forums, rimfire gun owners, air guns, brand-loyalty forums), political forums, you name it. They all wind up the same way.
At some point, I begin to see that it really is a clique, and there is a latent hostility towards those who don't conform, either automatically or willfully. Yeah they will tolerate your nonconformity for a while, some kind of assimilation period. But there is a time when you are just not exactly overtly welcome anymore. I don't know why they do this, but I think they all do. One forum I joined, this was almost immediate. It took about three days before I was emailing the admin about how to delete my account forever. Another forum, I have been on for about 1.5 years and it is just now coming to this point.
There is one internet mailing list (remember those? before the days of forums) that has not ended up in this state for me. It has some uniqueness. I think the main thing is that it is not publicly advertised. If you know about it, it's because you were explicitly invited. I think this winds up that everyone is kind of preselected for their chances of conforming to the clique. So you don't end up with anyone who doesn't fit in right away, and this keeps the peace. There are newbies to the list, but not newbies to the widget lifestyle, so to speak.
So maybe I should swear off of forums forever.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Exercising our freedom of ... ?
A New Hampshire man attended one of the Obama rallies pumping his health care plan while open-carrying a pistol, which is perfectly legal in New Hampshire. Chris Matthews saw fit to try and frame the man as a dangerous extremist in his Hardball interview, which you can check out on Youtube.
The implication in this interview is that by carrying a gun, the man is making a threat to the President. Oh, how far have we fallen.
We all knew that many Democrats are not fans of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I think a large number of people likely vote for Democrats because of this effective opposition to the clear application of the 2nd Amendment. But now we are finding that the President's party is opposed to the almighty First Amendment. We can't peaceably assemble and air our grievances, seek redress. We can't freely speak, especially if part of that speech is symbolic as much as open-carrying a firearm to a rally. We are intentionally trampling the 9th and 10th Amendments by the very nature of Obamacare to begin with. We are regularly subjected to excessive search and seizure of our property and persons (how is the gov't going to make choices about our healthcare without our tacit submission to searching of the finest details of our persons?). So much for the 4th Amendment. What is to be left of our rights? How long will it be until we are being asked to quarter soldiers?
Too bad my own state violates my 2nd Amendment right by making it illegal for me to make the same political statement as this man has made. The signal that we need to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights is the very fact that they are trying to take them away. Certainly we require the 2nd Amendment to enforce the first.
The implication in this interview is that by carrying a gun, the man is making a threat to the President. Oh, how far have we fallen.
We all knew that many Democrats are not fans of the 2nd Amendment. In fact, I think a large number of people likely vote for Democrats because of this effective opposition to the clear application of the 2nd Amendment. But now we are finding that the President's party is opposed to the almighty First Amendment. We can't peaceably assemble and air our grievances, seek redress. We can't freely speak, especially if part of that speech is symbolic as much as open-carrying a firearm to a rally. We are intentionally trampling the 9th and 10th Amendments by the very nature of Obamacare to begin with. We are regularly subjected to excessive search and seizure of our property and persons (how is the gov't going to make choices about our healthcare without our tacit submission to searching of the finest details of our persons?). So much for the 4th Amendment. What is to be left of our rights? How long will it be until we are being asked to quarter soldiers?
Too bad my own state violates my 2nd Amendment right by making it illegal for me to make the same political statement as this man has made. The signal that we need to exercise our 2nd Amendment rights is the very fact that they are trying to take them away. Certainly we require the 2nd Amendment to enforce the first.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Health Care Reform
This is the political cause of the day. Some people ask me if I support the current plan for reform, or not. Of course the answer is complicated. In a simple single-statement answer, you allow people to be misled.
First of all, it's not health care that is at issue. NOBODY in America is being denied health care. NONE. Those who claim that some do not have "access" to "health care" what they mean is that they don't have access to my money to pay for their health care. In other words, if people have to pay for it themselves, then they say they are being denied access to it. What's next? Are there millions of people being "denied access" to luxury cars? Homes? HDTVs? A pool in their backyard? What other things do we say the government has to pay for in order for it to be "accessible"?
So then once we've redefined these terms correctly, then the question is not "do you support health care reform", but instead it is "do you support using tax money to provide universal health insurance".
And the answer to that question is "absolutely not".
