Morm's Rant

2009-03-26T21:21:00.001-07:00

Read this story. It is a fantastic account. It is long but is really worth the read. I think it demonstrates how out of control congress is...both parties.

2009-02-12T23:14:00.003-07:00

This guy is my new hero. He wrote an article recently that I love. I would love to go work for this many.

The link is here http://www.modernhealthcare.com/article/20090209/SUB/302099987 and here is the article:

Putting skin in the game

Reform must not eliminate patient, employer responsibility

By Howard Rohleder
Posted: February 9, 2009 - 5:59 am EDT

Moral hazard has been widely discussed in the context of the 2008 financial crisis. Simply stated, moral hazard is the concept that, if the risk of failure in a transaction is greatly reduced, some part of the population will choose to undertake imprudent actions they would not otherwise consider.

In the financial world, moral hazard arose from an implied guarantee by the government to backstop certain transactions. While the implications of ignoring this principle have now become clear to the financial system, we should consider how moral hazard relates to healthcare.

Already, a major disconnect in the healthcare system is the reliance on “third-party payers.” For many consumers, the need or desire for healthcare is not tempered by cost. We have minimized the risk to consumers of overutilization as well as the risk of choosing the high-cost alternative.

As tax policy encouraged the creation of gold-plated company benefit plans, the concept of insurance protecting against a catastrophic claim gave way to first-dollar coverage. Any financial risk for consumption was eliminated. The prudent man may not live in the best neighborhood or drive the best car, because he makes an economic choice acceptable to his taste and budget. But, when it comes to healthcare, which the “third party” is paying for, only the best is acceptable.

As this was occurring, many lifestyle-related illnesses blossomed and, significantly, the medical technologies to diagnose and treat those illnesses were developed. The individual was sheltered from the risk of chronic disease: new drugs and technologies offered treatment and their health insurance covered the cost.

So here we are: Federal programs and tax policies encouraging health insurance have spurred the supply of medical services and encouraged the development of robust pharmaceutical and medical equipment industries. Improved care resulted in longer lives, which led to more chronic illness, which caused demand to spiral upward, which fed the need for more supply. The capital costs to keep up were being passed on to the third-party payers. No employer or politician wanted to tell their constituencies that they could not access the latest diagnostics or treatment.

Left behind were the uninsured. Wonderful medical care was suddenly available to those with insurance. Providers logically chose to focus their efforts on those who had the means to pay through insurance. Others were not so fortunate. As stories of the uninsured were publicized, medical care began to be seen as an entitlement. If a person did not have an employer to pay for it, then they turned to the government. If they were not eligible for a government program, then an expectation was introduced that the providers should absorb the cost. We have raised expectations of entitlement while leaving it to providers to deliver the service.

So, where does this leave our hospitals? The shifting of costs from government payers to commercial insurers has gone as far as it can. The burden of this “hidden tax” has grown to the point that insurers (and employers) are rebelling. Insurance has become unaffordable to many small companies. The resultant pool of uninsured has become a rallying cry for charity care by hospitals to be expanded or for government to step in with a single-payer solution.

The political process moves us closer to defining healthcare as a “right.” This can be compared with years of political jockeying through government-sponsored organizations such as Fannie Mae to promote a high percentage of home ownership without regard for whether buyers had the means to support the obligations involved.

Healthcare being defined as a “right” implies payment provided or supported by taxes. History has proven that someone will provide an unlimited supply of whatever healthcare services are paid through insurance. In this country, there is no “right” for universal food, clothing or housing. Yet, we are talking about funding a system that could create unlimited demand for something far more complex and expensive.

At that point, the design of our health benefit plan will be subject to the vagaries of the political process. Every advocate for a particular drug, alternative therapy or new technology will lobby for inclusion. Illnesses that we haven’t even thought of will be defined and treated aggressively. No one will be speaking for balancing the demand for care with the economics of care.

The moral hazard argument prevails. When we provided first-dollar insurance coverage with no individual risk for the cost, usage increased. When we reduced the risk of not having health insurance by providing Medicaid coverage and mandating basic care by providers, the uninsured population increased. When we minimized the risk of poor lifestyle choices by developing drugs and therapies (covered by insurance) to counteract negative outcomes, chronic illness increased.

