Café Etiquette: Holding Tables

Had an interesting experience in New York this past weekend. Went to a place called Ess-A-Bagel, somewhere about 50th and 3rd. Long line of people – not unusual for a New York bagel place. The 4 of us got in line, ordered, got our food, paid, and then went to sit down.

They have about15 small tables (30” round?) and maybe 45 chairs. 3 tables and 6 chairs were being held by a man and his 2 kids – one at each table. His wife and other 2 kids were in the back of the line – about 20 minutes or more from ordering. All other tables were full of people who had their food. I asked, nicely, if we could use one of the tables and 4 of the chairs. Dad said no “We’re holding them.”

We looked around - no other place to sit with our trays of food. Stood for a couple of minutes then asked a second time. He again said no. I looked around and nobody else appeared to be near finished. Only other potential was 1 guy with coffee sitting at a table with 2 empty chairs. I told the dad holding the 3 tables that they shouldn’t hog a bunch of tables when they hadn’t yet gotten their food (I was losing my nice). At this his wife stepped out of line and berated me. I responded that common courtesy is to get your food first and then get a table. A couple of guys in line behind her yelled at me. My son wisely stepped in at this point and told me to just ignore them.

While we stood waiting for another table to finish the cashier cleared some loaves of bread off a table and gave us 2 chairs. I was able to get another chair so 3 sat and 1 stood. BTW, this wouldn’t have bothered me if the place were full of people who were eating – that’s life. It was that I stood while this guy and his two kids sat with no food in 3 chairs and held 3 empty chairs and tables when they didn’t yet need them.

When we were done and headed out the dad and his kids were still sitting there holding the tables and empty chairs, and still without any food. Mom and other 2 kids were still waiting on their food. Interestingly my son noted that the 2 guys behind the mother who’d yelled at me had joined the coffee drinker who, when they came in, had purchased a coffee quickly so he could grab a table and hold it for his 2 buddies. No wonder they were so sensitive over the issue.

-------------

Holding tables is like breaking in line. The line in self-serve cafés goes something like; order, get food, pay, get table. Or sometimes; order, pay, get table, food delivered to table.

Tables have time value. During the time that the dad was holding the tables with his kids waiting on his wife to order and bring their food, 6 to 12 other people could have used those tables*. And while they wait in line other tables will free up for them to use.

On average, if people hold tables like this a café needs 30% to 90% more tables (and thus expensive space) to accommodate the same number of people as they will if nobody holds tables.

Hogging a table before getting your food isn’t fair to those who arrived before you and have already waited in line and gotten their food. Most people understand this and are courteous enough to not hold tables in a busy place. Unfortunately the number of people who lack common regard for others seems to be growing. More and more cafés are having to put in signs about common decency such as “Do NOT get your table until you’ve ordered and paid for your food.”

Ess-A-Bagel should do the same for the few inconsiderate folks who want to hog tables.

Café Etiquette:

If a café is crowded, order and pay for your food BEFORE grabbing a table. This allows others who arrived before you and already have their food to use the table.

Conclusion of the story… As we were leaving my son hung back a bit and apologized for our yelling at them. He said that they were wrong for hogging the tables when they didn’t have food, but that didn’t make it right for us to yell at them. Ah, nothing like learning maturity from your kid (though I’m quite proud to!)  He also noted that the guys kids seemed quite embarrassed by the whole thing.

* Let’s do some math. Assuming 3 people per table, the 15 tables in Ess-A-Bagel can accommodate 45 people for an hour each, 90 people for 30 minutes each, or 135 people for 20 minutes each. If it takes 20 minutes to get your food and 20 minutes to eat, then twice as many people can eat sitting down if nobody holds tables as can if people like this man hold tables while waiting on someone else to order and bring their food.

Rescue Operations: Prostitutes and the Gulf Oil Spill

Time to get myself in trouble again…

Have you kept up with the gulf oil spill? Seen the pictures of oil coating plants and animals in the marsh areas? Read stories of the various clean-up operations? Held your breath at the latest attempt to stop the leak (which fortunately seems to be working!)?

What would you think if BP and the U.S. Government had said that the leak could not be plugged? That there was no way to stop the flow. That best they could do would be to capture some of the oil, perhaps as much as 90%, but the remainder would continue to leak in to the gulf forever. ‘Instead of trying to capture the oil we’re going to put all of our efforts in to clean-up operations and we believe that in any month or year we’ll be able to clean up as much as 10% of the oil that spills during that period and we’ll be able to help 10% of the birds and other animals impacted.’

Dumb idea?

This is kind of what we’re doing with rescue operations to help enslaved women. All of the focus is on the clean-up and none on stopping it at the source – preventing it from happening in the first place. We save 20 girls, but 400 (4,000?, 40,000?) others are enslaved during the same period*.

The answer, according to many, is that we simply need to end prostitution. Good luck.

In this post Tom Davis talks about ‘Sex divorced from the Love that created it.” This is perhaps a dangerous (and ignorant?) perception. Especially if you want to help girls enslaved into the sex industry. It’s all nice and everything to think about sex and love together, but it’s not reality.

If you ask a woman about sex and love you’ll get a long dissertation on love and romance and maybe a brief mention of sex with the man she loves. If you ask a man you’ll get “I Love Sex.”

For women, sex and love (and emotions) are all intertwined. For men they are pretty much completely separate**. And you know what? This is the way God made us. He made women to desire sex only (or primarily) with the man she loves. He made men to desire, and I mean really really really desire, sex with every cute girl that walks by. And God didn’t stop here, he gave men a nearly unquenchable desire for variety in sex partners.

This is why we have a prostitution industry. Why we’ve had one since the beginning of time. And why we’ll likely have one for at least another year or two.

In his 5 level Hierarchy of Human Needs, Abraham Maslow lists sex twice (and it’s the only thing listed twice btw) ***. He includes Physical Sex as a Physiological need at the base of his pyramid along with air, water, food, and sleep. He lists Sexual Intimacy in the 3rd level of Love and Belonging. In discussions on this, more than a few women ask why it’s included on the 1st level. Men know why. However, as intimacy, both male and female can relate.

Many well-meaning Christian men very vocally disagree with me on all of this. Of those who have done so publically, several have later been caught with their hand in the nookie jar.

I don’t know why God made men and women the way he did. Why he didn’t give men a sex drive similar to women. It would have made life in our society much easier. He didn’t though and there’s not much we can really do about it.

At this point I want to interject something. If your husband’s sexual monogamy is important to you and he is sexually monogamous in your marriage – you are extremely blessed! The title of a popular book by Stephen, Fred, and Mike, ‘Every Man’s Battle’, is quite an understatement for many men.

Reality isn’t very romantic, and we ignore it at our own peril.

Do you believe that we can ever eliminate prostitution? Reduce it? If you answer yes to either of these I’ve got some miracle holy water I’d like to send you (for a small donation of course).

As long as we have men in society we will likely have a huge demand for prostitution. It won’t abate. It won’t go away anytime soon. We can call for an end to prostitution all we want, but to the average horny male, that doesn’t mean a lot. We can spout all the horrifying statistics we can come up with legitimately or illegitimately, but they’ll either get lost in the din of other such horrifying statistics about a host of other issues or, more likely, dismissed as exaggeration and lies.

So what do we do? With this reality how can we more effectively alleviate women being forced to work as prostitutes, effectively raped, in the first place? Instead of saving 20 after they’ve been enslaved and raped, how can we prevent 200 (or 2,000, or 20,000) from being enslaved or raped at all?

--------------

Note: None of the above should be construed as support for men visiting prostitutes - just as pointing out traffic fatalities should not be construed as support for someone intentionally causing a traffic fatality.

* I am not saying that we shouldn’t be helping women caught in bondage. We should certainly continue these efforts.

** Men do enjoy sex (and air, food, and water) more with a woman they love than with a stranger - but they still very much enjoy them, including sex, otherwise. And ‘very much’ is rather an understatement.

*** Maslow was, to the best of my knowledge, not in any way a believer in any Biblical scriptures and was likely a humanist. This is particularly evident with the top level of his pyramid, Self-actualization. However, his model does accurately portray basic human needs and behavior and does so even for Christians.

Christians - Loosing Our Moral Authority (Part I)

In my previous post about the 40,000 sex slaves I included a link to Tom Davis’s blog (linked under the phrase ‘ignorant Christian’). This has gnawed at me ever since. Davis didn’t just parrot the 40,000 prediction, which would be bad enough given the shakiness of it, he went a step further and made up a story that it had actually happened.

After the 40,000 number was proven so grossly inaccurate after the 2006 world cup, the vast majority of NGO’s, government officials, politicians, and journalists shied away from it this time around. David Batstone a good example. In all of my searching and interviews I’ve found few who would touch it as a prediction for 2010, and not a single one, save Davis, who would say that anything even remotely close actually happened.