But, I think that there is one or two simple things that could be changed about the "health care system" (the means by which we buy, pay for, and utilize health insurance and health services) that would dramatically and permanently reduce costs, improve quality of service, and require absolutely no taxpayer spending.
Are you ready?
Step 1. End employer-paid health insurance once and for all. No more employer-paid health insurance. The employer can select group coverage, identify the provider, negotiate the policy, and do whatever they want to make health insurance available to their employees, but the actual purchase of health insurance has to be made by the insured, and not the employer.
On the same note, it should be illegal for an employer to pay employees any extra if and only if they choose to spend that money on health insurance. So if you elect to not buy the health insurance that your employer has elected for you, then your compensation is not changed. You are paid money for your service to the employer, and the employer can make a health insurance policy available to you that you can pay for out of your regular salary or not.
Of course employers who would like to provide health insurance as a benefit to their employees will simply have to pay them enough to cover their selected insurance benefit. But it should not be dependent on whether the employee elects to buy the insurance.
So let's say that you work for MegaCorp and they currently provide you with a comprehensive health benefits package for you and your family that costs this employer $1,000 per month for you and your family. And just for round numbers, let's say that you earn a $60,000 annual salary. So in all, they are giving you $72,000 in total compensation. $60,000 in cash, and $12,000 in health insurance benefits. Under my new plan, they just pay you the $72,000 and you can decide whether the insurance is worth $1,000 per month for you. I bet many people will decide it's not worth it.
Step 2: Individuals can elect to join insured groups that are not affiliated with their employer. So an insurance provider can, for example, create a "group" that will be much like a group insurance policy from a company, which you are free to join without being a part of the company. They can market this group insurance directly to the individuals. Think of it like buying a mutual fund. I beleive that completing step 1 and 2 will basically eliminate employer-provided health insurance on the whole.
Step 3: Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. This should be covered as interstate commerce, and the state boards of insurance should be abolished. So for example, let's say that currently the state I live in requires all health insurance policies to provide coverage for maternity, fertility treatment, and birth control. But in another state, they have no such requirement. Well since my wife has had a hysterectomy already we have absolutely no need for any of these coverages, so there is no reason we should have to buy them. So I should be able to buy the policy from another state's provider, allowing me to select the insurance that best fits my needs.
These three steps would basically eliminate this huge, burdensome cost of health insurance as we know it. Insurance companies would be compelled to offer product offerings that meet the needs of individuals and respond to the true demand, which is for a lower-cost option, more in line with the actual cost and risk absorption. I predict that there would be far more available offerings for major medical insurance policies that cost under $100/month and people will by and large decide that prescription drugs and routine preventative care, office visits, etc. are not worth insuring.
Just to make this a bit more personal let's look at my situation. I have two teenage kids and my wife and I are both in our late 30s, healthy, and we are done having kids. So on average, one of us may go to the doctor about once every 3-6 months. We may have a major medical event once every 5 years (one of us needs surgery, emergency treatment, etc.) that would cost, say, $25,000 to treat. And one of us takes prescription allergy meds that probably run about a dollar a day retail. So over the course of 5 years, we have about $30,000 in expected expenses. Why should I pay $1,400/month (my current employer-sponsored insurance premium) to cover what would only cost us $500/month to pay out of pocket? And the odds are that we won't have to spend that $25K on a surgery once every 5 years. But there is some small chance we might have to pay $1M over the life of the policy for some major thing. Comparing this to car insurance, there is some risk that I am going to cause a wreck with my car that is going to wind up costing $1M in expenditures (lawsuit, medical bills, property damage) so I pay $100/month for insurance against this eventuality. But I pay for the routine maintenance of my car myself, I don't expect my insurance to cover gas, tires, oil changes, etc. So why is health insurance any different?
There is no reason that a $100/month policy would not adequately cover the $1M eventuality, while allowing me to just pay for routine Dr. visits and prescription drugs out of my pocket would be perfectly acceptable. It would cost everyone far less and would not change my health benefits one bit. Taking the middle man out of the equation (the insurance company) for most routine transaction can only result in lower costs.
Why doesn't someone propose this kind of reform?
First of all, it's not health care that is at issue. NOBODY in America is being denied health care. NONE. Those who claim that some do not have "access" to "health care" what they mean is that they don't have access to my money to pay for their health care. In other words, if people have to pay for it themselves, then they say they are being denied access to it. What's next? Are there millions of people being "denied access" to luxury cars? Homes? HDTVs? A pool in their backyard? What other things do we say the government has to pay for in order for it to be "accessible"?
