Why it's great to be a guy...

Hat tip to the folks at Say I Do Forever.  Lots of good stuff over there!

1. We know stuff about tanks.
2. A five-day trip requires one suitcase.
3. We can open all our own jars.
4. We can go to the bathroom without a support group.
5. We can leave a motel bed unmade.
6. We can kill our own food.
7. We get extra credit for the slightest act of thoughtfulness.
8. If someone forgets to invite us to something they can still be our friend.
9. Everything on our faces stays the original color.
10. Three pairs of shoes are more than enough…maybe too many.
11. Car mechanics tell us the truth.
12. We can sit quietly and watch a game with a friend for hours without thinking, “He must be mad at me.”
13. Same work–more pay.
14. Gray hair and wrinkles only add character.
15. We can drop by and see a friend without having to bring a little gift.
16. If another guy shows up at a party in the same outfit, we just might become lifelong friends.
17. Our pals will never trap us with: “So, notice anything different?”
18. We are not expected to know the names of more than five colors.
19. We are totally unable to see wrinkles in our clothes.
20. The same hairstyle lasts for years–even decades.
21. We don’t have to shave below the neck.
22. A few belches are expected and tolerated.
23. Our belly usually hides our big hips.
24. We can do our nails with a pocketknife.
25. Christmas shopping can be accomplished for 25 people on the day before Christmas and in 45 minutes

Having fun...

90-count box of shooting clays - $10.00
100-count box of 12ga ammunition - $23.00
Having too much fun on a rainy day-after-Christmas with your son: P.R.I.C.E.L.E.S.S

 

Short Day

This entry post at the moment of the Winter (or December) Solstice, when the north pole of the Earth's rotation axis is at its furthest tilt away from the sun.  Accordingly, we'll see the "shortest day", or the date with the least amount of hours of sunshine all year.

GOOD!  Now tilt the Earth back the other way and let the sun shine more and more and more!  I'm no fan of winter, other than the fact that the cold kills the mosquitoes. 

Sadly, we've got at least two or three more months of cold weather before it warms back up.  I'll be ready.

Christmas Flash Mob, with a twist

Be sure to watch through to the end.

Separation of Powers

From The Washington Post - Gingrich: Send U.S. Marshals to arrest uncooperative judges

It seems presidential candidate Newt Gingrich would be willing to use the power of the United States Marshals Service to bring judges before Congress to explain rulings and justify their decisions.

Article II, Section 4 of the United States Constitution states: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other High crimes and Misdemeanors.

This includes federal judges.

The judiciary is a separate branch of government, co-equal with the executive and legislative branches.  The implication and practice is that no single branch is subservient to another.  Principles of checks and balances, such as legislative approval of executive appointments, judicial review of legislative actions, and executive veto power are designed to preclude one branch from exercising unchecked authority. 

In the instant case, we see that a presidential candidate has openly expressed the possibility that his administration would exercise authority not granted by the Constitution to bring federal judges before legislative investigative committees to answer for controversial rulings, and to justify how their decisions were reached.

The Constitution provides a means to impeach, try, and convict federal judges for crimes committed against the state.  If we feel that a crime has been committed, then utilize the system prescribed in our Constitution.  Bringing judges before Congress to justify their decisions would cast a chill over the federal judiciary, thus limiting it in a way that is not defined in the Constitution.  Through written decisions recorded by the courts, judges provide sufficient reasoning to support their decisions.  Threatening to drag the judiciary before the jury of the media is school-bully intimidation unworthy of a president or presidential candidate.

Health Care Reform

This video comes from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation, and outlines the coming health care reform (Obamacare).  Take a few moments and watch it.  The notes that follow are a collection of points I picked out of the video, along with my thoughts and impressions.  The comments section is open, so feel free to jump in with your views.

PHASE 1 - Now until 2014
1.  The government will stipulate how insurance companies spend the premiums collected.  If "too much" is spent on administrative costs and profit, then a rebate to the consumer will be required.  This raises several questions.  First, other than taxes levied, does the government have the constitutional authority to determine how private businesses spend their revenues?  Secondly, who makes the determination that "too much" was spent on administrative costs and/or profit?  What is the definition of "too much"?

2.  Under the new plans, "free services" will be offered by providers and insurance companies.  Certainly, if a service could be rendered at absolutely no cost to a provider, would not that provider already be delivering those services, in the interest of promoting better health to their customers?  We know this isn't the case, as personnel, utilities, and supplies have a cost to the provider.  Business cannot simply give away their product or services, without facing certain closure when funding from investors dries up.  Skilled personnel have, at personal expense, invested in their education and continued certification.  What right does society have to demand they share their skill without compensation?

3.  Medicare will provide greater coverage for medications.  Where does Medicare get its operating funds?  If greater coverage is planned, doesn't that necessitate an increase in funding?

4.  "Children" can remain on their parent's insurance until the age of 26.  I'm sorry, but once my children have graduated college and are on their own, they will be responsible for their own bills, and thus responsible for their own money management skills.  Additionally, by the time they're 26, if I'm retired, who's to say that I'll have the disposable income to continue to carry them on insurance?  This is passing the buck, and denies the opportunity to learn responsibility.