I asked Davis about this on his blog. In 3 replies and 1 blog post he chose to try diverting attention from his lying rather than fess up. Has he, in effect, been saying that whatever he says, truth or lie, is worth the reward? That for him, the end justifies the means, in this case lying?

This wasn’t a mis-statement or mis-quote on Davis’ part. It was a blatant and intentional lie. I’ve been a writer for a number of years. You don’t write the words he did by mistake. He knew what he was doing. He knew he was lying.

Confession. I’m very far from perfect on this score. I am a poster child for adult ADD (which I view as more of a blessing than a curse btw). My memory is often a rather strange jumble of things that often takes concerted effort to sort out. Much to the chagrin of many I often think out loud which then leads to either me correcting myself on things or to others doing so. The problem I’ve found with sorting things out before opening my mouth is that by the time I sort them out the conversation has traversed 2 or 3 other topics…

Writing unshackles me. I can, usually, take the time to sort through things and make sure that what I’m saying is both what I actually think and is factually correct.

As Christians we should take the moral high ground. We should be more honest than the rest. God does not need us to lie to accomplish his goals. Truth will win out over lies EVERY TIME.

When we lie we lose our moral authority. And do so collectively. Tom Davis telling a lie doesn’t impact only Tom, but his entire ministry Children's Hopechest* and all of us who are Christians or work in social justice organizations. How can we expect someone to believe us when we’re telling them about Christ when they know they can’t believe us otherwise?

And quite frankly, “I’m not perfect, just forgiven” doesn’t cut it.

Raising liars

This culture of Christian lying seems to start with our teens. We’ve built a little box that defines what a good Christian is. We are quick to condemn anyone who falls outside our little box. Peer pressure and acceptance, for teens, is extremely powerful. What to do when we inevitably then find ourselves outside the little box? Lie about it. It’s a bit tough the first time, but gets easier and easier each successive time.

How often is our little box, defined by our Christian Pop Culture, more restrictive than what God says? How often is someone condemned for something that is a sin in man’s eyes, but not in God’s? If you haven’t already, I suggest reading Phillip Yancey's Soul Survivor for a start on this topic.

This is all then massively exacerbated at many Christian colleges. At Northwestern College, Bethel University, and Bethel Seminary, all in Roseville, MN, lying is part of the daily routine for many. Students are required to attend chapel every day but many find it too easy to check-in quickly (yes, proof of attendance is required) and then sneak out the side door. Most professors require students to sign a statement on tests that they have read ALL of the assigned material. Not doing so will cost you a letter grade. Just a guess, but I’m betting a chunk of students lie about this one.

Many Christian high schools, colleges, and universities require students to sign ‘lifestyle statements’. Most of these don’t just govern on-campus behavior, but ALL behavior, 24-hours per day, until the day they graduate. These almost universally include prohibitions against any form of sex outside of marriage and any alcohol or drug use. Many also include prohibitions against smoking cigarettes, dancing, holding hands, listening to secular music, going to bars, and a host of other prohibitions. I know a lot of students who attend these institutions. Extremely few go more than a week or two without violating the lifestyle statement they signed. And when asked by authorities if they’ve violated it?

One friend told me that for her the greatest thing about moving to her local state university from the Christian college where she’d spent 2 years was the much higher level of integrity and honesty at the non-Christian university. That’s a very sad statement from a committed Christian.

Next comes adulthood. Adult Christians lie to keep their outward appearance inside the little ‘good-Christian’ box. We lie about some of our beliefs and questioning so that we remain ‘Christianly Correct’ to our Christian friends. And we lie, as Tom Davis did, not to protect ourselves from others opinions, but to accomplish our own goals.

And we wonder why Christians are held in such low esteem by so many.

More next week.

* Children's Hopechest appears to be a very worthwhile organization that I have supported in the past. The problem I have now is how much of anything they say can be believed given their leader's willingness to lie so easily.

The Magic of 40,000 Sex Slaves

In the year or so prior to the 2002 World Cup in Korea and Japan there were sporadic predictions here and there about the numbers of women who would be enslaved and trafficked to meet demand for prostitutes during the games. About a third mentioned the number 40,000.

In the months leading up to the 2006 World Cup in Germany rhetoric heated up and there were thousands of headlines about the predicted 40,000 women who would be trafficked, against their will, in to Germany to work in Germany’s legal brothels. Churches, NGO’s, and other groups spent enormous sums of money to find and help these women. The German government allocated a large number of police, social workers, and others to help out.

Reality? They found 5 (4 women, 1 man). And the extent to which any of them were forced became questionable. The brothels all said that they had plenty of women willing to work and had no need of enslaved women.

Some don’t learn their lessons. Prior to the 2010 World Cup in South Africa a few groups, politicians, and one David Bayever, deputy chairperson of South Africa's Central Drug Authority, toted out the 40,000 number again. Some NGO’s, newspapers, websites, and ignorant Christians* picked up on it. A few NGO’s who work with children began their own twist saying that 40,000 African children would be enslaved into the sex industry to meet demand during the World Cup.

After being burned so bad in 2006 many groups and newspapers wisely shied away from 2010’s hyperbole so the number and placement of headlines was down significantly and many fewer groups spent money to do anything in South Africa.

But why is it always 40,000? Is there research to back this up in any way?

One Group, NotForSaleCampaign.org, founded by David Batstone took a better path with their ‘Red Card’ campaign. For 2010 they wisely steered clear of the 40,000 enslaved women hyperbole and focused on the global slave trade which unfortunately does have way too much basis in reality. They handed out their own version of red cards with quotes such as “The youngest pro footballer signed at 14, which is old if you're a sex slave."

Batstone has spent a number of years working with enslaved women and children around the world. Most of his hyperbole is, unlike that of someone like Melissa Farley, at least based in reality. While in his book ‘Not For Sale’ he ignores the numerous studies that indicate countries with legal prostitution, such as The Netherlands, appear to have significantly lower levels of enslavement or trafficking than countries such as the U.S., at least what he does include is generally factual.

While David and I may disagree about the impact of legalizing or criminalizing prostitution, we do agree on the harm of human slavery and I fully support everything he does.

And the final reality for the 2010 World Cup? Pretty much the same as 2006. Brothels reported more willing sex workers than they needed. Initial reports indicate no known enslavement or trafficking of adults or children.

CNN just reported similar findings in their interviews with brothel owners and prostitutes in South Africa. The prostitutes said that they were looking forward to the end of the world cup so that their regular customers, who’d stayed away from the crowds, would start coming back.

So, what is it about the number 40,000? Has someone somewhere done a study and determined that no matter what and where, the number of enslaved women for prostitution will really be 40,000? Is it some weird axiomatic number? Maybe some study determined that 40,000 was the number to garner the best emotional response in people? Big enough to get people worked up, but not so big as to seem unrealistic – at least without thinking about it? It’ll be interesting to see how often we see 40,000 with the 2014 World Cup.

One final note: Both Japan and Korea, hosts of the 2002 World Cup, have a Tier 1 rating by the U.S. State Department when it comes to human trafficking. This is the best rating any country can get. HOWEVER, my own research would seem to support a much higher rate of human trafficking in both countries than in most Tier 1 countries. I would find it believable that there was a significant increase in human trafficking for the 2002 World Cup. 40,000? Not even close. 1,000 or 2,000? Possibly.

* Amazing how a wild and unsubstantiated prediction one place became "The Facts Remain" that "40,000 HAVE poured in...". And we wonder why Christians are held in such low esteem. As Christians we should be the purveyors of truth not the creators of lies. Note added 15 July: The author of the blog I linked to works with a respected organization. I'm hoping that he will be able to substantiate his claim.

Policy or Politics ?

Someone today commented that I’d be against any Democrat policy, just because it’s from a Democrat. Another person was surprised to hear that, thinking that I am a Democrat.

The reality is that I’m neither Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, nor anything else. If an Obama or Pelosi policy worked well for our nation I’d be all for it.

If government welfare programs were beneficial I wouldn’t mind paying for them. If they helped people that needed the help and encouraged people to get off of welfare and begin to support themselves I would vote for them. They don’t though. Government welfare, individual or corporate, provides some short-term benefit, but in the long-term just encourages people to make bad decisions and stick their hand out for more. We might benefit one-hundred children this generation but encourage one-thousand to be on welfare next generation.

Likewise, if vice prohibitions worked, I’d be for them. They don’t. They don’t reduce drugs, gambling, or prostitution, and they do cause a plethora of problems.

So far I’m sounding pretty Libertarian. But I disagree with many Libertarians too. While I’m not pro-war, I’m also not nearly as anti-war as the Libertarian plank espouses. And while I believe we should have about 10% as much government as Democrats believe we should and maybe 30% as much as Republicans believe we should, I probably also believe we need twice as much as Libertarians.