So then once we've redefined these terms correctly, then the question is not "do you support health care reform", but instead it is "do you support using tax money to provide universal health insurance".
And the answer to that question is "absolutely not".
But, I think that there is one or two simple things that could be changed about the "health care system" (the means by which we buy, pay for, and utilize health insurance and health services) that would dramatically and permanently reduce costs, improve quality of service, and require absolutely no taxpayer spending.
Are you ready?
Step 1. End employer-paid health insurance once and for all. No more employer-paid health insurance. The employer can select group coverage, identify the provider, negotiate the policy, and do whatever they want to make health insurance available to their employees, but the actual purchase of health insurance has to be made by the insured, and not the employer.
On the same note, it should be illegal for an employer to pay employees any extra if and only if they choose to spend that money on health insurance. So if you elect to not buy the health insurance that your employer has elected for you, then your compensation is not changed. You are paid money for your service to the employer, and the employer can make a health insurance policy available to you that you can pay for out of your regular salary or not.
Of course employers who would like to provide health insurance as a benefit to their employees will simply have to pay them enough to cover their selected insurance benefit. But it should not be dependent on whether the employee elects to buy the insurance.
So let's say that you work for MegaCorp and they currently provide you with a comprehensive health benefits package for you and your family that costs this employer $1,000 per month for you and your family. And just for round numbers, let's say that you earn a $60,000 annual salary. So in all, they are giving you $72,000 in total compensation. $60,000 in cash, and $12,000 in health insurance benefits. Under my new plan, they just pay you the $72,000 and you can decide whether the insurance is worth $1,000 per month for you. I bet many people will decide it's not worth it.
Step 2: Individuals can elect to join insured groups that are not affiliated with their employer. So an insurance provider can, for example, create a "group" that will be much like a group insurance policy from a company, which you are free to join without being a part of the company. They can market this group insurance directly to the individuals. Think of it like buying a mutual fund. I beleive that completing step 1 and 2 will basically eliminate employer-provided health insurance on the whole.
Step 3: Allow people to buy health insurance across state lines. This should be covered as interstate commerce, and the state boards of insurance should be abolished. So for example, let's say that currently the state I live in requires all health insurance policies to provide coverage for maternity, fertility treatment, and birth control. But in another state, they have no such requirement. Well since my wife has had a hysterectomy already we have absolutely no need for any of these coverages, so there is no reason we should have to buy them. So I should be able to buy the policy from another state's provider, allowing me to select the insurance that best fits my needs.
These three steps would basically eliminate this huge, burdensome cost of health insurance as we know it. Insurance companies would be compelled to offer product offerings that meet the needs of individuals and respond to the true demand, which is for a lower-cost option, more in line with the actual cost and risk absorption. I predict that there would be far more available offerings for major medical insurance policies that cost under $100/month and people will by and large decide that prescription drugs and routine preventative care, office visits, etc. are not worth insuring.
Just to make this a bit more personal let's look at my situation. I have two teenage kids and my wife and I are both in our late 30s, healthy, and we are done having kids. So on average, one of us may go to the doctor about once every 3-6 months. We may have a major medical event once every 5 years (one of us needs surgery, emergency treatment, etc.) that would cost, say, $25,000 to treat. And one of us takes prescription allergy meds that probably run about a dollar a day retail. So over the course of 5 years, we have about $30,000 in expected expenses. Why should I pay $1,400/month (my current employer-sponsored insurance premium) to cover what would only cost us $500/month to pay out of pocket? And the odds are that we won't have to spend that $25K on a surgery once every 5 years. But there is some small chance we might have to pay $1M over the life of the policy for some major thing. Comparing this to car insurance, there is some risk that I am going to cause a wreck with my car that is going to wind up costing $1M in expenditures (lawsuit, medical bills, property damage) so I pay $100/month for insurance against this eventuality. But I pay for the routine maintenance of my car myself, I don't expect my insurance to cover gas, tires, oil changes, etc. So why is health insurance any different?