The remaining question is whether we accept the added moral hazard of moving to a single-payer system that eliminates the employer’s risk. This removes the last bastion of prudent economic control on health benefits and places it in the hands of Congress. Employers would no longer be a party to negotiating benefits. Our recent experience with encouraging home ownership should be an example. Why would the political process fare any better in designing a workable health benefit plan?

Howard Rohleder is president and chief executive officer of Salem (Ohio) Community Hospital.

2009-01-15T09:07:00.003-07:00

Last night, at the dinner table, my 5 year old started reprimanding my 3 year old for having bad table manners. I guess she is learning these all important facts in public school...Wow what they don't teach them now a days, not those trivial things such as reading, writing and arithmetic. Anyway, the point is she was getting after the younger one for having her elbows on the table. This is a rule I've never followed and refuse to follow it, but it got me to thinking. I wonder what started this whole asinine rule anyway. Seriously who invented this crap and why do we actually think putting our elbows on the table is bad manner. I'm all for basic table etiquette but I think there is a line and this crosses it. It just seems that the upper circles in society would follow these things to give them something else to look down their noses at the rest of us.

I refuse to follow this rule and suggest those who may read this...so in all likelihood me and my wife (when I force her to)...to join with me in my quest to abolish such a ridiculous mandate set fourth by 'proper etiquette'.

2008-12-18T18:54:00.002-07:00

How absurd and childish:

Check out this page

Basically it is a website on facebook where you become a fan of the guy who threw his shoe at President George W. Bush. I think it a terrible shame of any American who would applaud this behavior. If you don't agree with somebody, fine, dislike the man. Typically I support Bush except on some recent issues. Anyway, he is our President and that alone entitles him to some level of respect. I can only imagine what would happen if I were to throw my shoes at Barry the savior. There would be no fan pages, there would be no free Coby bumper stickers, there would only be raw unadulterated hatred from those Barry supporters wondering how I can have so much hate. The left who claims to be tolerant, loving and peaceful sure exhibit a lot of hate when it comes to those who they don't agree with.

2008-12-13T05:20:00.002-07:00

I saw this quote and loved it.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had. - Michael Crichton

How does this realte to global warming? Well certainly we're not being had are we? Of course, not, they aren't asking for our money or trying to change our lives as a result of the consensus.

2008-12-11T13:25:00.002-07:00

I saw on ESPN and read this article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iopKBZ_TFc-aZC3KX1kaoc3ayTPQD95025T80.

Quite frankly, I'm astounded. Let it be well known that I am a proponent of a playoff system in college football and that the BCS should be sent to the furthest depths of they abyss. I have been constantly and continually outraged at the current ranking system and that there is a 'decision' on who gets to play for a championship and not a system in place that removes all doubt. For example, does anybody question that the New York Giants deserved to be NFL champions last year? Likely not, however there is no doubt in my mind that if the NFL used the current system in college football that the Giants wouldn't even have a chance to play for it.

Anyway, none of this is my point again, I'm a proponent of the playoff and agree with Congressman Joe Barton that there should be one, what I find ludicrous is that congress is getting involved. This is not, nor has ever been the purpose of Congress. It is garbage like this that makes my eyes roll and want to vomit. Government continues to intrude more and more in every facet of life. They increasingly are making more and more regulations and restrictions on business and other areas of life and now they are getting involved in Collegiate sports...really? Government should focus on the reason it was established, namely national defense, post, inner-state commerce and a few others. They should not be telling college football how they should run their system. I know this seems like a small matter but it is alarming how the government is infiltrating basically every facet of our life...please get out of my life and don't come back.

2008-11-04T13:21:00.000-07:00

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?
By Orson Scott Card
Editor's note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.
An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:
I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.
This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.
It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.
What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.
The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.
They end up worse off than before.
This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.
Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)
Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?
I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."
Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.
As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com] ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."
These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.
Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!
What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?
Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.
And after Franklin Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.
If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.
But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.
You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.
If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.
If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.
There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)
If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.
Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.
But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.
If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.
Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.
Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.
Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.
So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?
Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?
You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.
That's where you are right now.
It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.
If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.
Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.
You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.
This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.
If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.
If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.
You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.
This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina, and is used here by permission

2008-10-17T19:10:00.002-07:00

I loved these political cartoons and I thought that I would share them.

