Planet Utah

Follow me on Twitter

Right here: https://twitter.com/DBDPhD

Butt dialers beware: UPDATED

A friend butt dialed me today, and then unwittingly left me a four-minute voice mail in which she and a friend of hers were talking...mostly about me.

I know the odds of that happening are pretty slim--butt dialing someone you happen to be gossiping about at that very moment--but clearly, they are not zero.

All I gotta say is, let's be careful out there, people.

UPDATE: Be careful how, you ask? It's a good question. The problem with butt dialing is that you don't know you've done it. So if you don't know you've butt dialed someone, you can't really guard against leaving an impolitic conversation about them (or someone/something else) on their voice mail, can you?

You can. Next time you're launching into an impolitic conversation, double-check your phone. Bam! Done.

Footnote: I could tell you not to launch into an impolitic conversation, I suppose, but come on...that would be like you telling me to limit myself to a single pint of lager at the pub. Not happening.

Anklenote: Many of you may be wondering whether or not I informed my friend that she had inadvertently left a gossipy conversation about me on my own voice mail. I did not. I think the mortification on her part would have far outweighed the little bit of hurt on my part.

Also, though, I realized that I gossip plenty in my life--a couple of times, I've even gossiped about this particular friend--and that I, therefore, could easily have made the mistake she did today.

And really, that mistake isn't the butt-dialing, it's the gossip. Because I've been guilty of that too, I decided I probably shouldn't make her suffer.

Shin-note: I'm not sure I've ever admired myself as much as I do right now.

Jeff Flake commits an increasingly common sin

A grammatical sin, I mean. I'm sure he's otherwise as innocent as Mickey Mouse's dreams.

Here's what he said (speaking of Gabby Giffords): "Gabby's courage, strength, and optimism is able to cut through the partisanship and bring out the best in Congress."

You see the problem? It's subject-verb disagreement; instead of "courage, strength, and optimism is...", it should be, "courage, strength, and optimism are..." (After all, you wouldn't say, "Rome, Florence, and Venice is all affordable this time of year.")

Because I spend a lot of my day editing, I see the Flake mistake fairly often. I can sort of understand it, too. I mean, look at this sentence: "Her strength and courage is an inspiration to all." Now, again, it should be, "Her strength and courage ARE an inspiration to all," but I know that in their heads, people are sometimes thinking of "strength and courage" collectively. So, just as you would say, "Spaghetti and meatballs is so yummy!", because you're thinking of spaghetti and meatballs as a single, yummy unit, people also may be thinking of "strength and courage" as a single unit of goodness, and Jeff Flake may have been thinking that "courage, strength, and optimism" constitute a single unit of admirable qualities.

But they don't...at least, that interpretation is not yet accepted among people who do the accepting of such interpretations. So for now, remember that plural subjects take plural verb forms (and that Jeff Flake should not graduate to the Senate until he learns how to speak).

A little story of corporate greed and incompetence

A while back, I got a letter from my mortgage lender (Chase). The letter indicated that my homeowner's insurance was about to lapse, and that if it did lapse, the lender would require me to buy a short-term policy to ensure that there was coverage in place until my policy was reinstated. 

This caught me by surprise, seeing as how I pay a big chunk of change into escrow every month, from which my lender is supposed to pay my property taxes and insurance premiums. So, I called my lender and said, "Did you guys pay my premium? Because if you did, then my insurance won't lapse." They said, "We tried, but the payment was rejected." I said, "What? Why would the insurer reject a premium payment?" They said, "We don't know. If you want to call USAA and talk to them..." I said, "My insurance isn't with USAA. It's with Farmer's. That's why USAA rejected the payment--I don't have a policy with them." They said, "Huh... Was your insurance ever with USAA?" I said, "No." They said, "Okay, well, it says here that your policy is with USAA. So, let's get the right information in here, and we'll get the payment made." (Did it occur to anyone at Chase to call me when the payment was rejected and say, "Hey, can you help us figure this out?" Guess not--as you'll see below, lapsed coverage means easy money for them.)

Well, a bunch of phone calls later, I confirmed that the payment had been made, no lapse in coverage, etc. 

Then, a month later, I find that a $6,300 debit has been attached to my mortgage account--basically, added to the amount that I owe on the house. The charge was for the short-term insurance policy Chase had threatened to issue and force me to buy in the event of a lapse in coverage. 

Of course, there WAS no lapse in coverage (and the only reason there was a risk of coverage lapse in the first place is that Chase had attempted to make a premium payment to the wrong insurance company). Not wanting to let that stand in the way of a quick buck, Chase charged me $6,300.

Well, another whole round of phone calls later--literally, starting from scratch, from the very beginning of the whole saga--and I get this resolved. In the course of that round of phone calls, though, I talk to one particularly dull call center worker who tells me this: "We fixed this a while back. We issued a $6,300 refund to your insurance company. So, if you want that money put back in your escrow account, you'll need to get it from your insurer." In addition to making zero sense--the insurer wasn't out $6,300, I was--this turned out to be completely false.