There is no reason that a $100/month policy would not adequately cover the $1M eventuality, while allowing me to just pay for routine Dr. visits and prescription drugs out of my pocket would be perfectly acceptable. It would cost everyone far less and would not change my health benefits one bit. Taking the middle man out of the equation (the insurance company) for most routine transaction can only result in lower costs.
Why doesn't someone propose this kind of reform?
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Long Time, No Post
This has been an insane weird long season in my life, and I think I can sense a transition in my life, maybe such that I can blog regularly again.
I guess I don't know what in the heck to do with this blog. It makes sense to post about things that interest me, and they are not exactly linear or easily put into a box. This blog is like my anonymous soap box. The anonymity may allow me to say things that might be un-PC or subject me to extra scrutiny, so you know, there is a real value to this, for me. Maybe some of it is entertaining for you
I guess I don't know what in the heck to do with this blog. It makes sense to post about things that interest me, and they are not exactly linear or easily put into a box. This blog is like my anonymous soap box. The anonymity may allow me to say things that might be un-PC or subject me to extra scrutiny, so you know, there is a real value to this, for me. Maybe some of it is entertaining for you
- Faith, Spirituality, Worship, and other issues related to being a follower of Christ. Lately, there have been a lot of things about this that I'd like to talk about, but openly in my group of friends, pastors, etc., is not going to work.
- Politics, especially as it applies to liberty, the Constitution, and those types of things.
- Music, equipment, guitars, guitar instruction, music theory, recording, etc. These are things that interest me, along with some trends in the music business.
- My other hobbies and interests, which include bicycling & mountain biking, guns, movies & TV shows, etc.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Get a clue
I don't understand how so many people cannot get it.
I recently found myself looking for a job and the CHL crowd in TX are all about "don't go to work at a place that tramples on your rights!!". Right. That's just like saying "don't go to work in the high tech industry". Plus it's not exactly a great idea in the job interview to come out and say, "hey, by the way, what's your policy on carrying guns at work?"
Turns out I got a good job after being laid off without any lapse in income. That's a very good thing in this day and time. My last job had a no-firearms policy, and so does the new job.
Here's where I say 'get a clue'.
It seems like any 4-year-old can understand that criminals intent on doing harm to other people are not going to concern themselves with the company policy if they want to bring in a gun. So by making a rule that employees are not allowed to carry a gun at work, you are making a rule that only those bent on doing harm with a gun are going to carry a gun to work. I mean, when some disgruntled employee comes in and shoots up their coworkers, my guess is not that they are thinking, "hey, if I bring this gun into the office, I might lose my job."
This is, of course, complete common sense.
The other side of the argument is "well, less guns has to be more safe". Yeah right. That's based on the assumption that the presence of a gun is dependent on the presence of intent to commit a crime, or negligence, etc. Which gets me back to the first argument... those with the intent do commit a crime are not going to care about the rules. And around and around we go.
So I wish these employers would just get a clue. Actually I wish the state legislature would get a clue, and make it illegal for an employer to fire someone because they lawfully carried a gun.
Since I find myself in this predicament, and not wanting to lose my job, I have concluded that my workplace is likely not high-risk so I will be leaving the gun in the car. Since their ambiguous policy refers to the company's "property" they presumably mean the parking lot as well. This is a big office complex with shared parking with other businesses, so who knows whether parking far away in front of another tenant's space is going to do any good, but I park there anyway. Then I go through this ritual. I park the car and remove the gun from the holster, put it in my bag. I walk around to the back of the car and open the trunk, lock the gun in the trunk, then proceed the 1/8 mile walk to my office sporting an empty holster. I don't remove the holster since I probably will re-arm at lunch and when heading home and frankly, it's a pain to put it on and off. The other reasonable option is just to leave the gun at home.
What a pain. Foolishness. These are professionals. Why do we have to be treated like children? Man up, legislators.
I recently found myself looking for a job and the CHL crowd in TX are all about "don't go to work at a place that tramples on your rights!!". Right. That's just like saying "don't go to work in the high tech industry". Plus it's not exactly a great idea in the job interview to come out and say, "hey, by the way, what's your policy on carrying guns at work?"
Turns out I got a good job after being laid off without any lapse in income. That's a very good thing in this day and time. My last job had a no-firearms policy, and so does the new job.
Here's where I say 'get a clue'.