My personal favorite!

2008-07-04T21:36:00.004-07:00

My Country Tis of Thee

I love America, I always have. I truly believe that this is the greatest country on earth. Some may think that arrogant and I say...let them. I love this land and I would invite everybody to feel the same way about their country as I feel about mine. Sure, we have problems, but I think America is great. I'm not talking about the politicians in Washington but America, the people and the culture. I am tired of people feeling that we need to be apologetic for who we are.

I was watching a firework show tonight with my family in Midway Utah when I began to sing the wonderful song 'My Country Tis of Thee', I went on to explain to my daughter, Grace, why we celebrate the 4th of July. I think she understood it to some small degree in her 5 year old mind. But it made me think more about why we celebrate it and while I was watching those beautiful fireworks in the sky my minds eye was seeing our founding fathers and their struggles and joys. I am so thankful to them for what they established for us. As I leaning up against my car staring in the sky I was moved almost to tears when thinking about the jubilation they must have felt when they declared their independence and claimed right to the liberties and freedoms they so desperately wanted. Man is meant to be free to choose and if deprived of that right he should fight for those freedoms he is entitled to. I can imagine the celebrations that must have taken place when the people of America finally could decide what was right for them and there was no monarch they served, for they were free and served themselves.

These were hard working individualists that understood the value of independence. I fear that our government is too involved in citizens lives and we are letting them. We are loosing precious liberties and squandering away the divine inheritance we received, for I believe our founding fathers were inspired of God to do what they did. Little by little, we are becoming more dependent upon government to save us from everything we do, that was not why it was established and that is not what it should be doing. I reread the Constitution recently and the Bill of Rights and it's upsetting to read the role our founding fathers envisioned government and to contrast that to what government has become. I am really afraid for the future of our country; not because of recession or energy crisis but because the role the government is taking in our lives and the welfare state we are moving to.

God bless America, the land that I love. America was founded by hard working individuals who believed in God and worshiped him wholly. They formed a government to ensure freedom from tyranny and give international protection, they didn't form it to babysit us and spoon feed us. We bail out anybody or any company (large company) that is in trouble. This is not the way it should be. Certain risks are assumed and we should be allowed to fall flat on our face at times. I love America but I want it back!

2008-03-10T06:58:00.002-07:00

My friend recently sent me this website and I'm quite fond of it.

It is GoodReads.com, it is a place where you can list all the books you've read and rank them. You can also write a review and read other reviews. The biggest problem I'm having is remembering everything I've read. It's tough to remember years ago and what was read. Anyway this will bring you to my page, hopefully.

http://www.goodreads.com/review/list/972436?shelf=read

2007-11-12T13:30:00.000-07:00

This is by John Coleman who is the creator of the Weather Channel, he is a lifetime meteorologist and has studied weather...well his entire life. Here is what he says, after a lot of research and study, about global warming.

"It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend. "

Here is the link to his page
http://www.kusi.com/home/11131801.html

So who do we believe, this no name weatherman or the all-might Al Gore? Being that Al Gore and other groups don't stand to profit by convincing people of this scam I must think that John Coleman is off his rocker. Please! Thank you Mr. Coleman for your willingness to take a stance!

2007-11-11T21:08:00.000-07:00

I have a hard time watching this video and thinking of the double standard that exists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSqmWC30ZRY

It's interesting that there is no major outcry throughout that nation for such a comment. I think if a different group had been named there would be such an outcry that McCain would be obsolete in any attempt at the presidency. I understand she's 95 but I think it's immaterial honestly. If, for example, she had come on and said that it was the blacks that had screwed up the Atlanta Olympics and that they caused a scandal and so cleaning it up by blacks was not to be considered, what would be the difference? Why is it okay to have such a double standard?

I love America for the ability to have our opinions and to speak them, but it seems that more and more if you do you get in trouble for expressing your views if they are not PC. I'm not always PC so honestly I didn't get offended by her comments despite being LDS. What does offend me is the apparent lack of consistency.