In the end I don’t care whose policy something is, as long as it’s a policy that is good for our nation. (What I’ve determined though is that most policies aren’t likely good for our nation, regardless of who they come from. This usually because of unintended consequences, not so much the policy itself.)

I’m amazed how often I hear people trying to defend a policy only because it’s the policy of their chosen party or their favored politician. Even when they agree with all of the reasons it’s a bad policy and that these outweigh anything good about it, they still try to defend it. I’ve even heard people say that they support it just because it’s part of their party’s or favorite politicians plank – no questions asked.

We need to stop being lemmings and start focusing on getting our nation back on track.

(BTW, who are ‘policies’ good for? Mostly government and politicians.)

Environmentally Concious Drug Smugglers !

In this article on FoxNews we learn that drug smugglers are, if nothing else, Green. My first thought was that if drug smugglers can build an electric boat, certainly our recreational boat companies in the U.S. can. On second thought though, the drug smugglers are probably much better funded. Speaking of electric boats, no recent news from Correct Craft on their experimentation with a Tesla provided drivetrain.

Obama Becoming Irrelevant ?

Seemingly, President Obama is becoming almost irrelevant. He still holds the office of President of the United States. He still wields a tremendous chunk of power. But he seems to be viewed less and less, even by Democrats and media, as leader of the Democratic party, not to mention leader of our country.

There’s a difference in ‘holding’ the office of POTUS and actually ‘being’ POTUS. Obama never made the transition from politician to POTUS. He still thinks he’s a politician. Rather than President of the United States, he views himself as President of constituent groups (and dictator of others?). He doesn’t see himself as the leader and representative of all of the citizens of the United States and fewer and fewer citizens view him this way.

Even foreign leaders have begun to dismiss him. The President of the United States has, for some time, been viewed by many as the most powerful person in the world and is often called ‘The Leader of the Free World’. At the recent G20 conference Obama was clearly not viewed that way. In fact, European leaders were lecturing him on budget deficits like he was a school child spending too much of his allowance.

In political speak, Obama is losing the conversation. And in a way perhaps unparalleled in the past century.

FoxNews: Fair and Balanced Misinformation?

This morning on Fox News a reporter in their series on legalizing pot made a statement to Bill Hemmer that “The Netherlands has closed down thousands of pot dispensaries because of crime and illegal activity.”

Really? Thousands closed?

In 1997 there were a total of 1180 in the entire country. In 2004 there were 740. This decline, btw, attributed to a slight decline in demand, a natural consolidation similar to what happens with restaurants, and a push by border cities for shops not to sell to tourists. Today there are an estimated 820, down from 2008’s 852.


Amsterdam police records indicate 1 shop was closed in 2003 because of crime or illegal activity. Yes, the number is one. Not two, not ten, not one-hundred, and not ‘thousands’, but one. Maastricht also closed 1 shop - in 2007.

In 2008 some local councils, including Amsterdam and Rotterdam, passed laws limiting where a coffeeshop (where pot in sold in The Netherlands) can be in proximity to a school. Mostly they said that they had to be greater than 250 meters away. This resulted in approx 85 coffeeshops throughout The Netherlands either closing or moving.

Thousands closed?

The biggest problem with the coffeeshops, according to Dutch police, is with German and Belgian tourists crossing the border and thus some local cities push for their coffeeshops to sell only to Dutch residents. Unlike the average patron elsewhere in The Netherlands, both Dutch citizens and tourists from further away, these cross border tourists tend to be a rowdier and more transient crowd with less respect for the local populace.

More to come…

More... The FoxNews reporter who made these comments was Dan Springer. He also posted similar comments in his blog post on this topic. Thousands closed? Really?

Did anyone notice? Alvin Greene is black.

Well, back from a well undeserved vacation in Hilton Head, SC.

There was a lot of news and discussion there about Alvin Greene's primary win. After his win the South Carolina Democratic Party asked him to pull out. Interestingly not a single media outlet that I saw criticized the Democrats for this by accusing them of being racist. Not a single one said that the only reason they asked him to pull out was because he's black.

Had Mr. Greene run in and won the Republican primary and then been asked by the Republican Party to pull out, I can assure you that media outlets all over would have criticized the Republicans for being racist.

Mr President: Plug The Damn Hole !

Yesterday, referring to the oil spill President Obama said “Plug the damn hole!” I agree. And it sounds like they're getting there. The 'top kill' they've been planning for several weeks seems to be working.

Obama seems to get it when it comes to the oil pouring forth from the ocean floor. He gets that the most important priority is to plug the damn hole. Stop the leak. Once that’s done we can move our focus to what to do about all the oil that’s there. If we don’t plug the damn hole first we’ll be overwhelmed.

Obama doesn’t seem to get it when it comes to the illegal immigrants pouring forth from the border. He doesn’t get that the most important priority is to plug the damn hole. Stop the leak. Once that’s done we can move our focus to what to do about all the illegals who are already here. If we don’t plug the damn hole first we’ll be overwhelmed.

It’s only after we plug the damn hole that things differ. The illicit oil we don’t want. We’ll want to get rid of every last bit of it. The illicit immigrants we mostly want. A few bad apples we’ll want to throw in jail or send back from where they came. We need immigrants. Immigrants are important to our country. And we are obviously extremely important to them.

A cops death.

A cop being killed in the line of duty, just like soldiers in our armed forces, has always given me serious pause. Their death was very likely a result of their doing something to protect me, and all of us, and to make where we live a better and safer place.

The newspaper articles and TV news coverage always talk about what a great cop they were, how many people they helped, how well liked they were, and multitudes of other platitudes.

What I wonder though, and what is ignored by the media, is how corrupt was he. Did he make a little money on the side letting the local drug dealer know when a sting was coming up? Did she over-reach with forfeiture of ‘criminal’ assets and take a few nice things home for herself? Was he a drug dealer himself? Did she sometimes smoke some of the pot confiscated in a drug bust?

Or did he not do any of these things himself but held to the blue code of silence and watched as others did?

An estimated 30% of cops are in the first group and nearly all of the rest are in the blue code of silence group. Only an estimated 1/10 of 1 % aren’t in either group.

When a cop is killed in our state I often see the funeral parade. The coffee café I spend many of my mornings in is not far from our state capital and the parades start in front of here. As I write this there’s a parade of an estimated 800 police cars lining up to honor a cop killed this past weekend.

What group was this cop in? Was he part of the 30%? The 69.9% who kept silent? Or was he part of the 1/10 of 1%, the 1 in 1,000 who didn’t keep silent?

Very likely we’ll never know.

A former prostitute I interviewed told me about a cop she knew. I remember his funeral about 8 or 9 years ago. Like the cop being honored today he was killed in the line of duty and the accolades of what a great cop he was filled all of the local media. There was a story of his saving someone’s life and another of his finding a young child who’d wandered away from home. He had put in considerable time coaching a softball team for underprivileged kids. There were pictures of his wife and kids at his funeral on the front page of the paper. The following May he was inducted into the police memorial in Washington DC.

Her experience with him wasn’t so good though. He and some other cops had setup a sting in a local hotel and busted 4 girls for prostitution. As best she could tell she was number 5, but they made her an offer. If she’d give them each a freebie, they’d let her go. Compared to having an arrest for prostitution on her record and paying a fine that would have required servicing the same number of clients anyway, this was an OK deal from her standpoint.

But that wasn’t the end. Occasionally he or one of the others would stop by her apartment with the same ‘offer’.

She said all of the media attention he got and everyone talking about what a great cop and person and husband and father he was made her ill. “If he’d paid me like any other client I would have liked him, but he didn’t. He raped me.” She said. Several months after his funeral she found out that another girl had a similar relationship with him from a different sting and apparently a different group of other cops.

Interestingly she said that after his death neither one of them ever heard from any of the other cops again.

Universal Sports let me down...

A couple of weeks ago, on April 22, I posted about the coming world of TV that will unshackle us from the cable TV and Satellite companies. Well, one of my favorite companies in this brave new world, Universal Sports, almost let me down.

I wanted to watch the Giro d’Italia which Universal Sports has the U.S. rights to. Universal had other ideas. Despite Universal Sports best efforts to keep me from giving them revenue, in the end, I won.

The first battle was figuring out that for the first time Universal was indeed charging for what had always been free in years past. Clicking on their 'Live Now!' tab, where we've always previously clicked to watch video, produced... Nothing. They thought this would throw me off and I would think they were simply having technical problems or perhaps weren’t really broadcasting this year. Not me. I pressed on.

I am not at all against Universal Sports charging for this btw. I just wish they’d be a bit more clear about it.