It seems like any 4-year-old can understand that criminals intent on doing harm to other people are not going to concern themselves with the company policy if they want to bring in a gun. So by making a rule that employees are not allowed to carry a gun at work, you are making a rule that only those bent on doing harm with a gun are going to carry a gun to work. I mean, when some disgruntled employee comes in and shoots up their coworkers, my guess is not that they are thinking, "hey, if I bring this gun into the office, I might lose my job."
This is, of course, complete common sense.
The other side of the argument is "well, less guns has to be more safe". Yeah right. That's based on the assumption that the presence of a gun is dependent on the presence of intent to commit a crime, or negligence, etc. Which gets me back to the first argument... those with the intent do commit a crime are not going to care about the rules. And around and around we go.
So I wish these employers would just get a clue. Actually I wish the state legislature would get a clue, and make it illegal for an employer to fire someone because they lawfully carried a gun.
Since I find myself in this predicament, and not wanting to lose my job, I have concluded that my workplace is likely not high-risk so I will be leaving the gun in the car. Since their ambiguous policy refers to the company's "property" they presumably mean the parking lot as well. This is a big office complex with shared parking with other businesses, so who knows whether parking far away in front of another tenant's space is going to do any good, but I park there anyway. Then I go through this ritual. I park the car and remove the gun from the holster, put it in my bag. I walk around to the back of the car and open the trunk, lock the gun in the trunk, then proceed the 1/8 mile walk to my office sporting an empty holster. I don't remove the holster since I probably will re-arm at lunch and when heading home and frankly, it's a pain to put it on and off. The other reasonable option is just to leave the gun at home.
What a pain. Foolishness. These are professionals. Why do we have to be treated like children? Man up, legislators.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Rifle Ramblings
I bought a Marlin 795SS .22LR rifle on Saturday and went out shooting on Sunday. That thing is a blast to shoot. It is super accurate even shooting off-hand with open sights, didn't fail to feed or eject a single round the whole day, and was just loads of fun. Maybe for Christmas, I will buy myself a scope for it. I am super pleased with my choice here.
Also, while talking with the owner of the land where I go shoot, it came out that I had an air rifle. He seemed very interested in it, and I he was talking about taking it on a deer hunt. He said that quail come and sit only 10-20 yards from the deer stand while they are sitting there waiting for a deer to show up, and he wanted something to take the quail that would not be loud enough to scare them off, was accurate, and allowed multiple shots in succession. Sounds like a job for the 1077. So he will be off tomorrow for the hunt with my loaner 1077 in tow. He was convinced he needed to just go buy one ASAP. I figure he'll get one after he gets back if it works out for the quail. I know that with the red dot I could make head shots at quail at 15 yards and certainly the 1077 will kill them with head shots. It's quiet enough, and allows reasonably quick follow-up shots so you can shoot multiple quail sort of "at once". Novel idea. Here's a case where a more powerful or well-accepted single-shot air rifle would not get the job done.
Also, while talking with the owner of the land where I go shoot, it came out that I had an air rifle. He seemed very interested in it, and I he was talking about taking it on a deer hunt. He said that quail come and sit only 10-20 yards from the deer stand while they are sitting there waiting for a deer to show up, and he wanted something to take the quail that would not be loud enough to scare them off, was accurate, and allowed multiple shots in succession. Sounds like a job for the 1077. So he will be off tomorrow for the hunt with my loaner 1077 in tow. He was convinced he needed to just go buy one ASAP. I figure he'll get one after he gets back if it works out for the quail. I know that with the red dot I could make head shots at quail at 15 yards and certainly the 1077 will kill them with head shots. It's quiet enough, and allows reasonably quick follow-up shots so you can shoot multiple quail sort of "at once". Novel idea. Here's a case where a more powerful or well-accepted single-shot air rifle would not get the job done.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Uh-Oh-Bama
I think we, as a society, as a population of Americans, collectively failed.
We failed to be qualified to vote.
Sure, most of those of us who voted were legally qualified to vote, but we were intellectually unqualified.
Don't believe me? See this web site, and watch the video.
If most people are idiots, then the result of Democracy is that the country is run by idiots.
We failed to be qualified to vote.
Sure, most of those of us who voted were legally qualified to vote, but we were intellectually unqualified.
Don't believe me? See this web site, and watch the video.
If most people are idiots, then the result of Democracy is that the country is run by idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)