I don't know...make up your own mind on this one.

2007-01-23T16:35:00.000-07:00

There are plenty of stories abounding out in the media about how Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy are black! Why is that news? They are in the Super Bowl and all that you hear is that two black coaches are facing each other. In other news...Black athletes face each other in the Super Bowl, black college players are recruited to NBA, black man hired for mid-level manager in mid sized firm. What about the game? What about Payton Manning. Admittedly I'm not a huge NFL fan but I find this issue incredibly obnoxious. Oh guess what...last year two white coaches faced each other (at least I think they did) let's make headlines of that too.

I recently was watching late night cable TV and a talk show with 5 black men and while two of them seemed well grounded the host was making everything a racial issue. Essentially he felt that more black men and women should get upper management jobs simply because...well there black. I disagree with this and posit that it shouldn't be made a racial issue. If somebody is more qualified they should get the job. While recently applying for law school one of my biggest frustrations was the fact that I am a straight white male. Apparently law schools want more diversity than I can offer so slots are given to candidates because they are a certain race, gender or homosexual. Well if you look at dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discriminate, discriminate is defined as:

"to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit"

Does not that apply to white males as well? I just wish that we lived in a society that Martin Luther King envisioned when he so eloquently put in his speech "I Have a Dream" http://www.usconstitution.net/dream.html:

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

So do I Mr. King, so do I! I don't care who you are, what you look like, or what your sexual preference; if you are qualified and the best candidate I will hire you. I hope for a world where everything isn't made into an issue of race or gender.

Please read this for what it is: Not racist in anyway, rather it's the opposite.

2007-01-22T08:38:00.000-07:00

I found this on my friend Chris' blog and it's quite interesting so I thought I'd use it too. Essentially you are setting your life as if it were a movie to your songs. I'm going to do this twice. The first is from my large playlist, there are many songs that I don't really listen to often, if ever and so their not as identifibly me as the second playlist. The second playlist is composed of songs that I listen to more often.

Here's how it works:
1. open your library (iTunes)
2. put it on shuffle
3. press play
4. for every question, type the song that's playing
5. when you go to a new question, press the next button
6. don't lie

Opening Credits: Israelites by Desmond Dekker
Waking Up: You are Everything by REM
First Day of High School : To Cut a Long Story Short by Spandau Ballet
Falling in Love: Younger Girl by The Lovin' Spoonful
Fight Song: Psychotic for your Love by The Sons of Guns (a local band of my friends)
Breaking Up: Dirty Back Road by B-52's
Prom: Money by Michael Jackson
Life: Holding Out for a Hero by Frou Frou (Shrek 2 soundtrack)
Mental Breakdown: Never Tear us Apart by INXS
Driving: In This World by Moby
Flashback: Speeding up to Slow Down by Better Than Ezra
Getting Back Together: After the Gold Rush by Neil Young
Wedding: Estoy Aqui by Shakira
Birth of a Child: Rude Boy Train by Desmond Dekker
Final Battle: The Fog by Kate Bush
Death Scene: Get Carter by Human League
Funeral: Moving Pictures by Fall Out Boy
End Credits: Standard Lines by

Opening Credits: Of All the Gin Joints in the World by Fall Out Boy
Waking Up: Super Rad by The Aquabats
First Day of High School : The Cutter by Echo and the Bunnymen
Falling in Love: Psycho Killer by Talking Heads
Fight Song: Numb by Linkin Park
Breaking Up: 7 Minutes in Heaven (Atavan Halen) by Fall Out Boy
Prom: Dissident by Pearl Jam
Life: All Down Hill From Here by New Found Glory
Mental Breakdown: Spoonman by Soundgarden
Driving: Hands Down by Dashboard Confessional
Flashback: Intergalatic by Beastie Boys
Getting Back Together: Concrete Jungle by The Specials
Wedding: 33 by Coheed and Cambria
Birth of a Child: Fire by Jimi Hendrix
Final Battle: Walking Away by Information Society
Death Scene: The Jet Set by Alphaville
Funeral: The Dark Side of the Matinee by Franz Ferdinand
End Credits: House of Fun by Madness

This was interesting. Some lines fit the songs so well and others don't but all in all a good time.

