Hecticity

Well, one month and no posts. Has a lot happened? Yes, and No. Mostly more of the same. Presented in an lecture format.

What's the same

1. Family--Went to my Great Aunt's for Thanksgiving this year, which was where the rest of my family showed up, as well. They are all the same.
2. Useless--Is still a hambone.
3. Blog Project mentioned in previous post--Still in a developmental phase.

What's Different

1. Work--The holidays are upon us, and I am working my ass off to accomodate grooming everybody and their mother's dog. This is also the time of year that you see the worst-kept dogs that are in abysmally bad shape. The joke around the salon is that when Christmas roles around, people open up their closets to set up the decorations only to find that they own a dog and think, "Maybe I should feed him and get him fixed up." After family leaves for the holiday, the dog goes back into the closet for another lonely year of non-existence.
2. Finances--I have gotten used to extraordinarily large paychecks because of the overtime being granted to us at work and the incredible number of dogs coming in to be groomed. I haz cash. Maybe I should pay a bill or two.
3. Personal life--It's an age-old tale, told by our past generations: Boy goes to get dog groomed. Boy meets groomer. Groomer adds boy on facebook. Boy accepts friend add. Boy and groomer begin talking. Boy and groomer begin dating. After a night of partying, boy and groomer go to Visions (a female strip club) and become Official. To rephrase in a less storybook manner: I now have a boyfriend.

In summation

1. Life is good.
2. Life is really good.
3. I'm doing fantastic, and my lack of blogging is more of a function of less happening with me than stuff happening and me not wanting to blog about it.

Have a great day and see you next class!

Projections

So, I ditched my attempt at NaNoWriMo once again. I think I got to about 12,000 words before I backed out entirely. That's twice as well as I did two years ago. I figure another 16 years or so, and I might just be able to finish. This is the busy season at work, and by the time I get home, I just don't feel like doing anything creative. C'est la vie.

However, I am working on developing a project that will begin next year. I'm planning on starting a different blog that relates entirely to the Little Rock Planning Department, and issues related to zoning, planning, and land usage in and around Little Rock. The plan (partially) is to include overviews of proposed zoning changes, effects of increased land usage, observations on trends with building permits and such, and every so often a more scholarly look at zoning, hopefully with primary source interviews.

I'm drafting out the architecture on paper. And I have to do some research related to finding out when Planning Commission meetings take place and procedural and parliamentary rules, specifically for Little Rock. I may even attend a meeting or two or three. I've been to them in the past, and you'd be amazed at how riled up people get in relation to zoning.

So, there you have it. I'm planning on starting this at the beginning of next year, since Little Rock's fiscal year starts in January. Makes for an even-footing in relation to reporting.

Ideas are welcome on how I can make this very didactic topic more accessible for the mainstream public.

Dick Morris is Bad for America

I'm linking this to a blog under the purview of Dick Morris. While I would appreciate his website not getting footprints, I thought it prudent to include Primary Sources (since Morris obviously doesn't). You can trust that I will reproduce the pertinent parts of his blog entry here in complete form with appropriate commentary.

The general outline of the article is that the attacks at Ft. Hood were a terrorist attack. From there, he goes on to denigrate President Obama for not calling the act a terrorist act. He warns that ignoring terrorist attacks such as these will lead to a future 9/11, the same way that Clinton ignoring attacks on the World Trade Center led to 9/11.

Firstly, while I do not wish to belittle the tragic loss of life that occurred at Ft. Hood, I take issue with calling it a 'terrorist act.' As Morris stated, "In fact, the Ft. Hood shooting is the first terror attack on American soil since 9-11." Terrorism, by definition, implies a criminal act of sufficient magnitude to inspire fear in a sizable percentage of the population. And I will not take issue with saying that a decent percentage of Americans felt some form of over-generalized, irrational fear because of this act.

However, calling it a terrorist act implies that Hasan had larger aims than simply killing Americans. From the reports I've read relating to the attack, it seems that something in Hasan's head just snapped. I don't think he's in his right mind. I don't think he knows what he did that day. But it's useless to speculate because he's comatose, and we've found no direct evidence to indicate his motives. So speculation is useless on my part, and on Dick Morris'.

Morris' entire basis for a motive exhists in the phrase Hasan uttered before opening fire, "Alla-hu Akbar." Translated, it means something equivalent to "Allah is the Greatest." This certainly clarifies Hasan as a Muslim and that perhaps this act was done in the name of Allah, but in this article, he doesn't make a distinction between a Muslim killing in the name of God and a Christian killing in the name of God.

He is, however, making a distinction between this attack and other attacks that have injured numerous people. "[Obama] is doing everything he can to make it look like an adult version of the Columbine school shootings," Morris states because Obama referred to the attack as act “of violence.” Morris goes on to say, "This attack did not take place in a shopping mall or a school, where security procedures are, understandably, relaxed," implying that attacks on shopping malls, homes, offices and bars are not terroristic in nature. Maybe Morris just forgets that Puerto Rico is a part of US soil. Republicans usually do.

And Morris obviously doesn't consider the case of Linh Voong, who killed 14 people a terrorist act. After all, I'm sure Morris would point out that Voong wasn't a Muslim. Obama also called that attack an act of "senseless violence."

Herein lies part of Morris' problem, he is quick to label this attack as 'terrorist' without further knowledge, and thus, perpetuates the idea that this is terrorism, thereby causing more terror.

The real shame comes later in his article: "There may be no groups behind Major Hasan’s attack, but the fact that he was an officer in the Army, with full access to a military base and its arsenal of weapons, while holding the views he did, is the first indication of a laxity in security under President Obama [emphasis mine]."

Firstly, Hasan did not use military weapons, so this should not be an issue. Secondly, as a habit, men in uniform don't walk around base with weapons. After all, it's their home. Only Military Police have active weapons, just like cops on the street do. Thirdly, had Hasan desired access to military weapons, he would have to go to the armory to get them issued; he didn't because he knew the Armorers wouldn't just hand over a gun to him. Fourthly, 'full access' is most likely not granted to a Major that is a psychiatrist. They have less needs for guns. Lastly, Hasan DIDN'T USE A MILITARY-ISSUED WEAPON!!!! He used a gun (with cop-killer bullets) that he purchased legally at a Texas gun shop. If there's any laxity here, it's in our nation's gun laws.

The latter part of Morris' statement is along the lines of something said on "Fox and Friends" the day after the shooting. Gretchen Carlson suggested that "political correctness" was the reason behind the attacks because the military did not investigate Hasan because he was a Muslim, implying that the military should investigate Muslims serving in order to guarantee that they don't have radical views. They do have these investigations: I believe it happens during Army entrance exams and regular performance reviews to determine if you have the mental fortitude to handle being in the military.

I think, however, that Morris wants to go a step further: From the tone of his article, he wants to investigate all Muslims serving in the military through invasion of privacy and rescinding the proviso that, in America, you are innocent until proven guilty.

Morris: "That the military failed to spot the possibility of an attack and had no measures in place to prevent it must be laid at the feet of the commander-in-chief of that military: President Barack Obama." This ignores the fact that Obama has made no changes to military security procedures in his tenure, since largely that's left up to the military bureacracy. Obama doesn't really have much of a say in the bureacratic methods of the military....just the engagement of troops.

However, we cannot enact "measures" that invade the privacy of individuals, even within the military in the name of prevention of terrorism. The only thing worse than a military with a few tortured souls in it, is a military afraid to have opinions and individual thought for fear of retribution by the anti-terrorist wing of America.