Battle the second, now that I’d determined that they were charging for their programming this year, was figuring out how to pay them revenue. Nothing I could find on any of the cycling pages led me to anywhere that would take my credit card. I did though find a couple of pages that confirmed that they were charging. One offered me Stage 15 for 99 cents. Well, that’s fine, but stage 15 is over 2 weeks away. (Cycling stage races like this or the Tour de France are usually comprised of multiple individual races or ‘stages’, usually 1 per day.) But I persisted and to the persistent often goes the battle. Then it happened. I noticed a tab on their home page for ‘Premium’. And there I found the elusive prize I was looking for. I forced my credit card number on Universal and was rewarded with a receipt for my purchase.

But for Universal, the war wasn’t over. They may have my revenue, but someone there thought that if they could simply thwart my efforts to find what it was I’d thought I’d purchased then I would call and cancel my subscription leaving them the winner.

They tried the ‘buttons that lead nowhere’ trick again, but I’d seen that tactic before and wasn’t fooled. Like the voice menu systems with 132 levels of choices, Universal Sports led me through page after page of anything but the live broadcast I thought I’d purchased. I still persisted. Persistence had paid off once, it would again. Finally I clicked on a button labeled ‘Watch Live’ or something to that effect on a page with a bunch of Giro stuff on it and was pleasantly greeted with video of people racing bikes and pretty decent English commentary!

Universal Sports doesn’t give up easy though. I wasn’t fooled for long. I know the difference in what I was expecting for Sunday’s Stage 2, a mass start road race, and what I was seeing on my screen. They labeled it ‘Live’ but gave me a replay of the previous day’s Stage 1 Time Trial through the streets of Amsterdam. I quickly realized what it was since on Saturday I had watched Stage 1 live online in Dutch, thanks to a Belgian TV broadcaster. Universal Sports won this day’s battle since I had to leave for church before I could find what I thought I’d bought. You don’t fool around with being late to church on Mother’s Day.

The fourth and final battle commenced this morning. Stage 3 was a road race from Amsterdam to Middleburg. I clicked around a bit sure I’d find the secret passage to the actual live broadcast Universal had so reluctantly sold me. I found a screen that listed stages 15, 14, and 4. Was there a code hidden in these seemingly unrelated stages I was given an option of? Was this kind of like the TV show where the guy saw future newspapers every morning? Could I click on these and see future results? Not. Clicking on them led to a description of the race, nothing more. I did though notice that below the big buttons for this 3 stages was some small text that simply said ‘more…’. I clicked, and behold I now had numerous buttons for a number of stages. They were in random order but scanning brought be to one that said ‘Stage 3’. The moment had arrived. I’d be able to watch Stage 3 live with commentary in English instead of Dutch, Italian, or Russian. Not. Nothing. Nada. Universal made a final valiant try by giving me a video player with nothing in it.

I backed up and tried again. I held my breath. The video player came up. I heard what certainly sounded like English commentary suddenly pour forth from my speakers. Then I saw it. Video. Live video of the Giro! Success! I’d won! There it was, the Giro d’Italia bike race, live from The Netherlands. I’d given them revenue and managed to find what they sold me so I could avoid demanding my money back. I’ll savor this victory for the remainder of the 3 week race.

BTW, this broadcast in Dutch is available free and generally runs from about 6am – 11am EDT. http://bvls2.yolasite.com/ch-39.php
Thanks to the-pedal-pusher.com for the images,

Does Caribou Coffee just want to sell paper cups?

Caribou Coffee recently made a big deal out of ‘major improvements’ to their chain of coffee cafés. They changed their logo and introduced new paper cups with all kinds of slogans on them. Well, I have to say, the reason I go to a café is for the logo and slogans on the cups so I’ll certainly be sure to stop by Caribou.

NOT.

What should they do? They can start by teaching their barista’s how to make a proper cappuccino. A proper cappuccino has froth with a bit of espresso in the froth. A Caribou cappuccino has milk suds with no espresso. Good smooth froth with a bit of espresso is a delight. Your first sips of a Caribou cappuccino are of plain white milk suds. Yuk.

A proper Cappuccino is served in a warmed ceramic mug. Caribou uses paper cups. Paper cups allow the cappuccino to cool too fast, a proper ceramic keeps it warmer longer making for a much more pleasant experience.

The typical Caribou has nothing to absorb sound – namely the two people out of the 18 in the café who are intent on sharing their conversation with everyone else. Sound absorbing materials in the ceiling, on the walls, and perhaps a rug or two on the floor would help immensely.

Many people like to use laptops in cafés. Bright light isn’t good for being able to see laptop screens. Reducing the number of windows (especially in all of the Burger Kings and Carl’s Jr’s that have been converted to Caribou’s) would help. Tinting the windows and putting in blinds could help as well.

Speaking of converted fast-food places. A few walls here and there could help. They’d reduce noise and provide laptop users with darker places with more privacy that are more conducive to working.

Finally, the barista’s. A barista is kind of like a bartender. You don’t want an obnoxious bartender who doesn’t know how to make drinks and you don’t want an obnoxious barista who talks too loud and doesn’t know how to make cappuccino’s.

On the plus side the pseudo fresh baked pastries is an improvement. Healthier and lower calorie options would be better. Fresh natural ingredients, no processed sugars, sized to be maybe 150 calories instead of 500, etc.

Food, Sex, and Self Control

In a survey I asked a bunch of former drug addicts which they believe more difficult to give up; drugs or sex. Female respondents largely said drugs. Male respondents overwhelmingly said sex.

I wish I’d asked the same question about giving up drugs vs giving up high calorie diets.

Obesity is a major problem in our society and is only getting worse. It is one of the key factors in increased healthcare costs. It is becoming a significant issue for airline flyers who find the rolls of fat of the person next to them flowing over in to their already tight space. The Army recently noted that recruitment efforts are becoming more difficult because many who want to join are too obese to even start training and the numbers who begin training and then are kicked out because they can’t attain a minimum level of fitness is increasing.

A doctor I heard speak once said something to the effect of this: It used to be that we couldn’t avoid physical labor and that calories were difficult to come by. Today we can’t avoid calories but physical labor is difficult to come by.

I understand where he’s coming from, and agree that things have changed, but not to the extent that he espouses. Stop by any major construction site and you’ll see a number of obese people doing physical labor. It’s not just a lack of labor among the general population. Exercise is critical to good health, but almost no amount of exercise can overcome a high calorie diet. A 490 calorie scone from Panera Bread will require about 3 hours of brisk walking (8 miles in 2 hours, 35 minutes) to work off.

Calories are certainly more prevalent today than in the past, but just because they’re available doesn’t mean we have to partake. We can choose to eat healthier. We don’t have to eat Big Mac’s or Alice Springs Chicken (a menu item at Outback Steakhouse that alone has as many calories as many people need in an entire day.)

I’ve done it so I know how difficult it is. Over about a 10 or 15 year period I’d very slowly put on 3 or 4 extra pounds a year until I was noticeably pudgy. I reduced my calorie intake to about 1,800/day to lose the extra 35 lbs and now generally stick to about 2,100 to maintain it. I eat out over 90% of my meals, travel a good bit, and eat at formal dinners and other events. It’s not even remotely impossible to choose to do it and then do so.

This does pose a question. Is every person capable of the self-control and self-discipline necessary to limit their diet to something appropriate like 1,600 – 2,200 calories per day?
How many of the obese people around us are or are not capable of controlling what they eat. Is it different for men and women?

How would you rank sex, drugs, and high calorie food on the self-discipline scale?

Welcome and Thank YOU!

This blog was originally created for a small group of friends and associates. Looking at the traffic stats it appears there are a number of others who’ve stumbled upon it and even continue to read. So, to all those who suffer through my often hastily and poorly written posts - Thank You! It’s always very gratifying when anyone takes their valuable time to read something I’ve written, whether it be in a national magazine or a simple anonymous blog.

Will posting calories help control obesity?

The one thing in Obama’s healthcare bill that I have been supportive of is the requirement that restaurants post calorie information on menu’s. Panera Bread cafés began doing this recently of their own initiative. Does it work?

My wife and I ate in Panera for dinner last night. Based on the calories posted I chose a half Cuban chicken sandwich and half cobb salad. 680 calories was within my 900 calorie dinner allowance. So far so good. They also have a promotion for a bakery item for 99 cents. That 490 calorie orange scone (my future daughter-in-law makes real (and very good) scones, Panera’s are not real but more like scone shaped muffins) sure was good.

Based on this study, posting calories is of little benefit 

FitBit

While we’re talking about calories… I read an article recently about a device called a fitbit. It measures your activity throughout the day and tells you how many calories you’ve burned. Sounds like a good thing.

This morning I heard a group of POS (persons of size) talking about something similar that they all have. They were all excited because their devices showed that they burned 250 calories going on a 40 minute walk. “I can eat a candybar.” one said.

There’s a danger in this. Thanks to our metabolism we naturally burn a bunch of calories throughout the day, usually between about 1500 and 2500. I burn about 60 calories per hour when I’m sleeping, about 80/hr for the approximately 12 hours I’m fairly sedentary sitting at my desk, and about 190/hr for the 4 hours I’m somewhat active which includes things like taking a shower, grocery shopping, or cutting the grass. For all of this I can eat about 2200 calories a day and not gain weight. Eating anything more than my base metabolic rate will destroy my svelte figure.