2007-01-11T12:10:00.000-07:00

I recently finished reading Elantris by Brandon Sanderson www.brandonsanderson.com/book.php?id=1 and I think it is an excellent book. It takes place in a world that up until recently was more or less ruled by the Elantrians, a race of people mysteriously taken from the general populace to become the god-like people of Elantris. They established peace and utopia in the land. Nobody went hungry because the Elantrians could simply make trash into food.

Something happens and Elantris and its magic failed. Now to become and Elantrian is a curse. You are thrown into the city and conveniently forgotten. The merchant who became king is an incompetent money monger and is driving his country into the ground.

The Fjordell Empire, an empire set up on a fanatical religion, is intent on conquering the two remaining countries not under their banner. A high ranking church official comes and has three months to convert this people or they will all perish by an invasion of Fjordell.

I don't want to give away any other details about the book but it is is full of political and religious intrigue with many wonderful twists and turns. It keeps you guessing and thinking and while there were many 'secrets' that I had figured out many of my theories were proven incorrect and I was pleasantly surprised. For a first book this is excellent. It's not pure fantasy nor is it pure science fiction but has elements of both. It isn't as good as Tolkien which is, for me, the benchmark of greatness but it would be a bit behind Eragon and Eldest by Christopher Paolini. Probably a 78 out of 100. Worth reading and following the author as I believe he just released another book, which I haven't read yet.

2006-12-04T19:13:00.000-07:00

BCS is the worst system and will not be fixed no matter how many tweaks they add to it. They add one more BCS bowl and, to be fair, it makes it so two more teams can come so it's a bit better but it's still not the best nor will it ever be the best until they implement a playoff. Most people would agree that a playoff would eliminate a lot of the crap that happens every year and it would allow some teams that deserve a shot at the national championship to get their shot.

A great example of injustice is Boise State this year. I'm not a huge Bronco fan but because they are from the WAC they must go undefeated to even get into the BCS bowl games and yet they will not be playing for the championship against The Ohio State University simply because the WAC is viewed as an inferior conference. I agree that most teams in the WAC aren't great but BSU is the only other undefeated team this year in division 1-A so why not give them a shot? I know all the arguments and there is some merit but what would solve all of this is a playoff. Take 32 teams and include all conference champs and then other deserving teams such as Michigan, LSU, Notre Dame etc...and match them up in a highest playing lowest setting. This system would not minimize the regular season as you'd have to show your worth during the season and win your conference.

I am a BYU fan and we hail from the Mountain West Conference. Our football teams are good and have beaten teams from all conferences. Some of the better teams we have are BYU, TCU, and Utah but under the current system we will never be given a shot at the National Championship, it's unjust and quite frankly ridiculous to say to a team "I'm sorry, you're good enough to compete in the top division, but we don't feel that anybody from this conference will ever deserve a shot at being the best in the nation". We ended up with two teams in the top 25 AP poll BYU at 19 and TCU at 25. BYU had two early season losses that were close and should have won but due to a lack of execution on our part did not. TCU lost to BYU and were injured after and the next week lost to a pretty good Utah team. There are plenty of 3 and 4 loss teams above them, which is irritating but to be fair a playoff should be demanded so as to truly prove who is the best team.

It wouldn't take that much if any extra time. As soon as the regular season is done the playoff commences and let the madness ensue. Think of how exciting a 32 team playoff could be. Money shouldn't be an issue as there would be even more money to be had and the BCS bowl names could be kept for the final 4 and championship game so they wouldn't loose out. It just makes sense and would give some of the lesser known teams a chance. Also, it would allow teams from the non-BCS conferences to be all to tell recruits that we now have a shot at the national championship. You can't tell me that this doesn't affect recruiting. Many of the top players won't even consider a non-BCS conference for this reason alone. Every other college team sport has a playoff, why shouldn't we? All other college football divisions have a playoff, why shouldn't we?