This attack was NOT terrorism. It was the equivalent of a deranged employee going to work and massacering his co-workers. Sad? Yes. Regretable? Yes. Terrorism? No.

EDIT: I make one caveat to my claim that this attack was "not terrorism." It is possible that future information may be made available that indicates that this was an act of terrorism. However, as of today, with no political motive made apparent, it is useless for Morris or me to conjecture. However, even if this was an act of terrorism, it would not be a decree to invade civil liberties involving freedom of thought for military personnel. I don't know how Morris could honestly think this could have been prevented without violating the civil liberties of Hasan. This lends me to think that this is merely another rhetorical strategy he is employing to denigrate Obama.

Mother? May I NaNoWriMo?

I'm in a writing mood, and it's a good thing, too, because about two and a half hours ago, I decided to participate in NaNoWriMo for the first time since a failed and dismal attempt three years ago. While my previous story was basically going to be an allegory for the journey through Core I in the UCA Honors College (I was a PA at the time, so it seemed appropriate), this one is a little bit more realistic fiction. No fantasy shit going on.

Actually, after today, I really have no idea where this story is going to go. I had a really good run tonight: Got all the way to 1675 words, which is respectably above the 1667 words I need to write daily to make it to the 50,000 word requirement by the end of November.

My problem as it stands: I'm apparently writing a very serialized version of a story. For instance, the segment I wrote tonight begins and ends. It ends on a question mark, but it still ends. The 1,667 words I have so far can stand by themselves. I'm fairly certain that tomorrow when I pick up writing some more, I'll end up writing another compartmentalized story that can stand by itself. And so forth and so on ad thirty dayseum. Maybe these stories will intersect. I hope so. Maybe these stories will only have passing references to each other. I don't know. I'll let you know twenty-nine days from now.

Charles Dickens, eat your JJ Abrams heart out.

Football and Friends, or as I prefer, Pigs and People

This week, I had the exciting pleasure of reliving old days, both from high school and college.

Friday night, my manager graciously allowed me to leave work a few hours early to attend a high school football game as played by my alma mater against Pulaski-Robinson. One of the advantages of living away from Magnolia is you are closer for the away games. It's quite a different experience watching the football games from somewhere other than the band. For one thing, I noticed that some parents were very vocal about certain 'bad' calls by the referees. I noticed at one point that my high school principal walked over to one of the overly (and obnoxious) parents to remind him that it's a high school game and that lives weren't dependent on the outcome. After all, they're just kids.

My cousin is also in the high school band this year (I think he was last year too). I didn't tell him that I would be there, which gave him a little shock when he saw me sitting in the stands at 3rd quater. I told him to go play with his friends and get some food. I'm sure the last thing he wanted was to talk to some old guy. That and I don't really have much in common with that side of the family. For one, they're infinitely more active in their Christianity than I ever was when I professed to be Christian. I don't know what they'd think of me being a Buddhist. Probably better to not let them find out. I don't think they read my blog. To many Bible verses to study. Obviously, I'm joking (in case they are reading :D).

Saturday, again, my manager was kind enough to let me work half a shift in order to attend a wedding, after which I headed to UCA to be a part of the tailgating experience (which is vastly different than from when I was a student), the game, and post-game activities.

For one, I'm an alumni of the UCA Band, which was a lot different five years ago than it is now (I'm not five years out of college, but I am five years out of band). For one, the band was a lot more laid back. They're very uptight now. It's too high strung for me. I never would've made it in the BMB (Bear Marching Band, as it is called now). For a fleeting instance, however, I considered playing in the Alumni Band, which always accompanies the standing band in time of Homecoming (military allusions FTW). I chose not to, however, preferring to bond with people I hadn't seen in nearly five years. I think it's awesome that I have friendships with people in which I can pick up conversations we never finished as if we were only talking just yesterday.

The other component of the evening was the Homecoming ceremonies with Kappa Kappa Psi and Tau Beta Sigma, the band fraternities, of which I was once a member of Kappa Kappa Psi. I enjoyed the time that I was in the Fraternity. I don't miss it like some. I'm not nostalgic for 'the old days' of cameraderie and servile works. I do appreciate, though, the direction the UCA chapter has taken away from the "Frat boy" mentality and more towards a focus on the band and the social experience surrounding band and band members. The chapter wasn't really all that focused on band when I was active (at least not as much as I thought it should be), but it does seem so now. It's a privilege merely to be associated with an organization like what it is today.

But referencing earlier in the post about seeing old friends....there's also a kind of dichotomy to these meetings: On the one hand, you talk to them as if nothing has changed. On the other hand, you catch up on what's new and interesting in each others' lives. This is one thing I appreciate about everyone I consider my friends: They don't treat me any differently as the years pass, and neither do they expect different treatment. Marriages and kids and jobs and money don't change my friends. I guess I'm good at picking them. :)

Life, Little Rock, and Mamma Mia!

Last week, my mother came up to see me and we went to see Mamma Mia! as performed at Robinson Center here in Little Rock. For those that are unfamiliar with the musical, it consists entirely of music written and originally performed by ABBA, set to a storyline that does NOT trace the roots of ABBA; rather, it follows a two day journey of a girl and her mother through the rigours of putting on a wedding. Exciting stuff, let me tell you.

I originally saw ABBA in Las Vegas (I think it was being performed at the Wynne) with Mom and I have to say that the Little Rock performance paled in comparison. It seemed as if the music was being played louder than the vocals in order to cover them up. If I hadn't known the words to the songs, I wouldn't have understood what they were saying. Plus, I thought the actress playing Donna Sheridan used a little too much in the way of vibrato, trills, and glissandos. A little goes a long way....she went too far.

I did, however, see my friend Phil Frana there and during intermission, I had to go over and say 'hello' since I hadn't seen him in three weeks. I can only go so long without talking with my Phil. During that ten minutes, I made a startling conclusion: It is remarkably easy to network in Arkansas. In that short span of time, we were able to identify somewhere in the vicinity of five to ten people and also label their positions, some of which would be positions of "power" in local governments. Had I been a reporter, it would have been very easy to perform an ambush interview to find out what these guys think. Too bad recording devices are banned in Robinson Center. Too bad I'm also not a reporter. Too bad I don't really know anything about local affairs, preferring to stay abreast of national/international politics. I'm intense like that.

But it got me thinking, with all these easily made connections, why am I not utilizing my degree in Public Administration by leveraging some of that easy-to-get networking here in Arkansas? Why am I whiling away my time at PetSmart grooming dogs? I mean, after all, dog grooming isn't exactly glamourous. I get pissed and shit on no less than five times a week. I make decent money, but I have inconsistent hours. Not to mention the entirely unglamourous condition of not getting to dress up. I'm relegated to windsuit pants, a t-shirt, and a cruddy smock every day. Not the pinnacle of fashion, lemmetellya.

But, like Sophie in Mamma Mia!, I came to the conclusion that I'm not garnering for a more glamourous position (in my case, a more presitigious job; in her case, a white wedding) because I'm perfectly content to stay where I am for now. She wants to explore the world. I would like that too (finances prevent it at the moment), but I'm content staying home. We're both content with exploring who we are at this moment.....not who we are after some life-defining event.

I'll be honest: It's tough watching my friends go off to Graduate School and get real jobs. Sometimes I think to myself, "Fuck PetSmart. I'm gonna get my Masters." But then I cool down and realize that the best thing in life is not what the future may or may not hold; it's being content with what you have now.