If, for one of my ‘active’ hours, I go for a long walk that burns 250 calories, I haven’t burned an extra 250, but only an extra 60 or so. I’d actually have to walk a 250 calorie per hour pace for a bit over 4 hours to burn off that candybar. I do a lot of bike riding and burn about 1000 calories per hour (approx 20mph pace). That doesn’t mean that I can eat an extra 1000 calories though. Realistically I’ve only burned about an extra 800 calories. In reality though I find that for that 1000 calorie ride I can only eat about 600 calories over my 2200 calorie metabolic rate or similarly 1200 calories on a day I’ve supposedly burned 2000 calories on my bike. I’m not sure if my computer and various charts give high calorie burn information or if it just takes more than a calorie to burn a calorie.

Moral of the story – be careful how many calories you think you’ve burned.

Cable TV: Not Long for this World...

At the middle of last century AT&T, colloquially known as Ma Bell, controlled all phone service to homes and businesses. If you wanted phone service they were your only choice. You had no options with AT&T. You got what they decided they wanted to offer and that was that. They were regulated by the government but that didn’t seem to be doing much to improve service or lower costs.

Enter Bill McGowan. He decided it was time to undo Ma Bell’s monopoly and give them some competition. They didn’t like the idea. He started a phone company to compete with Ma Bell and then filed a lawsuit to end their monopoly. During this tumultuous time his company, Microwave Communications Inc., later known as MCI, was fondly referred to as a law firm with a microwave dish on it’s roof (it employed more lawyers than telephone people.)

Well, Ma Bell didn’t like competition. They said that they had a legal and regulated monopoly and all was fine, thank you very much. Bill said all wasn’t fine, that they were extremely slow in introducing newer technologies and that their rates were much higher than they needed to be. Ma Bell said that undoing their carefully structured monopoly would put the entire phone system at risk, that there would be tremendous problems and that people wouldn’t be able to make phone calls if Bill won.

Fortunately for all of us, Bill won. MCI began implementing newer technologies and offering services at a fraction of what AT&T had been charging. To their credit, AT&T became a much more efficient, competitive, and technologically advanced company within just a few years instead of the 10 or more many expected.

Today’s cable companies are not much different than AT&T of yesteryear. We are living in an ancient world held down by a paradigm largely developed decades before Al Gore decided he invented the Internet*.

We can only get the channels that our monopoly cable carrier or satellite service decides to offer. I’d like Universal Sports Channel, but my cable company doesn’t offer it so I’m out of luck. And even for channels they do offer we often have to purchase those we don’t want in order to get one we do, just because of the way the cable carriers decide to bundle channels.

My PC isn’t handcuffed like my antiquated cable service. I’m not prevented from viewing tripadvisor.com because Comcast hasn’t negotiated a contract with them. Can you imagine if your internet service provider told you that you could only access the websites they choose to offer?

Likewise we’re limited in options for Al’s internet service. Many people have no alternative for internet but their monopoly cable company. A few have a low-speed DSL option from their local phone company (likely a descendent of Ma Bell), but if they want higher speed, cable is it. Some have no reasonable option at all.

Well, there’s sunshine on the horizon and it won’t even require lawsuits.

Part I of sunshine is that we are beginning to see the unbundling of cable channels from carrier service. Many ‘channels’ are now streaming their programming on their websites. So, while Comcast doesn’t offer Universal Sports, I can just go to Universal Sports website and watch their stream of the Milan – San Remo bike race. I’m no longer locked in to only what Comcast chooses to offer and only at the price Comcast chooses.

In time we’ll see more and more of this and ultimately it will no longer be necessary to subscribe to any ‘channels’ through our cable or satellite company. All we’ll need is internet service and then we’ll ‘tune in’ to whatever ‘channels’ we want to watch via their websites.

One slight cloud though. Just as traditional land-line phone companies are seeing a precipitous decline in customers as more and more of us forego a traditional phone for a cell phone, cable companies will see a decline in people purchasing traditional cable service as we choose to get the channels we want directly via the internet. The cable carriers will want to raise their internet rates to make up for the lost revenue from cable TV subscriptions, but they’ll find a problem. Competition.

Part II of sunshine is 4G. Today you may get the internet at your home through your cable company, DSL from the phone company, or maybe WiFi from your municipality **. Tomorrow you may very well get the internet in your home from your cell phone company. We think of cell service as ‘mobile’, but if it can do mobile cost effectively, it can certainly do stationary even more cost effectively. 4G promises data performance comparable to what cable provides today or greater. DSL has provided little real competition to the cable companies, but 4G and similar wireless technologies will. Just replace your current cable modem with a 4G modem and you’ll be set.

Verizon is leading the charge with a faster rollout (30 cities in Q3 of 2010) and greater speed promises of 5 – 12 Mbps. Sprint is just behind though they say that they will only offer 6 mbps initially. And even our old friend AT&T is there with rollouts (12 mbps rumor) planned for 2011. The 4G spec though includes up to 1 gigabit per second (gbps) for stationary applications.

Today I pay $148/mo for cable and another $62/mo for internet so a total of $208 to Comcast. I pay another $67/mo to my cell company for voice+data. My guess is that the new 4G will come in around $99 for voice+data so for another $32 I can drop my $62/mo cable internet and soon the $148 cable altogether.

The one remaining piece of the puzzle will be for TV’s to include web browsers and media players similar to those we have on our PC’s. LCD and Plasma displays are really just computers built into very large computer displays. Today they have proprietary media players for Netflix and Youtube, tomorrow we’ll see open applications like we have on our PC’s including web browsers and good media players.


* Note: The Internet was actually invented by a guy name Vinton Cerf. I worked for Vint. At MCI.

** 4G data service from cell providers has been a known technology for some time. Despite this, several municipalities around the country have moved forward with installation of WiFi (and low power WiMax) networks, often paid for with tax dollars. It remains to be seen if these will be able to compete with 4G (which includes a higher power version of WiMax). My guess is that these, along with 'wifi hotspots', won't be long for this world either.

Politically Incorrect to help those enslaved ?

I'm on vacation (and thus this is unedited), but had this article forwarded to me and wanted to make a comparison. Human Trafficking is a serious problem throughout much of the world, in particular Asia and the Middle-East. Stories of people, mostly women, enslaved to work in garment factories, rice fields, brick factories, brothels, and homes are excruciating to read. They are most often not allowed to leave the premise. They are told that if they are disobedient in any way that they will be punished or their family will be. In many countries, such as Thailand, the police and other authorities are of little or no help as they are paid bribes to assist the slave masters and indeed, in some areas this type of slavery is considered socially acceptable.

When International Justice Mission (IJM) is prevented from putting up advertisements with a message to people who might be enslaved that they can contact IJM for help, Americans rightly go ballistic. The Brad Pitt's and Angelina Jolie's of Hollywood, the elected folk in Washington, and others scream about the lack of freedom of speech and how horrible these people are who do not want to help those enslaved.

Yet here in the U.S. this happens and what do we do? If someone plastered bus ads all over telling people that if they were enslaved in a Christian organization and couldn't leave for fear of harm that here was someone who could help, I'd not be offended in the least. So, why are these SIOA bus ads offensive? We know from a number of cases in the U.S. in just the past year that some number Muslims are held hostage, eg, enslaved, under threats of death. Why does Miami-Dade Transit not want to help these people escape?

If I wanted to put up an identical ad, though trying to reach women enslaved and forced to work as prostitutes in Miami, would that be deemed offensive to pimps who enslave these women and thus not allowed on Miami-Dade buses? If it said:

Threat over your head? Leaving Prostitution? RefugeFromProstitution.com

What third world is Miami-Dade becoming?

The Pope needs a Wife !

What we’ve witnessed from the Catholic church over the past few years with its pedophile priests scandal has been, at the least, very concerning.

What we’ve witnessed from the Vatican in the past week has been absolutely nauseating.

The Pope and others in Catholic leadership need wives.

Not because this will give them a more appropriate outlet for their sexual appetite than the children they’ve been using. Though it will. And not because this will attract more non-pedophiles into the priesthood instead of it being overloaded with those with homosexual pedophilic tendencies. Though it will. But because these men are in dire need of normalcy, balance, and a woman’s opinion in their lives.

There have been dozens of cases (and likely hundreds or thousands) throughout the Catholic church, worldwide, of those in authority protecting priests who rape and molest children rather than taking actions to protect the children from further abuse by Catholic priests. Among other horrific actions, they’ve routinely moved priests accused of molesting and raping children instead of removing them. How many hundreds of men in authority throughout the Catholic church have done this? How many hundreds have made the decision to move one of these rapists and allow them to continue to rape little children? How many thousands have known about these decisions but did nothing?