2006-12-02T17:17:00.000-07:00

Ah, the machinations of the left are becoming even more devious and derisive. Today I had the complete misfortune of attending the dreadful movie "Happy Feet". I went to it on a free ticket with my Mother's company's Christmas party. They hold an annual event where family of the employee can come and ride some kiddy rides, get prizes and attend a free movie. As a family we were rather excited as it is not often that we get out to a movie due to the cost so this was to be a rare pleasure for us. It turned into a nightmare of which I wish I never had taken part.

Some of the details are not crystal clear to me anymore but the overtones to the movie are so overt as to leave even the most dim witted individual understanding the general message. And that is:

The theory of evolution is true and factual
Those who believe in traditional values and in an Almighty God are crazy old nut cases and out of touch with reality
Life is only about sex and sexual promiscuity
That animals are people too ergo they have feelings
Everything man does in commercial fishing and industrialization is inherently evil and a malignant blight, in fact man well the right wing is a blight and only the left and their fanciful ideals can set everything straight.
Global warming is a fact and not some Al Gore fantasy.

We see the religious leader and colony elder of the penguins preaching that millennia ago their ancestors forsook their wings and adapted to life with fins and for this we praise them. Please evolution if simply a pseudo-science platform that helps the godless spread their doctrine. I'm not going to give all my reasoning behind this as that would be an entire entry in and of itself but suffice it to say that evolution is a crock and there is absolutely no substantial evidence that would indicate otherwise. On the contrary the evidence for Intelligent Design is rather overwhelming, take for example the simple fact that you are reading this and have a sense of morality and consciousness. In this wretched film children are subtly taught that evolution is fact and the animals love it. God would teach that animals are here on earth and fill the measure of their creature, however great or insignificant that measure is.

The movie clearly makes those who have some belief in God as complete liars as in the case of Lovelace or old nut cases as in the elder of the emperor penguins. They are seen as daft and completely insane. It is clearly shown that those who believe in religion are out of touch and their ideals shouldn't be heeded. In fact both are 'converted' to the liberal left by the main character who holds all the answers and is a young vibrant altruist who with his new found religion, which is one in with no god shows the old dotards what is real and that their believes are fallacy. The other religious leader, Lovelace is a corrupt preacher who knows his religious talisman is a hoax and is more interested in keeping his harem than in providing actual leadership. His also in 'converted' through the main characters altruistic and noble ideals, that is man is evil and dancing makes everything okay. Just listen to me preacher I'm young and hip I have the answers.

The whole film is rank with sexual references and innuendo not truly suited for the young audience this movie certainly attracts but who are too young to fully understand but the damage is done in the subconscious. It is truly disgraceful to see such sorted behavior and have it marketed to children. Why do liberals want kids to think promiscuous sex is not only acceptable but is encouraged and popular.

The aspect of humanizing animals was a direct appeal to the animal rights crowd. Animals are just like us you see only they can't talk and therefore should be treated just like us. Anything that benefits mankind in the realm of commercialism and industrialism is evil. If we are not tree huggers and animal researchers we are evil. If we are interested in our own wants and needs, such as feeding ourselves, we are evil. If we are not...well you get the point. Man is evil for wanting to have oil, to fish, to essentially live the way the majority of us do. Maybe we should tell the leopard seal and Orca that they are evil too after all they want to eat the penguins and after all they are people too, shouldn't they be held to the same standard.

On the issue of global warming I can't remember the specific reference but it was there and pretty blatant too. It's a ludicrous notion and there are many places that are having record cold temperatures...But let me guess this is the cold before the warm. They are seeing icebergs floating as far north as New Zealand. These are natural occurrences to have the icebergs drifting north from Antarctica but they generally don't reach this far north. In fact, this hasn't been seen since 50 years ago when temperatures were colder than normal. That's right, temperatures are cold enough to enable icebergs to reach New Zealand before melting and falling apart. This is one of many proofs that global warming is another liberal hoax concocted by Al Gore, in fact I haven't seen his recent movie and I hope I never will, but I imagine "Happy Feet" as an animated version of "An Inconvenient Truth".