In the back of my head, I hear Buddha saying, "Take the Middle Way."

Yes, Sir. I think I shall.

Nobel Prize: Recap

I think the following comic explains the Obama Nobel Peace Prize perfectly.

Now, if we could only uncover whether or not Obama actually is from the future.

(Starts devising experiment to test for knowledge of future endeavors.)

Nobel Prizes for Peace

Turns out that Obama won the Nobel Peace Price. Impressive.

I'll go out on a limb and make a prediction: Instead of reporting this and covering this news, conservative media outlets will no doubt turn their attention to healthcare and will actually try to be a part of the debate to avoid talking about the fact that Obama won the prize. No doubt they would come across as accusing him of 'affirmative action' anyway.

BTW, this puts Obama in the same ranks as Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson who both won the prize while in office. Jimmy Carter won a few years back, but he hadn't been President in 30 years or so. Woodrow Wilson was also a blatant racist. He segregated the Navy when it previously hadn't been. He was a real nasty piece of work.

I'm sure the Conservative media outlets will be happy to point out that WW was a racist as proof that the Nobel Prize is corrupt.

Universal Healthcare Backup Plan

It's starting to look more and more like there won't be a Public Option in the upcoming healthcare legislation. If there isn't a public option, then I wouldn't refer to this bill as anything approximating healthcare reform. I'm not even completely certain that all the loopholes regarding pre-existing condition will be closed.

If that's the case, then there needs to be some back-up plan in the works. I suggest the following (which is nearly the same as what we're suggesting for the public option, but proposed and worded diffferently).

1) Extend Medicare to those ages 55+. Essentially, the people that are most vocally opposed to the Public Option are those in the 45-65+ range. They're worried that Medicare either A) Won't be there when they turn 65, or B) worried that Medicare is going to start cutting back their coverage. Of course, those of with brains know that isn't the case, so billing healthcare reform as 'Extending Eligible Age of Medicare' negates the connotation of "Cuts to Medicare."

2) Enact a provision that a person of any age may opt for private insurance. Of course, we know that insurance companies basically default on your coverage once you turn 65 because they know that you're covered under the government's insurance program. Enacting a provision so that people that hit 55 may either keep their coverage (and the insurance companies cannot drop them, as long as they pay their premiums), or opt for Medicare.

3) Extend the coverage of SCHIP so that every child under the age of 18 is eligible. The nearest statistics I could find on coverage of SCHIP was around 6.6 million children in 2006. Of the some-odd 75 million children in the US, 8.3 million do not have some form of health insurance. I don't know the best way to do this, but it would seem as if the coverage rate was either expanded to include higher percentage levels of poverty, or if funding were simply doubled, then the 8.3 million uninsured children could receive some form of coverage. Like I said, I don't know enough about income disparities and efficiencies to know the best way to insure children, but I don't think there is any reason that a child should not have coverage, especially if it's because a parent can't afford it. It's not a child's fault if the parent can't afford medical insurance. (I vote that we just cover children under 18 via Medicare and get rid of the SCHIP component. I also vote that we make this mandatory coverage, regardless of whether the parent wants their child covered or not. We make them enroll in school; we should make them enroll in health care.)

4) Include a section wherein every few years (let's just say '5') the eligibility age to enroll in Medicare is reduced by 5. So, in 2014, the eligible age to enroll in Medicare becomes 50. In 2019, the eligible age becomes 45. So (unless other changes were made), by the year 2045, every adult in America would be eligible for coverage under Medicare and every child would already have coverage. This would be more difficult to pass (incrementalism always is); however, it would be easier in a few years time to simply add this portion into the existing laws. After all, if you vote to extend Medicare coverage by five years, you've got five years of voters that are in favor of it.

I have other 'Band-Aid' ideas that could improve the situation without being a full-blown public option, but I don't need to go into them here because hopefully, some of the Democrats will get their heads out of their asses and realize that the public option (Republican ass-hattery aside) is what the population wants. And I don't care about the portion of the population that has insurance now (the 65+ers, and those with private insurance) that are yelling they don't want private insurance. I'm talking about the portion of the population that right now does not have health insurance. They're yelling that they need something. Democrats (Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor, and Mike Ross) need to forget about the politics, the town hall meetings, and the media (FoxSmear) and simply do what makes the most sense: the public option.

I hope this is my last post on the current health care divide. I'd like to talk about something else (not that anybody is twisting my arm into talking about this).

Plagiarism and ReTweeting

A few days ago, I tweeted this:

"OMG! Even if I was a birther, why would I sent $30 to this guy to send a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"

In response to this:


Today, I first noticed on the Rachel Maddow Show that she had a segment in which she discussed this Informercial, which apparently only appeared on the local station at Lubbock, TX. She pointed out that the time slot and the station cost LivePrayer (the creators of the Informercial) about $100. Bill Keller, the host, is apparently an ex-con, and as the Rachel Maddow Show suggest, a current con-man because of this scheme.

For $30, LivePrayer will send a fax to fifty "Attorney Generals [sic]" AND to Attorney General Eric Holder demanding an invesgtigation into Obama's birth. In addition, they will add your name to a petition to send to GOP leaders (notice they don't care if Democratic leaders get the petition or not) and you'll also get a bumper sticker.

So, if LivePrayer convinces four people to send money, then Bill Keller makes a profit off of this thirty minute video. At these kind of prices, he'll make the move to other stations before too much longer.

I later noticed this story airing on Chris Matthews' Hardball, though it was less of a segment than a sideshow item on the Hardball Sideshow, which leads me to believe (though I have no proof on how the inner workings of MSNBC are) that a higher up suggested Maddow and Matthews include a segment on their show about this crackpot. (PS I didn't watch Countdown tonight because it's just not the same without Olbermann. I hope his family is doing okay. I know his dad has been in ill health for some while now.)

I, however, would like to propose a different scenario. I like to think that Rachel Maddow subscribes to my Tweets through some TweetBot user name and that she scooped the story from me, even going so far as to use my line, "why would I send $30 to this guy for a few faxes? Aren't faxes, like, free?"

So, I request, nay, I DEMAND a reference from the venerable Rachel Maddow, lest I charge her with intellectual dishonesty and, dare I say it?, PLAGIARISM!

I'm just joking, I wouldn't do that. However, I would like to close with a few questions:

When you RT something via Twitter that is itself a RT, how many people should you reference in your RT? I think it should always be two unless the 140 character parameter limits you.

Also, if you reference something in real life that you read in a Tweet, should you recognize the fact that you first uncoverered this information in Tweet form?

Obama Won't Appear on FoxNews???!! WHAAA???

Okay, I'll make this real short. FoxSmear is not a news organization. It does not enhance the field of journalism, their research is spotty if extant, and they are not above making up facts. In the real world, we call that lying, but with FoxSmear, it's fair and balanced.

Last week, Obama went on a whirlwind tour of the major news networks (of which I think it is vain of FoxSmear to count itself in the same league as ABC, CBS, NBC, and Univision) but did not go onto Chris Wallace's show, which is the morning Sunday show on FoxSmear. This upset many people at FoxSmear, not the least of which was Bill O'Reilly. Bill O'Reilly had Chris Wallace on his show to talk about how Wallace's feelings were hurt at not being included in the cameraderie. Nowhere in this exchance do they discuss the possibility that Wallace's show may not have the proper viewing audience, that the President was already committed to five stations making an appearance on Wallace's show that morning impossible, or any other plausible scenario other than Obama has it in for FoxSmear.