I also asked dull call center guy to explain to me another seeming anomaly on my escrow statement. After two rambling, incoherent attempts on his part--answering questions that I didn't ask--I say, "I'm not sure you understood my question. Let me try again..." He pauses for a moment and then says, and I quote, "That information is not available at this time. Is there anything else I can help you with?"

***

So, the main point of this little exercise was for me to vent. But the secondary point is to encourage YOU, my cherished readers, to stay on top of your mortgage lenders, your tax guy, your insurance agent, etc. These people can be far less competent than you might think, or hope, or want...and they're playing with your money. So please, just keep a close eye on them. Trust if it's warranted, but always verify.

Just one time...

Okay, if you're an up-and-coming filmmaker, here's a scene I really, really want to see in a movie: In the midst of a fight scene, the hero, facing off against multiple assailants, throws a knife at an onrushing attacker. The knife sails through the air, tumbling end over end, and then strikes the attacker in the heart...handle first, falling harmlessly to the ground.

Footnote: Other possible versions of this scene would involve the onrushing attacker simply stepping out of the way of the knife, deflecting the knife with a forearm, ducking under the path of the knife, laughingly saying "Even if that knife hits me I'm still going to shoot you in the face from 10 feet away," etc.

Werewolf meets silver bullet...and lives?

Last weekend, on a barstool, I was making the only argument you need against Obamacare (first made by me here): The government should not be taking on massive new obligations when it is unable to pay its massive OLD obligations. The person with whom I was speaking replied, "But Obamacare has more than a trillion dollars worth of savings and increased revenues; those add up to much more than the cost of the program."

My response: At this point, those savings and increased revenues are largely theoretical. They depend to a significant degree on politicians wilfully imposing pain on well-heeled, politically active constituencies, and on well-heeled, politically active constituencies passively accepting the pain that has been imposed upon them.

That doesn't give me a lot of confidence.

So, here's what I propose: Before we do the spending side of the program, let's see if the savings and tax revenues actually materialize.* If they do, fantastic. We'll still be broke as a country, but we'll be marginally less broke, and we can talk about whether we want to celebrate our slightly less impecunious state by extending government-guaranteed health care to all.

If, on the other hand, those savings and tax revenues DON'T materialize, then we'll all say, in unison, "Wow, thank goodness we didn't go through with the full health care reform, because then we'd be double-secret SUPER broke!"

Footnote: And I didn't even talk about whether the program's cost projections were realistic...

*If you want a simple example of how things can go wrong quickly, consider that the administration has already acknowledged that $80 billion in purported Obamacare savings over 10 years will never materialize. That $80 billion was supposed to arise from premiums under the CLASS (long-term care) program, which would be collected for five years before any benefits were paid. That program, however, has been cancelled; the administration acknowledged that it was financially unworkable over the long haul.

So, there go $80 billion in savings out the window, long before serious program implementation even begins.

What if Obama wins?

Voters have annoyingly short memories. This means that after three years of a crap economy, if the economy were to start picking up again, say, right NOW, the president could see his reelection prospects improve dramatically (he's slightly favored at present, even with the lousy economy). 

There's some evidence out there that the economy is, in fact, picking up. Nobody's expecting an election-year boom, but modest-plus growth in jobs and income could put President Obama over the top.

I know, I know--I don't like to think about it either, particularly because I already called my shot on this one, saying that President Obama was done in one. But think about it we must (or, if you're Al Sharpton, "...think about it we much.").

Right now, the two issues that matter most to me are: (1) health care reform; and (2) the deficit and debt. So, those are the ones I'm going to think about.

On health care reform, if the Supreme Court doesn't knock down the law this year, and if the president is reelected, the bulk of the law will stay in place for at least another four years. I believe the president will be willing to negotiate major changes--will be forced to, in fact, by cost overruns, disruptions in the private insurance market, etc. But he's never going to agree to a repeal.

That doesn't mean that it's now or never on repeal, as the GOP candidates keep saying. If, in 2017, there's a GOP president, House, and Senate, and if Obamacare remains unpopular, if it's already way over budget, etc., it's gone. The question conservatives need to ask themselves, though, is how much damage will have been done in the meantime.

On the deficit and debt, if President Obama wins reelection, he's most likely going to be dealing with a Republican House and Senate. If anything is going to get done in a second Obama term, then, it's going to get done primarily on conservatives' terms. The president knows that. He knows that gridlock doesn't do him any good. (Right now, he can use gridlock as a campaign theme--"do-nothing Congress," "we can't wait," and all that. In a second term, gridlock just means failure, lame duck status, and a diminished legacy.)

So, is there a big, legacy-making issue out there that's in the conservative wheelhouse, and on which Obama could possibly deal? Yeah, all the deficit and debt stuff--a balanced budget--long-term entitlement reform, etc.