5.  Tax breaks will be given to businesses, presumably to encourage them to provide or expand health insurance coverage for their employees.  This isn't a bad idea, but wait...there's another point coming later.

6.  No lifetime limit on benefits.  This, again, is the government dictating business practices to the insurance companies.  Every insurance policy I've engaged represented a contractual relationship with the insurer.  Policy standards are communicated as part of that relationship.  If I have entered into a poor contract, then shame on me.  Certainly there is the need for consumer protection in cases that insurance companies don't live up to their end of the agreement.  It is incumbent on the buyer to fully understand the terms of the policy.

7.  No pre-existing conditions can be used to deny coverage for children.  As with the previous point, an insurance policy is a contract, negotiated by private entities.  This means the insurance company has the right to not offer coverage if a condition already exists.

8.  Those who can't get coverage due to pre-existing conditions or for being high-risk can get coverage from a government-run "high risk pool."  As with the expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, where will the funds come from to pay for this coverage?

PHASE 2 - Starting in 2014
1.  Medicaid will be expanded to cover all low-income people.  States currently budget huge sums of money to Medicare/Medicaid.  When new people come onto the rolls, where will the funds come from to provide coverage?  Will they come from other areas of state budgets (cuts to other agencies, programs)?  Or will there be tax increases?

2.  Depending on level of income, tax credits will be given to individuals who lose their job or are under-insured.  This, in effect, puts money back keeps money in the pockets of taxpayers, to use for purchasing insurance.  If we look to other programs that use tax credits to allow people to use their money to raise themselves to a better station in life, how many have actually done so?  Or have those dollars been used on frivolous purchases?  What causes us to think that history will not repeat itself?

3.  If you have no insurance, you'll be able to shop for insurance through an exchange.  This exchange will be set up and managed by the government.  Presumably, the exchange will be an open market (with government supervision) for you to get "fair" access to various policies.  The question for this:  does not the market currently provide for open shopping of policies?  It does, but it does so with relatively little influence (read: school-yard bully) from the government.  Having the government police, and possibly approve, the policies offered on the market is an effective limit to the market.

4.  The "no pre-existing conditions" provision for children will expand to include adults.  We've covered this previously.

5.  If you have no insurance, or choose not to have it, then you will be subject to paying a "fine" to the government.  One can only assume this is a form of revenue to offset costs associated with expanded coverage in other programs. (Side note:  how much will it cost just to administer all of this?  As opposed to what insurance company revenues are?  Something tells me the net cost of government administration will be greater than that of insurance profits annually.)

HOW TO PAY FOR IT ALL
1.  It is estimated this will cost $938 billion over a ten-year period.  In 1966 at its start, Medicare cost $3 billion.  Estimated costs by 1990, including adjustments for inflation, showed Medicare costing $12 billion.  In reality, the 1990 cost was $107 billion - almost 9 times more than estimated. (source link)

2.  "Savings", or ways for the government to spend less money on healthcare, will come from healthcare providers.  Most would use the term "indentured servitude" for this (working for free, or less).  While not supporting the history of indentured servitude, there was some exchange for services rendered, however paltry and unequal the payment was.  These "savings" are not defined in the video provided above, but the implication is there will be pressure from the government to providers to reduce costs.  Low-bid healthcare isn't something that thrills me as I grow older.

3.  Government will limit the escalation or rise in fees paid to providers and hospitals by Medicare/Medicaid.  Skilled and knowledgeable labor, and the technology they employ, will seek more lucrative markets for their trade.  They'll be replaced with less skilled, or less motivated personnel, and inferior or out-of-date technology.

4.  Government will "create experiments" to explore different ways to pay doctors/providers to be more efficient.  Again, what can the government do here that the market cannot do on its own?  When the government finds a solution that works in one area, they attempt to standardize that solution across a wide spectrum of issues and areas.  One size does not fit all, not in politics, nor in healthcare and the administration thereof.

5.  High income earners will pay higher Medicare taxes.  These taxes, as revenue, will be used (distributed) to those who fall under the newly-expanded Medicare/Medicaid coverages.  This is simply taking from those who have earned their pay, and passing it through to those who earn little or none.

6.  New taxes will be assessed against businesses and insurers that offer "high-end" insurance plans.  If we go back to Phase 1, point #5, this seems to punish the efforts that were supposedly encouraged by offering a tax break so businesses could offer better plans.  It is a classic "catch-22" where the government gives you a tax break to offer your employees more, then tax you for offering them more.

7.  Tax on those using tanning beds?  I'm at a loss.  The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution dictates that "no State...shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  Obviously the use of a tanning bed is a decision, and not a required activity.  However, taxing one small portion of the citizenry for engaging in a private activity?

Hallelujah Chorus, variations on a theme...

Part 2 of my continuing attempt to get more into Christmas.  Today's selection is from George Frideric Handel's Messiah, Part II, the Hallelujah Chorus.  One of my goals in life is to hear this from a full orchestra and choir.  Turn up the volume and enjoy.