Or maybe there's another reason:



That's right. Chris Wallace, broadcast journalist extraordaire, calls the Obama Administration the "biggest bunch of crybabies" he has ever dealt with. Besides the name-calling, is it hypocritical of Wallace to call the Obama Administration "crybabies" while he himself is crying over the fact that Obama won't appear on his show.

Perhaps it was just a slow news day because these two are essentially discussing how they are unable to generate any news by Obama not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday" by not generating any news in a segment on the fact that Obama is not appearing on "Fox News [sic] Sunday." Circular news generation logic, to be sure.

In the interest of being fair and balanced, it is possible that what Wallace says is true: that the Obama Administration calls him daily to complain about the types of stories being levied against them. If this is the case, I would welcome Chris Wallace to appear on this Blog and provide some documentation (e-mails, phone conversations with dates and subject, etc.) that corroborates this fact.

Otherwise, I'm forced to conclude (though this has been a running standard in my mind for some time now) that FoxSmear is NOT a reputable news organization and that Obama not appearing on FoxSmear is tantamount to Obama NOT appearing on the Playboy network. No news is going to be generated either way.

Though, I get the feeling that if Obama did appear on the Playboy network, FoxSmear would have a field day even if what Obama was doing on Playboy was reputable.

Process Governmentalism

I've always been more concerned with the questions, thought processes, and data input concerning an answer, rather than the answer itself. When I was younger (and to a lesser extent today) I would challenge myself to "prove" a point using a traditionally opposing argument. Something along the lines of 1) We're a Christian nation, 2) Jesus doesn't like guns, therefore 3) Guns should be banned.

I don't actually think (nor does anyone reputable) that we're a Christian nation, but I do think guns should be outlawed. I use a political example because I'm concerned with some of the process governmentalism going on today.

For instance, a large portion of today's debate in the political arena surrounds health coverage for all Americans. On one side, we have the elected majority attempting to capitalize on a large market share of the necessary votes in Congress to drive through a bill that is sub-optimally aimed at covering those that do not have health insurance, or more accurately, can't get affordable health coverage.

On the other side, we have an elected minority that feels as if it has been shoved in the corner and is lashing out at anything even approximating healthcare. This side attempts to leverage arguments and counter-arguments against any healthcare legislation, many attempts of which disagree with one another!

Which begs the question: If I was a Democrat, what Conservative argument would I use to justify healthcare?

To which I would respond, healthy people are more productive. More productive people earn higher incomes over a longer period of time. This higher income over a course of many years results in multiplier effects that radiate outward and improve the economy as a whole. Naturally, some people (such as the retired) will not create any multiplicative effects because they will not be generating any new productivity. This is why it makes as much sense (if not more) to guarantee health coverage for younger Americans (who could conceivably be taken off the field of productivity if they die or are rendered disabled because of a sickness they couldn't get cured because of lack of healthcare) as it does to insure the elderly (through Medicare).

Don't get me wrong. I think this is an abysmal excuse to legislate a more socialized healthcare. The real reason is the moral imperative: we as a nation have a duty to help our fellow citizens. While the economics of universal health coverage simply make good economic sense, human beings cannot be quantified as a dollar rating. Or at least they shouldn't be.

Another argument from the Democrats using traditional Republican/conservative arguments: National Defense. If a nation's population is healthy, then in the event that the nation had to reinstate the draft, or there was a foreign invasion on American soil, the American military would be less encumbered by the fact that it had a healthy population that could rise up and fight alongside the active military.

Unfortunately for the purposes of arguing the opposing viewpoint, there's not really a strategy the Republicans/conservatives could use for arguing against Universal Health Coverage that uses a traditionally Liberal/Democratic argument. The Republicans are trying to use the argument that nationalized healthcare would impinge upon our freedoms (I don't buy the reasoning that anything the government does is innately doomed to failure), by stating that the government takeover of healthcare would limit choices because more people would flock to the public option because it would be subsidized and so much more affordable. But if you're taxes are paying for it anyway, why wouldn't you flock to the public option? It'd be like recouping some of your investment. As to choice, individuals in Arkansas would have access to a wide variety of public options. Other states would have other choices. In Arkansas, anyway, I would have more options with the Federal government's plans, than I would if I searched through the Private options. So, the "impinges on our freedoms" argument doesn't really work, since essentially the public option IS private insurers ultimately.

The only other 'liberal' argument I can think of that the Republican/conservatives might be able to use is one regarding civil rights. If it could be shown that because a public option has a habit of rejecting someone's coverage on an race/creed/religion/class/sex basis, then the Republicans could argue that the public option is unfair to a certain segment of the population and that it should not be legislated for. Of course, then they would have to admit that the private insurers do the same thing, which as I understand they haven't. Neither have I seen a standard argument for removing the 'pre-existing conditions' clause from the Insurer's Toolbox for Rejecting Coverage. I also get the feeling that if liberal/Democrats felt that a public option would be additionally racist/sexist/etc.ist, then they would probably encourage another option.

So, essentially, since I'm not able to argue the 'Null' hypothesis successfully in the Republican instance (and come to think of it, neither can I successfully argue the traditional Republican argument anyway), the opposite must be true, and the public option is indeed the way to go in the National Debate. There is always, however, the theory that I have not accumulated enough evidence and statistics and that a more superior answer is out there.

To that I say: Single Payer.

End Beck

Okay, I admit it. Whenever Glenn Beck was on CNN Headline News, the softcore version of CNN Real News, I had a tendency to head over to the channel to watch it and see what crazy things Beck was going to say next. I think he had about as much edginess as Nancy Grace. At least he has better hair.

I never thought that all that air-time I was giving him would give someone the idea that he should go mainstream. Now, he's on a more respected news station, and I can't even bear to flip through his channel in case he might be on (he gets to be a guest on a lot of other shows that aren't his despite him not really being an expert on anything). I actually get to channel 45 and manually hit 47 so that I don't accidentally give FOX any coverage. I'm worried that Beck might get his own newspaper.

So, for everyone out there that has to put up with his mindless rabble, I apologize. I thought he was harmless. When he was on CNNHN, his lack of depth and understanding was tempered by the fact that he was relatively soft-spoken. I guess now that he gets more viewers, he figures he should be more loud-mouthed with his lack of depth and understanding.

I'm not going to comment much on his lack of credentials and his singular ability to ignore everything that makes journalism...well, journalism....., but I will comment on one item because it's September and many patriots out there don't like people besmirching our recent history.

Because Obama signed into law a bill recognizing September 11 as "National Day of Service," Beck has been very upset stating that no one is up in arms about this and Obama did not consult anyone serious (and especially the families) when he signed this into law.

1) If he signed a Bill into law, then Congress first approved the bill. Therefore, he had de facto consultation with the Congress via the bill passing both Chambers. Since the Chambers are made up of politically motivated Representatives and Senators, they must have some support for this bill from the public.
2) Nobody is up in arms because there has been support for a National Day of Service as far back as 2004 and somce type of Remembrance Day since 2002.

As an additional, I find it reprehensible that Beck is feigning sympathy with the victims of 9.11 families on this issue when he has said in the past, "Oh, shut up. I'm so sick of them [the victim's families] because they're always complaining."

The real issue, as Beck demonstrated with his "Obama is a racist" comment, is that Beck has a deep-seated hatred for Obama and even though 90% of Obama's presidency has been indistinguishable from Bush's presidency (something I'm not supportive of) because it is from Obama, Beck hates it.