As this scandal continues to grow it has become obvious that this is pervasive throughout the Catholic church. It is pervasive around the entire globe and it is pervasive at every level including the very top. And it goes back as far as anyone alive today can attest so we can only wonder how long it’s been going on.

Is anyone involved in leadership in any way in the Catholic church, from parish priest to pope, innocent of allowing these children to be molested? As pervasive as these actions appear to be I find it difficult to believe that anyone who has been in leadership for more than a year or two was not aware of what was going on.

We know that there have been thousands of complaints of priests molesting children over the past few decades. How many times, prior to the scandal becoming public, did the Catholic leadership who received these complaints contact any authorities?

What were they thinking when they allowed these things to happen? Were they in sympathy with these men? Were they thinking that they could understand the sexual frustration these men experienced and they could, on some level, sympathize with their molesting and raping children. And because of their sympathizing and empathizing so well with these rapists they deemed their actions justified in moving a molester from one job to another instead of removing him from ministry or doing what any normal person would – turn them over to the police.

How many of the people (I’m finding it difficult to continue calling them men) involved in any way in these decisions empathized because they too had molested children?

What was the Pope thinking when, as cardinal of Germany, he allowed a known child molester to continue working with children? What was the Pope thinking when, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, he allowed a priest in the U.S., who had been accused many times of molesting children, to continue working with children for several years before taking action?

Can any, even remotely normal person, who finds out that someone who works for them is molesting children continue to allow them to work with children? I find it difficult to imagine what kind of person would do such a thing. Yet the leadership of the Catholic church has done so over and over again.

Can the men running the Catholic church then, in any way, be considered normal?

Yesterday morning a Vatican official commented that he simply can’t imagine the Pope being called to account for his actions. “It’s just not acceptable.” After all, the official said, he is the head of the church. He is ‘Christ’s head’ on earth.

Bullshit! The Pope is no different than any other man. And as we’re seeing, this Pope is far less than most other men.

The leadership of the Catholic church is one of the most insular and dangerous mutual admiration societies in history.


Wives

So, now we get to the topic of wives for these men. If those in authority in the Catholic church had wives and children would they have made different and much better decisions? What man with a child would ever condone the molesting of children as those running the Catholic church have been doing for so long? How often might these people have had a more normal outlook if they had a wife to discuss things with on a routine basis?

Over the past week we’ve seen an outpouring of support for the pope from all levels of Catholic leadership. What we haven’t seen (and what you’d normally expect to see in these circumstances) is a groundswell of those in leadership calling for an investigation of the pope and his actions.

Imagine if there was evidence, even much less than that against the Pope, that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had known that another Senator had been molesting children and that Reid helped to cover it up to protect the party. I assume that even most Democrats would call for an investigation of Reid. Now imagine if celibacy was a requirement to be a Senator and so the senate was an insular group of celibate men. Might things be different?


Celibacy

I’m not at all against celibacy. I’ve known a handful of men and women who have chosen to live a celibate life. One in particular was a pastor of a church I worked for. I had a great deal of respect for him. There are two key differences; 1) he had chosen celibacy for himself, and 2) he was in leadership with a number of men who were married and had children of their own. He wasn’t in an insular environment of nothing but celibate men.

God never called for celibacy of pastors, elders, priests, or anyone in leadership. Jesus never said that celibacy was good or a requirement in any way. In fact, Peter, appointed by Christ as a church leader, was married. Do the leadership of the Catholic church know better than Christ?

For the first 1,000 years of the Catholic church there was no celibacy requirement. Celibacy was an invention of man for man’s purpose, not God’s.

The disgusting actions of Catholic leaders that have been uncovered in the past few years shows the result of relying on man instead of God and his Word.

Impact of ObamaCare

A friend of mine runs a local company and made some comments yesterday regarding ObamaCare that I thought interesting.

They are taking an immediate write-off of about $90 million due to the loss of deductibility of retiree health benefits. This comes right off their bottom line and will impact their ability to hire new employees and increase the costs of their products.

They estimate that if they continue with their current level of health benefits that their annual costs will increase by a minimum of 11% or $25 million per year. One really big unknown, and that is not included in the $25 million, is how the elimination of lifetime limits will impact them. Genomics and other massively expensive new procedures and tests could bankrupt them without some form of cap on lifetime expenditures. A cap that under ObamaCare will now be illegal. According to ObamaCare, if you provide health benefits to your employees, it’s all or nothing. A completely open-ended, unlimited expense is impossible for any company.

Within the next year they will need to make a decision about any continued health benefits. Though he didn’t say it, the implied message is that it would be financially irresponsible to continue providing any health benefits after ObamaCare is implemented. Doing so would put the company itself at risk of bankruptcy. Their only choice will be to discontinue all healthcare benefits and have employees obtain healthcare from the government.


Government Healthcare – British Style

He grew up in Britain and provided some insight on the British system that the Democrats want to convert us to. Britain had no real medical system prior to the late 1940’s. Before then extremely few people in Britain, likely less than 5%, EVER saw or talked to a doctor or any other medical person. Without the free enterprise system that the U.S. has Britons tended to wait on the government to do something rather than do it themselves. For Brits the introduction of a government healthcare system in 1948 was a huge improvement over what they didn’t have prior and, without knowing a comparative system, still consider pretty good.

Contrast this with our current healthcare system in the U.S. that is the envy of the entire world. Many Brits come to the U.S. every year for healthcare. I don’t hear of any U.S. folk going to Britain for their better healthcare.

British doctors are paid £60,000 per year (about $100,000) by the NHS (National Health Service). This, they have found, is not enough to encourage people to go through medical school. Due to a shortage of medical students Britain has been importing doctors from India, Morocco, and other countries. The NHS is under serious financial strain and cannot afford to increase pay to doctors so the government are considering other options such as a much shortened medical school regimen that will produce something akin to a jr. doctor who would receive pay of about £50,000 per year.

For most Britons, if they want to see a doctor, they must call their local NHS first thing in the morning and hope to get an appointment that day. If they can’t get one that day then they wait and call again the next morning.

Obama: Anti-Semitic? Stupid? Immature?

Barack Obama’s actions towards Israel since becoming POTUS have been quite amazing. What I’m not sure about is if they come from his being Anti-Semitic, Immature, or just plain Stupid. It doesn’t take too much research of the Israeli-Palestinian-Muslim conflict to see that Israel is not the aggressor, that Israel’s actions are defensive in nature.

Is Obama really so stupid as to not understand the nature and history of this conflict? I don’t think so. It is impossible for any one person to have a very good understanding of the many conflicts and issues around the world. And that is why our presidents have advisors and the U.S. State Department. Rationality is extremely in Israel’s favor, Obama has numerous intelligent advisors, it’s his job to understand issues before taking any action, he’s not that stupid.

Immature? Maybe. His administration was embarrassed by Israel’s announcement of building more apartments in East Jerusalem during Biden’s visit to Israel. Obama’s administration over-reacted which caused further embarrassment. Perhaps an argument can be made that Obama’s walking out on and cutting short a meeting, and then a planned dinner, with Israel’s head of State was a momentary spat of immaturity. Obama has shown before that he can be very thin-skinned. But he’s also always overcome it and persevered through. At least when he wants to. His recent actions towards Israel were pre-meditated and he’d thought through them. These were not simply spats of immaturity.

Could Obama believe that treating Israel like dirt and sideling up to Islamic states will lead to peace in the Middle-East? Possibly. Peace could also have been achieved prior to WWII by giving Hitler everything he wanted as well. We could have ignored his transgressions and the world he would have created and sought peace at any cost.

Well before Biden’s embarrassing trip we’d seen tips of Obama’s hat. Statements here and there, delaying of signing off on selling planes to Israel, something that until now was routine for any POTUS. Israel has been too good of a friend to the U.S. for too long to attribute Obama’s actions to anything other than Stupidity, Immaturity, or Anti-Semitism. If we’ve ruled out the first two, what’s left?

Waxman: Reality conflicts with what I expected…

Since ObamaCare was signed in to law a number of companies have begun doing exactly what they said they would be forced to do and what I mentioned, almost 3 weeks ago, they would do (in Theory, Practice, Smoke, and Mirrors). They’re announcing hits on earnings, delaying the hiring of new employees, laying off employees, and reducing benefits.

But, according to Obama’s economists, ObamaCare was supposed to make things better not worse. Why are these companies doing this?

Businesses are getting hit with a number of things, complements of ObamaCare. First up is that providing prescription drug benefits to retirees is no longer tax deductible. This will cost the average Fortune 500 company that chooses to continue this benefit about $112 million per year in extra taxes. This may be chump change to economists playing with numbers in a spreadsheet or Congressfolk spending other people’s money, but it is very real to people running real businesses that need this money to pay employees.