The first selection is on a massive pipe organ, which I love to listen to in person.  Not only do you hear the pipes, but you feel their vibrations, making it a multi-sensory experience.  This organ is at Coventry Cathedral, which was destroyed in World War II by the German Luftwaffe. 


Here is a "flash mob" in a mall food court last year. Too cool...

Possibly the most unique, and most well coordinated deliveries I've ever seen


And the quintessential rendition...

A Name Change?

News comes today from the Southern Baptist Convention that an internal task force is weighing the possibility of a name change for the Convention, and that a report will be given to the SBC Executive Committee in February 2012.  The purpose for considering a name change?  To "strengthen our ability to reach more people."  The task force's decision on making these recommendations comes on the same day that LifeWay Research released a study that indicates some 40% of Americans hold a less-than-favorable view of the denomination.  (news articles here, here, here, here)

"When you've got a culture where 35 to 40 percent of the people who repeatedly said they would not even consider an evangelical church, it's not surprising that 44 percent of the people said the Southern Baptist name would impact them negatively," stated Jimmy Draper, chairman of the task force and President Emeritus of Lifeway Christian Resources.

As a life-long Southern Baptist, I have one question: Why?

I don't understand the world of marketing and branding.  The American Marketing Association defines the term "brand" as a "name, term, design, symbol or any other feature that identifies one seller's good or service as distinct from those of other sellers."  Within the world of branding, Faith Branding is the concept of branding religious organizations, leaders, or media programming, in the hope of penetrating a media-driven, consumer-oriented culture more effectively." (source: Wikipedia)

"Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain." - Wizard of Oz

The Lifeway survey did not attempt to determine why people hold a negative view of Southern Baptists.  Without knowledge of the respondent's motivations or preconceptions, why should we feel that a name change would result in a more positive image?

Forgive me of the blasphemy of comparing the offerings of a church to that of merchandise:  I propose there are four major forces that determine a product's success in the open market.  Firstly, is the product something that is desired by the consumer?  Secondly, is there another source of the product or service?  Thirdly, is our version of the product or service superior in quality to that of the competition?  And finally, how widely and effectively is the product marketed?

Before we get to the point of branding and marketing our product, it is incumbent for us to first consider the other three questions.  If our product isn't wanted or needed, or if there is someone else offering a better product, then we should strongly evaluate our own offering.

If the Southern Baptist Convention is attempting to re-brand itself, we should get find out the "why" behind the negative survey results.  I doubt that simply a name alone is sufficient to turn away potential congregants.  As stated by Mr. Draper, some 40 percent of the population isn't even interested in an evangelical church.  Put in terms of business, they're not even interested in what we're selling.  And it's not just what Baptists are "selling" either, but churches in general.  It's akin to Ford Motors changing their name on car dealerships hoping to attract someone who's not in the market to buy a car at all.

These are my $0.02 worth.  The comments section is open, and I look forward to hearing from you.

Holiday humor....

The Voice of NOAA Weather Radio singing a favorite Christmas tune.

Holiday slide....

The EMT babies are halfway through their two nights' worth of final examinations.  Having passed their comprehensive written test, they'll be challenged to prove themselves with hands-on skills testing later this week.  They'll get their certificates, and we'll all go out somewhere to celebrate their entrance into the world of emergency medicine.  In a few short months they've gone from knowing relatively little about about emergency medical care, to knowing just enough to get in the back of an ambulance.  That's where their career-long path of continuous learning will start.  Textbook patients are just that - "textbook normal".  Real-world patients are anything but "normal".  Best of luck to the students.  I hope they keep an open mind, always ready to learn.  Hopefully they'll take to the net, and learn from some great bloggers like The EMT Spot, Notes from Mosquito Hill, Paramedicine 101, The Happy Medic, Insomniac Medic, Hybrid Medic, and Rescuing Providence, just to name a few of the ones I read.  Another great blog comes from a police officer across the big pond in England, Minimum Cover.  Minimum Cover hits hard sometimes, this post and this post are especially important for those in the medical world.

For me...just fast-forward to New Year's.  Or better yet, spring.  A tip-o-the-hat to EDNurseasauras for her post on Christmas annoyances.  So "bah-humbug", let me get through the next few weeks and I'll be better.  Don't get me wrong, I love seeing the kids have fun through Christmas.  Wouldn't trade it for anything.  I detest all the artificial pomp of the season though.  And it's cold in the Delta.  Cold and wet, at the same time.  Eeech...bring forth spring!

Winter Wonderland, variations on a theme

In a valiant attempt to rid myself of the annual scourge of "Scrooge-itis", I'm inoculating my conscience with regular doses of musical selections of the Christmas season.  There's no reason to keep the love to myself, so for your enjoyment, I present you the first installation of what will be a weekly theme this month.  What's your favorite?  Share in the comments section!

First up, Harry Connick, Jr. I wish I could play this well.

Jason Mraz with a snappy version


The ever-soulful Ray Charles


And my personal favorite, Satchmo himself...Louis Armstrong