And because I (and others like me) found Beck humorous and harmless back on CNNHN, he now has a larger audience to spread his hate.

For that, I am truly sorry.

Observations

I'm consistently amazed at the fact that people who are unhappy react with anger. Whether it's a customer that's unsatisfied with their dog's haircut, or an associate that is upset with another employee, I find it just odd that anger is more often than not a first response.

With co-workers, it's a little different and maybe justifiable. You spend so many days ignoring someone, blowing them off, and trying your damndest to be as positive as you possibly can in their generally negative-presence. Eventually, you just pop. And then you stay popped until either you or the other employee is gone. Unhealthy? Yes. Understandable? Yes. (Side note: Does "Understandable" mean "Not Derstandable"?)

With customers, it's a little different. A lot of people bring their dogs in for the first time ever, the dog has never been groomed, it freaks out the entire time, the groom takes longer than it should, the dog doesn't look as good as it could if would have just stayed still, and when the customer comes to pick the dog up, if they are unsatisfied, more often than not, they fly off the handle!

Let's backtrack. If it's your dog's first haircut, why would you expect it to be a perfect gentleman and sit on the table and let itself be groomed? I'm sure a majority of children act irrationally when they get their haircut the first time. I didn't, but I was a good little boy.

Secondly, if your dog has never been groomed before and you bring it in tangled up and looking a right mess, you should probably expect it to take longer because your dog looked like it just rolled out of a grease pit. Brush/Comb your damn dog!

Thirdly, all groom times are approximate. It takes longer to groom a dog when you call every ten minutes to ask if your dog is ready. How about this? I'll call you when it's done. That's what I told you the last three times you called. Douchebag.

Fourthly, if you're disappointed in the way the dog looks, most likely I am too. I know what a good groom looks like. I also know what your dog let me do. Don't get mad at me because your dog is a little bitch and tried to bite me the whole damn time. Be thankful that I didn't decapitate your dog with my scissors.

So with that said, it's nice when a customer comes through that fits the above scenario, takes one look at their dog and says, "Fan-Fabulous." I'm not sure what that word means, but I'm going to take it as a good sign.

I consider it a good day if I don't get yelled at by any customers. I just don't do angry.

Non-Zen Dog Grooming

Okay, while my previous post is overall accurate, I thought I should update about my shitty day so that people don't get the impression that it's all fun and games down in Fergie-land.

Basically in the short version, I got behind on my dogs. I tried to make up for it on a particular pair of dogs (they came together from the same owner) by working quickly and letting my quality of work suffer. In the process, I knicked a dog's pad. For those not familiar with canine anatomy, if you cut a dog's pad, it tends to bleed, even if the cut isn't that deep. Dog's don't clot very well on their feet.

Anyway, that was strike one.

Strike two was since I was so behind, I skipped over aspects of the dog that I normally pay a lot of attention to. As a result, portions of the haircut were uneven. I thought the dog looked like shit.

Come to find out, the owner did too. I'm pretty sure they got a refund. And they deserved a refund. I wouldn't have paid for that shitty-ass haircut. It's not like a human haircut, where you can correct the stylist during the haircut if she starts making your head look uneven.

My dad used to point out when I did a crappy job with my chores. Let's say I was supposed to vacuum that day and I only vacuumed the traffic lanes. My dad would ask, "Son, did you vacuum today?"

"Yes."

"Well, did you vacuum under the chair?"

"No."

"Did you vacuum under the table?"

"No."

"Well, then how can you say you vacuumed? If you miss one aspect of vacuuming then it's just as if you didn't do it. Go vacuum the floor."

"Yes, dad."

So, while there was no Strike Three in the case of my two dogs today, there was a moral to this story: It's not worth doing if it's not worth doing right.

I'm going to be Zen about this and use this situation to re-affirm my commitment to quality work. Let's count it as a learning experience.

The Zen of Dog Grooming

This was my first week as a commissioned dog groomer. I've been doing them at an hourly rate for about six weeks now. But this week was the first where I actually made commission. I made about $150 more gross than I would have at my hourly rate. That isn't really all that much if you think about it, but it's cushion room. Especially for someone who can't afford to fix his car, has been living vicariously from paycheck to paycheck and with assistance from the parents in the cases of emergencies. I've had about seventy bucks a week left over after the bills are paid (rent, utilities, cell phone, Useless food and meds) to cover food, gas and entertainment. And that's without trying to save any money.

I'm decent at planning my money. I've just gotten into tight spots through a combination of being overly-generous to friends in need and not collecting on debts that people owe me (i.e. former roomates not paying their rent and me having to cover it). My credit card debt is almost entirely from when I was commuting to Little Rock from Conway for an internship. But I just paid off one, with two to go. One has an absurdly low interest rate, so I may never pay it off intentionally. I could probably garner a higher savings rate than the interest rate I have on that credit card.

Maybe it's because my financial situation is starting to look up that I've felt an odd sort of peace all week. Maybe it's from chronically watching Lost on NetFlix (which I recently purchased for the sole purpose of watching Lost). There's a lot of feel-good episodes on there. As I write this, I'm about mid-way throught the second season. For not having ever watched the show before, I've made an impressive dent in the show in about three weeks. I'm hoooked.

Maybe it's because in the first time in a long time, I actually enjoy my job. I've always liked working for PetSmart in some manifest, despite numerous times of trying to quit. It's a good company, and they take care of their employees. I have spectacular health insurance and should I die, my mom gets about $70,000 in life insurance. That should cover the expensive funeral I want in which I donate my body to science. It's a good company to work for.

But it's been a long while since I actually enjoyed what I was doing. I credit the dogs. Whether because I'm more certain about what I'm doing or because just find my face more attractive shaved, they've been more at peace with me. And the feeling is recipricol.

For whatever reason, my life has been incredibly peaceful this week. Low stress. Money in the bank. A job outlook that is increasingly looking more and more promisinig (man, did I just hedge that sentence).

I early anticipate blogging from up high.

Ain't Nothin' Gonna Break My Stride

American Pessimism

After reading this little gem on teh Internetz, I have concluded that the vast majority of Americans just don't get it. Or at the very least, those that read the New York Times and decide to comment on articles. Me, I forwent posting a commentary on the website that nobody will read in favor of a commentary on my blog that nobody will read. It seems a fair exchange of words.

Right now, in some 30 states, a campaign is being waged entitled "Recession 101". Billboards have sprung up across America reminding Americans to think less about the recession. I, for one, have never improved my situation by worrying about it, so I think that this is a good reminder to people that things can and do get better.

Some of the gems include:

"This will be over long before those responsible are paroled."

"Bill Gates started Microsoft in a Recession."

"Self worth is greater than Net Worth."

All of these are great messages and serve as reminders on the road of life that maybe you should worry about something other than money. In my experience, dwelling on a problem makes it worse. That's why I don't even bother to count my money. I set up direct deposit, my bills autodraft from my account, and I know that I have a budget of $70 a week to live off of. I have no clue how much money is in my bank account. Hopefully, if I continue to live within my frugal ways, my new income from my job promotion will turn into incredible savings. I even just started a 401(k). PetSmart matches 50% contributions up to 6% of pay. I'm already vested because I've been there so long. I'm just awesome.

But I don't want to talk about the futility of counting money like it has actual value. It's a fiat currency, which is why they print "In God We Trust" on the bills. It's because the powers that be don't know if it's going to have any worth tomorrow. Fiat currencies are great for inflation...I digress again.