It’s real money that has to come from somewhere. Real businesses can’t simply raise taxes to cover it or change a number in a spreadsheet. They either need to increase the cost of their products (which lowers sales so doesn’t help) or they need to reduce costs which is often best accomplished through reductions in the number of employees or the costs per employee (eg, reduce pay and benefits). Unfortunately other cost savings options either don’t exist or take several years to begin offering any savings.

And Henry Waxman is acting all confused over this. According to Byron York, writing for the Washington Examiner, Waxman sent a letter to CEO’s of several of the companies who have said that ObamaCare will cost them hundreds of millions of dollars and result in reductions in benefits, layoffs, etc. He wants them to come before Congress on April 21st to defend their actions. York wrote:

Waxman's letter suggests he does not accept the company's decision. "The new law is designed to expand coverage and bring down costs, so your assertions are a matter of concern," Waxman wrote to Stephenson, in addition to letters to Verizon CEO Ivan Seidenberg, Caterpillar CEO James Owens, and Deere & Company CEO Samuel Allen. The companies' decisions, Waxman wrote, "appear to conflict with independent analyses."

Well, no surprise here that they conflict. And just who did these ‘independent analyses’? Business people who run real businesses that employ people and contribute to our economy?

Government is good and we need government, but let’s remember that government doesn’t make anything (OK, except I suppose it now makes unprofitable GM cars). It doesn’t contribute to the economy. Every single government employee, every dollar paid out by the government for healthcare, is paid for by people and businesses who do make things. It’s the people who grow our food, build our houses, and make our clothes who contribute to the economy and whose efforts pay for every cent spent by the government.

Does Waxman understand this? Is he or Obamaosi really surprised by the actions these businesses are being forced to take? Interestingly, I don’t think they’re surprised. I fear that what we are seeing was their intention. If businesses can no longer afford to provide healthcare benefits to their employees, where will their employees turn? Why, the government of course. We’re not all socialists now, but just wait a few years.

A solution for the pre-existing conditions problem?

When challenged about the unprecedented, and very likely un-Constitutional, federal mandate that every person in the U.S. purchase health insurance, Democrats common retort is that without the mandate we cannot address the problem of insurance companies turning people down for pre-existing conditions. Not.

Their rationale is that without the mandate, but with a requirement that insurance companies not discriminate based on pre-existing conditions, people will just wait to purchase insurance until they have a need for it. If true this would indeed violate the very essence of insurance which is to spread out the risk of unpredictable expenses.

There is perhaps another option. Insurance companies can be required to not discriminate on pre-existing conditions when someone is transferring from one insurer to another. In other words, nobody is required to purchase health insurance. There is no un-Constitutional federal mandate. If you already have insurance though and simply need to transfer from one insurance company to another then the company you are transferring to must accept you, pre-existing medical conditions and all.

If you choose not to purchase insurance then you will be on your own for most medical expenses. But once you are in the insurance pool, and as long as you stay in it, then you’ll have no problems transferring. This eliminates the pre-existing conditions problem, protects the integrity of the insurance companies, and doesn’t violate our Constitution.

The End ?

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic"

- Benjamin Franklin*.

Yesterday we took our biggest step yet towards socialism in the U.S. and also witnessed perhaps the most tyrannical action in 200 years. We haven’t witnessed the end of the republic, but we have witnessed the potential beginning of the end.

Our great country hasn’t come to an apocalyptic end with the passage of Social Security or Medicare nor by the incremental creep of increasing taxpayer funded welfare programs. It won’t from ObamaCare either.

Sadly, if ObamaCare is implemented it will be the middle-class who suffers the most.

Today we ALL share the same great healthcare system. The approximate 87% who have insurance all see the same doctors in the same clinics and hospitals and receive the same high level of care. The waiting room in my doctors office is always representative of a cross-section of our country. Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, young, old, rich and poor. I’ve seen well-known wealthy waiting the same as union laborers waiting the same as people on government assistance. Even the 13% uninsured have access to the exact same hospitals and emergency rooms.

The future will likely include a split healthcare system similar to Canada and the U.K.. A private one for the top 15-20% of wage earners, the wealthy and upper middle class, and a public one for everyone else. The private system will be largely identical to what we all share today. We’ve actually started to see this already. Many doctors and clinics will not see Medicare patients because they can’t afford to provide care for what the government pays. In New York and other heavily regulated states an increasing number of doctors no longer even accept insurance and only see those who can pay out of pocket.

The system for the other 80%? It will still have some great and caring doctors, nurses, and other caregivers. But it will not be able to provide today’s level of care to all comers. It will not be able to afford it nor will enough people choose to work in this lower pay system. Waits for care will increase just as in Canada and the U.K. With scarce resources we’ll begin to see prioritization, likely along the lines of future contributions to society (EG, younger workers will receive priority over those who can’t or don’t work – the older, etc.).

But all is not so gloomy.

The Good

There could be some good from this.

Foremost, we might finally see some practical limits placed on the commerce clause of our U.S. Constitution along with some re-assertion of the state’s rights that our founders intended. More on this later.

Second, we may see an awakening of a populace who have become complacent about our creep towards socialism.

Yesterday was a sad day for our country. But I’m still optimistic.

* Widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin though not absolutely confirmed.

Tiger Arrested for Prostitution

Interestingly, that is the one headline about Tiger Woods we haven’t seen in the past several months. Tiger, nor any of the women he paid so well to service him, have been arrested or charged with prostitution.

I’m assuming it’s not an issue of celebrity because Hugh Grant, Charlie Sheen, Sen , and thousands of other famous folk have been arrested for prostitution.

It’s apparently not that only transactions below a certain dollar amount count as prostitution because Tiger appears to have paid less than Elliot Spitzer on at least a couple of occasions.

The form of payment maybe? If payment is of goods and services rather than greenbacks it is no longer considered prostitution? This would seem to make the most sense since it is also the measure applied to the most ubiquitous form of prostitution – guys buying dinners and gifts for girls to get them in bed. If so then I predict a huge increase in purchases of jewelry from Target (of approximately $250 value) along with a corresponding increase in returns of these gifts. “Prostitution officer? I didn’t pay her, I just gave her a gift!”

Such a fuzzy line we’ve created…

Theory, Practice, Smoke, and Mirrors

Note: I’m just beginning to look in to this. The following may be way way way off base. More to come when/if I have more time. Stop by if you find anything supporting or contradicting (though I won’t be around this week)…

It’s fascinating to read the opinions and testimony of various economists regarding Obama’s healthcare plan. A long and distinguished list have weighed in on numerous aspects, in particular, the money saving features.

A big chunk of the ‘savings’, as much as 3/4’s, is described thus.

Under the plan companies will, according to economists, do one of 3 things:

1 – Larger companies, those with more than about 250 employees, will hold the value of ‘Cadillac plans’ (the health plans provided to nearly all employees, including union employees in large companies qualify as ‘Cadillac plans’) to just below the level that triggers the proposed excise tax. In other words they will reduce coverage. Initially this tax will be triggered on any amount spent on healthcare and insurance in excess of $10,200*. The difference, approximately $4,200 per employee will be paid in additional salary to the employees.

2 – Many smaller companies will cease providing health insurance, encourage employees to purchase insurance through the government marketplace, and elect to pay the proposed $2,000 fine. The difference between what they are currently spending (approx $7,000) and the $2,000 fine will be paid to employees as additional salary.

3 – Some smaller companies will make no change and will continue with their current health plan.

Nice theory, won’t happen in practice. And I’d think they know it.

Competition, locally and globally, is fierce. Few employees will see any increase in salary as the economists predict. That is simply not reality. This theory though does seem to do a good job of hiding the true costs of Obama’s plan.

Despite theory being wrong, all is perhaps not so bad. One way large employers will reduce the costs of their plans (to keep them under the $10,200 excise tax limit) will be to place employees with risky, and thus more expensive, health behaviors in a separate plan with severely limited coverage. This will include employees who are overweight, smoke, drink heavily or are a drug abuser. If you get a speeding ticket or are otherwise documented as a high health risk you could find yourself in this pool as well. This will allow low risk and healthier employees to have better coverage for the $10,200 companies will be allowed to spend. Theoretically, this will encourage employees to make healthier choices so that they can join the healthy plan that offers better coverage.



* Note that on average these companies spend about $14,400 per employee per year on heathcare and, with few exceptions, every full-time employee from bottom to top receives the same plan (many companies also offer these plans to part-time employees at a pro-rated cost). Glenn Beck and a couple of others have said that government employee healthcare costs are considerably more, perhaps as much as twice. Employee benefits industry reports that I have studied have not supported this.