I should have walked out and brought my daughter with me but I was too intrigued by how far the left would take it. Needless to say I was astounded. So unless you want to go see the film to understand how far they take it I suggest you not see it. It's wretched drivel and not worth the free ticket I wasted on it. It's crazy to see and rather disheartening to know that liberals will go to such length to begin the brainwashing process. Virtually the only liberal doctrine left out of this film was abortion, I presume the liberals knew that the public wouldn't stand to see the penguins kill their eggs so as to continue their sexual exploits without child.

2006-08-12T21:49:00.000-07:00

Recently, as most or all should know, England disrupted a major terrorist plot. For this I applaud them, however it has raised some concerns in my mind. We seem, here in America I cannot speak for other countries, to be overreacting and forbidding liquids on a plane.

I know that this seems like a small sacrifice to make for safety but what's the point? The security measures in place prevented the attack from happening. Will this really make a difference? How much are we going to allow terrorists to reshape our lives and change the way in which we think, act and feel? Should somebody be concerned that an eighty year old woman is bringing on some soda to drink? No, of course not, yet she is now banned from doing so. Should my three year old be allowed to bring some juice boxes on board so she can have one of her favorite drinks? Well she might be a terrorist, right?!?!

These measures are moderately absurd in their design. It's coming back to the old rule that one person ruins it for the rest of us. Recently I have read some of Ann Coulter's writtings and I really do agree with her on many points.

For example, Ann proposes some fairly simple solutions to solving some of the airline threats.

1. Make the cockpit like unto Fort Knox. Ensure that the pilots are the first people on the plane and lock the cockpit and then make certain they are the last to leave. Nobody is getting into the cockpit so no more highjacking of planes.

2. Arm every pilot with a gun and give them training on how and when to use it. If I were a terrorist, I would be less likely to choose an airplane as a target if I couldn't get into the cockpit and the pilot was packing a gun.

3. Every flight has a mandatory air marshall on board who, of course, is loaded with a minimum hand gun with armor piercing rounds. Again a great deterrant if the would be highjacker knows that an air marshall will be on this flight, yet he doesn't know who it will be.

4. Enough already with 'random' searches and having restrictions upon who can be searched and how many Muslim's are allowed to be searched per flight. It is ludicrious to assume that you are doing any good by stopping poor old granny smith and letting a Muslim man go clear. The simple fact is this: The majority of terrorist this country has and will face are ALL Muslim men. If you really want to play the odds, stop every single one of them every time.

Our airways need to be safer but stopping a family from bringing on cheaper drinks as opposed to paying high for high cost airport drinks is not the way to do it. We are restricting our freedoms to give us a false sense of safety.

2006-06-26T16:55:00.000-07:00

Housing cost are a big problem currently across the nation, perhaps in most of the industrialized world. I live in a state that is notorious for its low wages; this hasn't been a great problem until the last 5 to 10 years when housing costs have increased at a rate which is higher than wages. Essentially they don't match anymore and the disparity is to the point where many low to middle income families cannot afford a home.

Just by way of example my parents purchased a new home in a nice part of town in 1990 for around $115,000, at the time they thought the price was extremely high and were a bit concerned but they were doing fairly well and lived a comfortable middle income life. Just last year they were able to sell the home for well over $250,000. That is greater than 115% increase in just 15 years and it was really in the last 5 to 10 years when prices sky rocketed. This home they purchased was by no means a started home as it had an unfinished basement a guest bedroom with it's own bath a large kitchen/dining area, a living room and family room along with an office. Upstairs there was a rather large master bedroom with a large walk in closet and master bathroom, 3 fairly large kid bedrooms and a bathroom for the kids. In total bedrooms with 3 baths. Without any official empirical data, I've found that a 'starter' home today is at least $180,000 to $200,000. This price is rather high and my parents would not have chosen to buy a home at this price back in 1990 yet they made a significant amount of money combined. While today houses, just to start are this much, and yet wages haven't gone up a lot.

It is a very depressing world for me because I have two daughters and want to provide all I can for them and give them the stability of a home but I am forced into settling on small two bedroom apartments because it's all I can afford.