I want to talk about the extreme pessimism that people have towards these billboards. I mean, WOW!!!

A select few quotes that are indicative of the general commentary:

"Obviously the anonymous East Coast donor isn’t much affected by the recession if he (?) has the extra funds to underwrite this."
"The tone of derisive dismissal in the slogans is particularly galling, knowing its author is himself very rich."
"More trash for America — obviously this rich person isn’t being taxed enough to pay for medical care, close the budget deficit, support the WARZ — whatever….wonder does he take this money off his taxes — via his charity in which case those who pay their taxes and all the regressive fees are in fact subsidizing this nonsense. more info please…"

These are typical of the ad hominem attacks of people that are relative captives of the current economic mess and lash out at those they perceive as their 'Better.' Or, more correct, those they believe think they believe they are someone's better.

But if you look at the actual ideas behind the comments, these people consider those that fund the billboards as somewhat repsonsible. "You have money. We don't. Therefore, you must be doing something illegal/wrong/unethical," is the general psychology of these types of comments. It is interesting that these people aspire to the "Rich" class, while demeaning those that are there. One wonders if they will change the system once they get there. At least the third person asked for more information.

My personal favorite: "Well, let’s see, the REST of the story is the WHO part. Who is the anonymous donor of these signs? Whoever he/she/it is should have donated the money to help some people who are unemployed. HYPOCRITE!" Well, firstly, we don't know that this person isn't donating money to the unemployed. Secondly, should he stop giving money to the employed to give to the unemployed? Meaning, should he stop funding jobs by providing billboards so that those that are unemployed can stay unemployed? I don't understand the obvious lack of sympathy for the "Rich, billboard purveyor". I mean, he's doing a good service by pumping liquidity into the economy by spending money on billboars, which are expensive endeavors. I don't know all the financial ramifications of billboard economics, but I know that someone has to design the signs, someone has to construct it. I'm sure there is regular maintenance to perform. I'm also sure that the rent of the billboard itself is significantly higher than the actual cost associated with the constructive elements of the billboard. This translates to liquidity in the market. The property management can use the excess funds from the billboard to shore up liquidity in other areas that I'm sure the billboard managment company is involved in.

If I was an optimist and the type of person to makes a commentary on the New York Times site, I might make the following:
"Praise be the (wo)man, who in time of recession, chose to use his money to fund jobs in the billboard industry, forsaking actual advertisement and therefore, a return on his money; in favor of pure, un-adulterated donation of his hard-earned cash in the hopes of inspiring people to value people and relationships, over money."

Suze Orman sums it up for me: "People First. Then Money. Then Things."

Saving Money Equals Spending!

It's dismaying to hear people talk about saving like it's a bad thing. "So many people are saving their money, it's ruining the economy!!!"

Well, let's look at the ways in which you can "save" money.

1) Mattress saving--Literally, sticking it under your mattress. Only you have access to your money. It garners no interest; it garners no risk (other than from fire or what-not). No multiplier effect takes place. No jobs are created. Eventually, though, the idea is that this money will be spent on something or other. That spending goes to people with jobs. Those people will most likely later use the cash to buy "Stuff" with a net end result of "Spending."

Why this form of Saving is Bad for the Economy
Conventional wisdom says that some portion of this money will be subtracted from the assets in the aggregate economy because it WILL catch fire, or be lost, or some other manner in which the cash will not be usable again.
Why It May Be Good for the Economy
Non-conventional wisdom says this may be a good thing. If you take that money and spend it, then you are creating demand for whatever it is you buy because you are increasing the scarcity of the commodity. If, however, that money is taken out of circulation, you are not creating demand by buying anything, and "deflation" occurs on EVERY commodity because you are not buying any of EVERYthing.
Clarification
It's also unclear whether this is deflation or just an advanced form of depreciation (if you wait a sufficiently long enough period of time, the value of your money becomes Zero (0). Burning money just speeds along that depreciation (but the depreciation of money is called inflation, so that's this issue is unclear).
Ancient Egyptian Counter-Argument
If, however, burning money is such a bad thing, then why did the ancient Egyptians do an equivalent thing and bury their dead with Assets, effectively taking them off the market and encouraging deflation? Well, they also had slaves... I digress.

2) Savings account--This is the way banks used to loan money. You save with a bank, the bank promises a low-interest for using your money to grant loans. Decades ago, this was pretty much the only reliable way to manage savings. I also lump CD's and other saving devices into this group. When the banks issue loans with your cash, jobs are created and the workers use their wages to buy "Stuff" with a net result of "Spending."

How Banks Loan Money Nowadays
Awhile back, banks figured out that they didn't actually have to have money in their coffers to issue loans because they figured out that not people rarely ask for their money back once they put it in the bank. That's because we use a nifty little thing like "Notes" that have no intrinsic value, except what we place on it (plus we use electronic transfers for upwards of 50% of our spending. I have no clue of an exact number).

Well, when banks figured out that they could issue loans with money they didn't have, they originally made sure that the loans they issued had an upwards of 99% chance of No-Default (Let's call it 3 standard deviations from the norm). The reason was if someone defaulted on a loan for which there wasn't any money to begin with, the bank would be screwed.

Well, after awhile, banks figured out that as long as their rate of default was abnormally low, they could issue more loans and even take a loss by issuing some loans at slightly higher risk levels. So, they could issue loans to people with a 95% chance of No-Default (Call this 2 standard deviations from the norm). As long as the banks issue more loans that are good than are bad, the bank will turn a profit and can still provide the cash to its depositors.

How can it provide cash to the depositors?
Well, a bank issues loans to somebody or a company. That entity typically either spends the loan outright and the person receiving the loan money deposits it into the bank, or the entity receiving the loan deposits it in the bank outright. Either way, the cash ends up in the bank for use.

So, essentially, banks loan out money that they then get back into their coffers.

The Federal Reserve requires that banks keep something like 10% of all money they loan out in liquid cash in the bank vaults, but banks have figured out using the above bogus accounting rules that for every $100,000 they loan out, they only need about $1,100 in liquidity.
Loophole in the Rule
Using real rules of the Federal Reserve, with that $1,100, they should be able to loan out a maximum of around $10,000. But since that $10,000 is going to end up back in the bank because somebody is going to deposit it somewhere down the line, the bank knows that it can use that $10,000 of loan money to issue $100,000 in loan, using the same Federal Reserve requirement rule.

Now obviously, the money that a bank loans out may not go back into the coffers of that bank. But when taken in the aggregate of all banks loaning to all individuals, statistically the money spreads itself around so that any money issued by a bank comes back to that bank at a future point in time. Statistically, there's no difference between the loan money going into this bank versus that one.

I think the current economic crisis, while based on the fact that banks are providing loans at high risk without the cash requirement to support it, is nothing more than a natural response to issuing all that money without "stuff" behind it. I also think that banks have relaxed their "stringent" 2 standard deviations for 1 standard deviation, which is closer to 68% chance of No-Default. The 95% makes sense because humans typically fall in the 95% range. The 68% NEVER makes sense, either in science, math, or in budgeting (which confuses me why the Office of Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office both use the 1 standard deviation when making sure that their figures are accurate).

But when you issue money at rates 100x the actual "money" that exists, it is only natural that eventually the market will "contract" to compensate for the difference between money having been spent in the past and the assets that actually exist. I'm sure if I had more knowledge of how bank loans were measured, I could calculate how much of the recent economic contraction was equal to the number of loans being issued at that 1 standard deviation level of 68%.