TSA and what we can look forward to with healthcare

Yesterday I flew in to Chicago O’Hare to connect with a flight to Amsterdam. I had an hour and thirty minute connection which shouldn’t have been a problem…

Well, TSA in terminal 5, the international terminal, was a cluster to behold. I was greeted at the security checkpoint by a mass of about 150 and an estimated 50 minute wait. This just for the passport / boarding card check. Even with a flight that had started boarding and a departure in less than an hour I was told, twice, that I had to stand in the line. After 15 minutes in line and listening to a woman walk up and down the line quietly asking for anyone on SAS flight number something or other I asked about my KLM flight. She looked horrified. Apparently I should have been directed to the rush line earlier. She took me there.

Movie Theatre’s have large LCD displays over the ticket taker indicating what movies are currently seating. Why TSA can’t do the same for flights currently boarding and that thus have priority screening, I don’t know.

Once cleared through the passport check I was to choose among 5 lines for x-ray. About 7 people in each line, shouldn’t be a problem. I made my choice and waited some more. All was OK for a few minutes and then my line ground to a halt. I noticed that every time there was suspected contraband the screener checked the bag, stopping our line dead in its tracks until the screener resolved the problem. I really lucked out, there were 5 people in a row whose carry-on’s required hand searching and re-screening. An average of 4 minutes each.

In 18 of the 20 minutes it took our line to process 5 people, the line next to us got 27 people through. All of them, by the way, folks who had come through the passport check behind me.

I now had less than 10 minutes until my flight was scheduled to depart. I mentioned this to one TSA gal and asked if there was anything she could do. “No, we’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.” I offered that it might be best if, when they encountered a bag with contraband in it, that it be pulled aside, someone other than the screener deal with it, and allow the screener to continue with those in line (most of whom did not have contraband).

“We don’t need your lip.” Was her reply. “We’re getting everyone through as quickly as possible.”

There was nothing I could do. I had no options. I was stuck.

Is this what we can expect with government run healthcare?

We have what is unquestionably the best healthcare system in the world. World leaders and the rich and famous come to the U.S. for the exact same healthcare as our union workers, CEO’s, bus drivers, unemployed, and even bloggers. Why would we want to turn our health over to the government?

Voting against welfare and healthcare is un-Christian

“Those voting against healthcare are leaving their Christianity in the closet.”

“It’s the Christian thing to do.” – referring to the need to support increased government welfare programs.

“Anyone who votes against government helping the poor and defenseless cannot call themselves a Christian.”

These and similar quotes are heard often from various supporters of increased government social programs.

But, where in the Bible does it tell anyone to take money from someone else (rich or poor) and give it to others (rich or poor)?

As Christians we are indeed called to help the poor. "There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land." Deuteronomy 15:11

There should be no doubt about this and every Christian should help the poor to the extent that they are able. "If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." 1 John 3:17-18

However, we are called to do so as relatives, individuals, or churches. Never as governments. It scares me to make assumptions about scriptures and what the writer or God might have meant. But, every time I hear politicians and others talking about how the government needs to do more for the poor, how the government needs to take more from the wealthy in taxes and give more to the poor, I think of this verse:

"They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely." Mark 12:40

Perhaps more important, God makes it clear that rather than handouts, we are to provide opportunities for the poor and less fortunate to help themselves.

Among many similar verses, Leviticus 19:10 says "Do not go over your vineyard a second time or pick up the grapes that have fallen. Leave them for the poor and the alien. I am the LORD your God."

This is very wise advice.

Someone who is simply given a handout develops no real appreciation for it. They don’t value it. And the more often they receive something for nothing, the less they value what they’ve received. Besides the intrinsic in this is that people who don’t value something can be more wasteful – of food, healthcare choices. Why be a conscientious consumer if it doesn’t cost you anything?

Someone who is given a handout begins to expect more handouts. The more someone receives from others, the more they expect. It’s human nature. Instead of appreciating what they’ve received from others, they begin to complain when they don’t receive it or if they receive less or if what they’re receiving doesn’t increase. Soon that expectation turns into a right – people have filed lawsuits when the handouts stopped or were reduced!

Someone who receives their livelihood with little or none of their own effort develops low self-esteem.

Someone who receives handouts from a far-off faceless government has no appreciation for what they’ve received and for the fact that behind their handout are people who’ve given something up in their own lives to provide the handout.

Those who receive welfare, be it foodstamps, welfare checks, or free healthcare, have little incentive to improve themselves. They have little or no appreciation for what they are receiving, and do not feel that they are a part of the rest of society.

There are shining exceptions, but unfortunately few and far between.

And on the other side is the animosity that these handouts generate. When people who work hard for their money see a significant chunk of it going towards taxes they become irritated. When they see a lot of these taxes then going to help poor people who do not seem appreciative it, who do not seem to be working towards getting off of welfare or helping themselves, who use foodstamps to buy junkfood while listening to their $300 ipod, who have among the highest obesity rates in the population, …this animosity turns to anger. And then when they hear more and more calls for more and more money to be poured in to social welfare programs…


On the other hand, following what the Bible teaches produces a far different result.

Someone who receives support and assistance from an individual or even their church has a much greater appreciation for what they’ve received. They value it more. They know the person or people who they received it from and they know that these people made sacrifices in their own lives to help others. Besides valuing and appreciating what they have received, they have a sense of being loved and cared for by these people.

Someone who works for what they’ve received may have an even greater appreciation. Aside from appreciation and value though, they’ve put their own effort into it. Their self-esteem is improved because they have earned their livelihood themselves. They feel more a part of normal society.

Receiving assistance from those closer to us, relatives, individuals, and our church, also has the benefit of providing a lot more than just material assistance. Closer support often comes with assistance in better managing our lives and support for making better decisions.

And that animosity people feel toward the unappreciative poor? Here it is replaced by enthusiasm. People, even many grinchy kinds of people, enjoy helping those who are genuinely appreciative and who are working and doing their best to help themselves.

The upshot is that instead of people angry on one side that they’re not getting enough handouts and people angry on the other that they’re being taken advantage of, we have appreciation and enthusiasm. We have people working together.

Now, which sounds better?

"Jesus answered, If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'" Matthew 19:21

Rick Perry Win - Nothing to cheer about.

Rick Perry very handily won the Texas Republican Primary yesterday and did so against Kay Bailey Hutchison, who is often believed to be the most popular politician in Texas. Apparently not.

Hutchison is not a fiscal conservative. On that point, I’m glad she was voted down. From what I know of him Perry is at least somewhat fiscally conservative and says the right things about state’s rights and federalism.

On the other hand, his comments about, and treatment of, the FLDS Mormons at Yearning for Zion Ranch is completely and utterly repulsive. To support, in any way, the removal of 500 children from their parents ONLY because you disagree with their polygynous lifestyle is reprehensible. As became evident in the follow-on court cases, there was no evidence whatsoever to justify the government raiding the ranch and taking the children. I strongly disagree with many elements of Mormon theology and some elements of their lifestyle, but unless they are harming others, there is no cause for action against them.

Knowing all of this I get ill every time I see Rick Perry speak.

Boorish Behavior

Note: I wrote this earlier and forgot to post…

This morning I was in my favorite café writing the previous post about Harry Reid and rationing healthcare. When I sat at my table I noticed a college-aged girl sitting at a table by herself not too far away from me. About an hour later she was joined by a friend. They talked and laughed, kind of loudly. Maybe 30 minutes later a 3rd friend joined them and their collective loudness increased. It wasn’t just their talking, which was quite louder than it needed to be for all of them to hear, but every few minutes they would erupt into raucous laughing cackles.

Their loud talking was distracting, but I was fairly successful in tuning it out. The cackles were another thing entirely, completely interrupting my train of thought with each outburst.

After some time I finally leaned over and asked if they could “use their inside voices”.

They weren’t amused. One of them was quite offended. But they did quiet down. And I quit bugging them. (that last sentence added just so I could use quite, quiet, and quit in one paragraph ). Two guys sitting on the other side of their table from me mouthed their thanks for my saying something.

About 15 minutes later they announced, somewhat loudly, “Let’s get out of here.”. And off they went. Of course, unlike most patrons of this wonderful café, they didn’t bother to remove their dirty cups so the table would be clean for the next person.

As I was getting ready to leave a woman walked over and thanked me for saying something. I appreciated that.

Where do we draw the line? What behavior is acceptable and what behavior is not. At what point is it proper to correct someone else’s behavior?

If I’m in a drinking pub in Scotland I’d never say anything to someone about being too loud or obnoxious. It’s acceptable and rather expected. There are nuances though. For one, a pub is not a pub is not a pub. Loud and obnoxious isn’t as acceptable in a pub that sells as much food as drink. Loud and obnoxious is more acceptable later than earlier.

In cafés around Europe loud and obnoxious behavior is quite unacceptable and it’s not unusual for staff or others to say something to loud folk (who are often American). Same goes for trains and other public places. In many European countries there’s a pretty strong belief that you should do what you can to avoid interfering with or irritating others. They talk just loud enough for their friends to hear.

In the U.S.?