My Brother-in-Law is in real estate and he indicates that they main force driving prices up are all the immigrating families from California. They are able to sell their small homes in California for over $500,000 with a lot of equity and come here and purchase rather large homes for less than they could in Cali. This is rather problematic for locals who cannot match this and it makes it nigh impossible for young couples to buy a home. Something has to be done so that all can live the American dream, currently I cannot, I do not make enough to be able to buy a home and there is no indication that this will change within the next 5 years until I make a good amount more than I currently do, however then I will be up against housing prices that are even greater so my income probably still won't match.

If you bought a home 8 to 15 years ago well done, if not you're fairly screwed. I wish government would step in and help out those of us who are trying to make it work but cannot due to housing cost being too great. We waste too much money on other public welfare programs and keep helping out those individuals who do not work, well I pay my taxes and I think there should be incentive given to those of us who do work, but we keep picking up the tab for the indolent at the cost of the good honest workers who sincerely try to make ends meet.

2006-06-16T06:09:00.000-07:00

"Failure is a temporary state that can only be made permanent by your decision to quit trying"

This quote came from an accounting professor name Bob Allen and when he showed it to us I was really inspired by it. It was one of those quotes that makes one think and I couldn't help but feel myself lifted up by it. Lately there have been many tough decisions in my life and a simple phrase like this has reminded me that all works out in the end so long as you don't give up.

2006-06-09T10:58:00.000-07:00

Well this is my first blog attempt so here I go.

Recently there has been much debate on immigration, both legal and illegal, and I think there is some great confusion on the issue for those who are marching. The issue is trying to be made into something it isn't. The true issue comes down to a couple of key points.

1. Those that are coming over illegally do have some basic human rights but do not have any rights as citizens of the U.S. simply because they are not citizens. I work in the health care industry and my team is responsible for those who do not have insurance. Non-Citizens can qualify for some state funded 'insurance' known as Emergency Medicaid. ER Caid does not allow them to have clinic or scheduled visits; however it will pay for them to give birth. From a hospital perspective this is great otherwise we would have to eat each and every illegal immigrant's delivery bill as they are seldom, if ever, paid for. As a taxpayer, however, this infuriates me. To think that I am helping to pay for somebody who is not even a citizen and is likely not paying any taxes themselves.

2. Another key point of frustration is the language barrier. Simply put this is America and we speak English. If you come here it is to be American ergo you should speak English regardless of the difficulty associated with it. I have spent time in Brazil where I learned to speak Portuguese, there wasn't anybody offering an interpreter for me if I couldn't speak it well enough. I find that audacity too much when they get upset because I do not speak Spanish.

3. The reluctance to integrate is astonishing. To be fair there are many who have but a large percentage of Hispanic immigrants show an utter lack of desire for assimilation. If you come to America you should be American in all aspects. You share our dream and our goals; you speak our language and adhere to our customs. You can keep your cultural flair but you are not Mexican or Peruvian or anything else you are simply American. Teddy Roosevelt had a great quote on this, http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_roosevelt_on_immigrants.htm found here. These are my feelings and I don't think it is too much to ask. My Grandfather and his family immigrated from Germany to America. He was told by his parents that "Walt, we don't speak German, we are Americans and we will speak English". They did just that, at the end of his life my Grandpa spoke less than 100 words in German, why? Because his parents taught him that to be an American is to be an American. So stop waving your Mexican flag at these rallies because remember it's American where you want to stay otherwise go back.

4. I really believe that Mexico has a great potential to become a world power but has to over come the mass corruption in government. It is not an oppressive dictatorship, but it is corrupt. I realize that many live in abject poverty and want a better life for themselves but fleeing isn't always the best solution. Ideally they would have 10 million Mexican's more than they have now that are trying to fight for more rights and to end corruption. Imagine if instead of wasting energy on border crossings the bulk of the populous stood up and united demanded more rights. The government would change and there would not be the overwhelming desire to come to America. Notice that we don't have a problem with Canada.

Finally, let it be known that I believe in immigration, it is a corner stone of our country but this recent wave is radically different than any other wave of immigration and the lack of assimilation is alarming. I am not racist, I have nothing against people of any race, creed or nationality and welcome all but under the legal terms prescribed.

A final note for future discussion is the hyphen names should go too. For example 'African-American' 'Mexican-American'