Paradoxically, banks almost always require collateral to issue a loan. Seems a double-standard, doesn't it?

Also, paradoxically, as banks issue more loans without the necessary cash reserve, the excess flow of money causes inflation, which drives up the price of goods. As the price of goods increase, people require more loan money in order to buy these assets. Inevitable result: Market contraction to the actual value of the assets in question.

3)Investments--Large risk if you're investing for quick bursts of cash. Lesser risk if you're doing long-term portfolio investing in stable markets. The important part when considering investments is that since the money is usually channeled through the stock market, the money you are providing is being used as capital by the company itself. So, the $100,000 in your 401(k) is being used by car companies to retool their factories, thus creating jobs. The people in these jobs use their newfound salary to buy "Stuff" with a net result of "Spending." Not to mention you earn the equivalent of Interest from your investment. As a company's value increases, so do the share of your assets you own in the company. Hopefully, these assets increase at rates greater than the rate of inflation. If the interest is re-invested, then you almost always get a return greater than inflation. If you start using dividends to "Spend", while this is good for local economies, it's not so good from an investment standpoint because you personally lose Rate of Return. No, it's better to leave money invested for as long as possible. Ideally, retirement.

How Risk is Really Decided
Stock market investment is really only risky if you invest for the short-term for quick profit, of if you invest in risky companies. Given time, short-ranged market contractions cancel out and your initial investment always nets a gain. This isn't to say that if you plan on retiring and all of a sudden the market takes a nose-dive and your 401(k) loses about 50% of its value that you'll come out on top. Sure that 50% is still worth more than your original investment. But you'll have to reconfigure your retirement plans by either working another couple of years, or by planning on withdrawing less from your stash while you're in retirement. Both options suck, but then again, you invested in the free market instead of municipal bonds like Suze Orman told you to, which I guess are still free market, but a lot less risky.

The only other way it's risky is if you get companies like Enron, WorldCom, etc. that use faulty accounting practices to "prop up" their value. In the case of WorldCom, the accounts were actually using the depreciation of their assets and calling it "re-capitalization," i.e. buying new assets. It's the equivalent of saying that the $2,000 in value your new car loses every year is being spent "buying $2,000 worth of new car." Doesn't make sense. Since depreciation is on a paper a "profit" it looked like WorldCom was doing good. Not so. I think their stock is back up to twenty cents a share if you can find a market that still carries it.

There's no real way to prevent accounting fraud, except to have a well-funded and well-policed SEC (the guys in charge of making sure companies on the stock exchange obey accounting rules). If WorldCom hadn't had exorbitant Top-Level-Management Salaries, WorldCom might still be around. CEO pay=A bitch.

4) Asset Ownership--This is buying houses and land and holding your cash in the value of a property or other asset. Classic cars, antique vases, etc. These typically involve a direct transfer of assets (cash) for another one (house) with the belief that the second asset will increase in value faster than inflation diminishes the value of the first asset. This isn't a reliable method of savings, but I put it here because many people erroneously think it is. If you think you're saving money by buying a house, just look at all the factors that go into determining property values (Value of house; Perceived value of house; Desirability of house in relationship to neighboring houses, property values in the area; job market in the area; desirability of the city; many other factors not directly related to the actual value of the house). As you can see, there's a lot of risk that goes into buying a house, so much so that it's not investing so much as it's just pure risk-taking.

Can Assets Truly be Saving
You can, of course, hedge your bets by buying properties and then renting them out, but that brings about an entirely new set of headaches. At that point, asset ownership becomes more along the lines of investing, which is a truer form of savings. The difference is that you become the business you're investing in. Most people wouldn't invest in someone like themselves, so I would invest in you either. :D

Assuming that at some point you do sell/auction off your asset, a transfer of cash occurs. Regardless of whether you sell your house at a loss or a profit, someone will pay you for the value of your house, and you turn around and use that cash to buy "stuff". So, in the end, asset ownership still nets a result of "Spending," not to mention that someone just "Spent" money on your house.

I think I covered all the basics of saving money. The point, however, is that any saving done has an end result of "Spending." Or to put it another way:

"Saving=Spending"

Is this true Socially?
So if Saving=Spending, then what doesn't equal spending?

I shall take the economics easy way out and say, "It depends." If someone spends 100% of their earnings, but no more, then that constitutes Spending. Notice how I make a distinction between Spending and spending.

If, however, someone spends 100+% of their earnings, then the percentage higher than 100% DOES NOT equal Spending. I would classify this as the equivalent of WorldCom recapitalizing their assets. Until the debt is fully paid off, any multiplicative effect from this debt-spending is not true spending. Also, as a corollary, if a person spends 100% of their earnings, but no more, and a portion of their earnings is spent on interest on debt, then that interest does not equal Spending.

So, when all these "economists" (i.e. populist political commentators) say that people aren't spending money because they're saving, they're missing the point. Money saved is money Spent! And how you save depends on how much money gets Spent in the end. Money invested nearly always has a higher multiplier effect than money put put into a savings account, and always has a Multiplier effect compared to Mattress-Stuffing.

Populist Political Commentators only know how to do one thing: Be full of themselves.

American Inconsistency

I've had the opportunity to notice in my few years as an adult the fact that many people don't know what they're talking about. I'm sure everyone has had similar experiences. I mean, can you believe that some people think that this is a Christian nation??!!! Founded on Christian ideals???!!!

I started doing some research to figure out just what exactly those Christian ideals are. Here's what I discovered.

Almost unanimously, abortion is considered NOT a Christian ideal. It sort of makes sense. I mean, after all, if you kill a baby you're kind of violating that whole tenet of "Thou Shalt Not Kill". Which is actually more of a Jewish ideal if you think about it. But I digress. It's unclear whether foetus's exist in the Bible, but I'm willing to guess that if they did, some people did kill them. There are recorded instances of abortion being used in many prehistorical cultures. The earliest described abortion suggests that the practice was common in Egypt. Also in China, various abortions are mentioned having taken place about 500 years prior to Jesus. But these countries obviously weren't Christian, so while abortion was present, it was probably not a Christian ideal.

Pre-birthed babies (or foetuses) aren't mentioned much in the Bible. Some point to Jeremiah 1, 5 "Before I fromed you in the womb, I knew you before you were born I set you apart. I appointed you as a prophet to the nations." I maintain that this only applied to Jeremiah, seeing as how God was addressing him directly. I don't speak Hebrew, so I don't know what the original texts say.

Some point to Psalm 139 v 13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." However, this is a Songwriter addressing God, not God addressing the songwriter. The Songwriter leaves it to Faith that God was the one that created her.

So other than that, abortion isn't mentioned in the Bible. As to abortion not being an American ideal I can't attest to that. I just happen to think that Jesus and God didn't really mention whether or not a foetus was a human, so the issue of whether or not it's morally permissible to perform an abortion shouldn't factor into the discussion of whether abortion should be legal or not....assuming that we're a Christian nation.

Also, guns. Guns and the Second Amendment seem to be a Christian ideal. After all, Jesus HIMSELF said in Matthew 10 v 34 "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." [Emphasis mine.] Now, allowing for anachronisms and developments in technology, it's obvious that Jesus meant that he came to Earth to bring weapons to the Christians. Then they could use these weapons to do whatever they wanted to do. Jesus meant for us to have Guns!

But perhaps Jesus had a change of heart because in Matthew 26 v 52 "Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." So, I guess Jesus had a change of heart and decided at a time near his death that maybe violence wasn't the answer.

OR if guns are supposed to be an American ideal, then Jesus meant that fighting would not allow the prophecy to be fulfilled. So, in order for the prophecies to come true and Jesus fulfill his role as the Messiah, he must lay down his weapons just this once in order to die so that everyone would be free to worship him and shoot their guns.

OR If American really were a Christian nations with Christian ideals, we would not look down on efforts at gun control considering that most violent crimes are committed with firearms. Jesus also said, "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind," though that may have been Mahatma Ghandi. If so, ignore that quote.

Jesus also said stuff like, "Taxation is a bad thing. Keep all your money for yourself. Nationalized healthcare options are the work of the devil."

Except Jesus didn't say those things. I think he said something about, "You can't take your riches to Heaven," and maybe, "Blessed are the poor and hungry." I don't know. I don't claim to understand Jesus' motives, but I'm pretty sure he didn't care about whether or not you had health insurance....I'm pretty sure the only thing he might care about is what you did to make sure that someone else that doesn't have healthcare gets it.

Oh, and in case you couldn't figure it out, I don't believe that this nation was for one second founded on Christian ideals. It bothers me, however, when the same people that say that America was founded on Christian ideals later decries nationalized healthcare on the basis that it will "raise their taxes and the government is evil."

Or as Wanda Haught Etchason of Facebook fame stated on America's Facebook page under the topic of "Do you think Obama should nationalize healthcare?":

"If you dont work then you arent entitled to anything."

Well said, Wanda Haught Etchason. Well said. Jesus would approve of not giving anything to children, the elderly, the poor, the destitute, or the disabled. Jesus would be proud.

New Hendrix-ism

So, as I'm driving back to Conway from work today, I start to think about the new Hendrix Village and whether or not my friend Phil is right about New Urbanism not being good. I quote:

"So here's my argument: While I like the idea of the amenities and green strategies entertained by New Urbanist developments like The Village and Somerset it just seems like these neighborhoods, having been cut out of whole cloth are instead only encouraging a whole new generation of inorganic community development ideas. Check out the Hendrix Village website. Nothing has been left to chance in their meticulous plans. Where is the "life" here? Where is the "breathing room" for self-expression? Where is the "diversity"?"

If you look at their website, you almost have to agree that this development is the inverse of the ghetto. The ghetto=an unplanned bastion of low-income residences, high crime and monochromatic socio-economic classes. The Village=The 100% planned utopia of high-income residences, (hopefully) low crime and MONOCHROMATIC SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES.

Phil's position that the Hendrix New Urbanist development is flawed is right...and wrong. Why? Because while the Hendrix New Urbanist development incorporates some aspects of New Urbanism, it (in my view) is not a true New Urbanist development. I would argue that it is more along the lines of a Neo-Traditional community. And for that explanation, I think we need a new definition of New Urbanism

New Urbanism is typically described as Mixed-Use development, incorporating the natural environment, multiple-transportation options, and density. In theory, this should be enough to allow a wide-variety of housing types, and in theory, a multitude of housing types increases socio-economic variety.

The reason the Hendrix Village is not by itself a New Urbanist development is because it does not truly have a variety of housing types. Sure there are $150,000 aparment flats in close proximity to $400,000 houses. And architecturally, these dwelling units are very diverse and are definitely not suburban style housing. But what fresh-faced college graduate can move into a $150,000 apartment? What person in their early 40s can afford to move into a $500,000 home? In practice, the only people that can move to this development, are the "upper-class." A very mono-chromatic socio-economic class.

I think it's important not to denigrate the Hendrix Development. It does provide for mixed-use and does offer some transportation options besides a car, including pedestrian walkability. It's a great improvement over the conventional subdivision. I think it's time, however, to develop a new concept of what New Urbanism is....at least for Conway. Because until HendrixCity fits into a larger framework of New Urbanist principles, it will remain a secluded development separate from the rest of the city...just like every other subdivision.

I think I shall term this new concept "The Diet Theory of New Urbanism." Allow me to ponder the implications.

A Change of Pace

For those that don't know, after graduation, I took a promotion to management within PetSmart. It was a promotion in name only because in addition to not really having any more power, I didn't receive that much of a raise either. To make matters worse, the powers that be hired another manager (same position as me) that was making just as much money as me. I've been with the company how long? (Four years). So I began looking for another way.

After putting out numerous applications, one company contacted me: American Family Life Assurance Company of Columbus, otherwise known as Aflac. After sitting through a first and second interview, I was extended an invitation to be hired on. Wow. Selling insurance. Is this for me?

I say "interview(s)", though it was more like a presentation. They made me want to work for them. I actually didn't do that much advertising to them. They did all the work. Maybe I am special.

But what really turned me onto Aflac as an insurance company was the fact that Aflac does not cover doctors bills: it pays cash to the policy holder, who may in turn use the cash in whatever manner he sees fit. If he wants to use it to pay doctor's bills, fine. If he wants to use it to cover grocery expenses for his kids, fine. If she wants to use it to pay her mortgage, fine. Go on a cruise for all I care.

Having my background in political science, I know the problems that are associated with medical insurance. As I write this, I'm one of the 40 million uninsured. If I get hurt in a car accident tomorrow, I'm going to be a burden to the rest of society (mostly my family, though).

One problem: As someone without insurance, if I have a heart attack tomorrow I'll be at the mercy of whatever treatment the state can spare for me. Legally, they have to treat me. They'll find a loophole to give shoddy treatment, but whatever. After the fact, however, if I try to get insurance, I'm going to run into the problem called "pre-existing condition." Basically, it's a way for insurance companies to avoid handing out insurance to someone with a pre-existing medical problem. They may make it too expensive to be affordable, or they may issue insuranace that does not cover any condition related to heart disease. You'll still most likely be paying the price that includes cardiac coverage, as well. So it's still more expensive. I ask: Is this fair?

Another problem: If I have medical coverage through my workplace (a group plan) and I pay about twenty dollars a week for insurance. When I leave my job, I have the right to take that coverage with me (under C.O.B.R.A)....for about $300 a month. I understand group rates and everything, but I ask is this fair?

Or I am diagnosed with cancer while still working. After several treatments, I am prescribed to hospital confinement because my treatments are major. As an hourly employee, I'm now not making enough to cover the premiums of my insurance...essentially, I don't work there. I can lose coverage for no reason other than I'm sick. My medical insurance could potentially drop me in the middle of coverage for failure to pay. If it goes to C.O.B.R.A., I now have to deduct the $300 a month from what the insurance company is paying the doctors. If I lose coverage because of loss of income, and then try to apply for medical insurance on my own, my previous diagnosis with cancer gives me a pre-existing condition, and I'm back to the first problem.

In all of these situations, it's not my fault. The rules are stacked against me. As long as nothing happens to me, I'm fine. But the second something does, I'm penalized even though I had no direct part in it.

I can understand insurance premiums being higher for those that smoke. I can even maybe understand it for those that are obese and saturate themselves with food and alcohol, but I think it's a dangerous slope to start charging people more just because they are overweight because then the problem becomes one of where the line is drawn.

And from the point of view of the insurance companies, I can understand why some of these rules are in place. If I'm diagnosed with high blood pressure, there needs to be a method in place to keep that person from going out and purchasing insurance just to cover the cost of his upcoming treatments. That's not the way insurance should work.

So, for now, my research interests will diverge from city and urban planning, and it will turn to the world of insurance. I've got a little bit to say about it.

And it gives me a forum to discuss my day at work!