Now, I know all of you will say, "Obama will NEVER make a deal on Medicare, Medicaid, or Social Security." No? You think he's just going to kick the can down the road on that one, and (a) earn a reputation as yet another president who read his Kindle while the house burned down; and (b) sit back and wait for the day when the GOP actually DOES get the whole shooting match, and, unchecked by Democrats, makes much deeper cuts in entitlement programs than Obama himself would be prepared to accept?

If that's what you think, I think you are wrong. I think Obama will choose to be the guy who saved the New Deal and the Great Society--not to mention the country's financial future--by taming them.

Really, assuming a GOP Congress, what's the alternative?

Does Mitt know anything special?

The main rationale for Mitt Romney's candidacy seems to be this: "The economy is terrible. I've spent my life running companies in the private sector, so I know how the economy works. The president doesn't know what I know, and neither do these other jamokes. Actually, Herman Cain did know, but he couldn't keep it in his pants, so it's me or nobody."

But what exactly does Mitt Romney know?

Well, he knows that taxes; government regulations, requirements, and prohibitions; market uncertainty; and unfair trade practices are enemies of growth and job creation.

Big deal! Republicans were making that argument long before Mitt banked his first hundred million. It's part of the catechism that every Republican can recite in his or her sleep.

So, what else does he know? I've watched every debate but one, and I can't think of another major Romney talking point on the economy.

Granted, I haven't read his 150-page economic plan...but neither has anyone else...nor will they. That means that if Mitt wants to make the case that he possesses unique knowledge of the economy, he needs to make it in debates and speeches. So far, he's not making it.

I wonder if that's because it just can't be made. Undoubtedly, Romney understands many, many things about business, investment, and the private economy that his opponents--especially President Obama--don't. But it's not clear that these things have any policy relevance. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the case Rick Perry and Jon Huntsman make--"I've successfully run a business-friendly government"--is much more compelling and germane than Romney's case--"I've successfully run multiple businesses."

The biggest, best, and only necessary reason to oppose Obamacare

HEADNOTE: Yes, I'm going to call it "Obamacare," rather than the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which is a mouthful and doesn't produce a good acronym. I should also disclose that I sometimes used to refer to the Strategic Defense Initiative as "Star Wars." If either of these things offends you, you can flick me right under the nose the next time you see me in public. That can be very painful.

***

There are many, many things to dislike about Obamacare in terms of both the substance of the law and the process by which it was passed. For all of its flaws, though, I still haven't heard a single Republican presidential candidate make this case against it:

Every government, every business, every family, and every individual knows that you're supposed to pay for necessities before you buy luxuries. You take care of your needs first--things like food, shelter, clothing, and transportation--before you start buying big screen TVs and Hawaiian vacations.

This is just common sense, good financial practice, and the only form of responsible budgeting and spending over the long haul.

In this country, for the better part of the last 40 years--but especially in the last three years, and continuing as far into the future as we can reasonably project--we cannot pay for the things we all agree we need: national defense, health care and income support for seniors, a safety net for the poor, veterans' benefits, and so on. These are necessities for which we are currently borrowing 40 cents of every dollar.

When we aren't able to pay for these necessities, how can we possibly contemplate a new, permanent entitlement that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars? Why are we planning a Hawaiian vacation when we can't afford to pay our mortgage, clothe our children, or buy groceries? Why are we taking on a massive new commitment when we can't honor our existing commitments?

The only rational way forward is to address our current and future budget crisis--find a way to pay for the obligations we have under existing law--before taking on a new set of obligations. When we get to the point that our budgets are balanced and are projected to stay that way for the foreseeable future, then--and only then--should we begin thinking about the "luxuries" we might be able to afford.

I realize that some of you will say "Health care for all is not a luxury; it's a necessity." That's fine. But that opinion comes with an obligation. The obligation is to show how we will pay for our newly expanded list of essential government functions.

The president hasn't done that...hasn't even pretended to care much about doing it. The Democratic Senate hasn't done that...hasn't, in fact, passed a budget in years. The Democratic House didn't do it when it had the chance. In short, all the Democrats have done with Obamacare is take an acute problem--our budget crisis--and make it nearly terminal.

That's horrifically irresponsible public policy. It's also a threat to the American economy, the American way of life, and the American way of government.

That's why my first priority, should I become president, will be to repeal Obamacare.

Why Tim Tebow annoys me

Generally, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Generally, therefore, I would look approvingly upon a guy like Tim Tebow, i.e., a guy who annoys a lot of the right people.

But Tebow is also annoying me.

Why? Two reasons.

First, he's like my dad's golf buddies who won't shut up about golf--playing it, watching it on TV, planning golf trips, making their own clubs, meeting Jack Nicklaus, smoking a joint rolled from a Tiger Woods divot, etc.

Don't get me wrong; I think it's cool when people have passions in life, and when they share those passions with others. But if YOUR passions happen not to be MY passions, you need to extend me a little social courtesy and not talk about your passions ALL the effing time. And even if your passions ARE my passions, I still don't want to hear about them all the time--any more than I want to listen to my favorite song 50 times in a row, or wear my favorite jeans every day for a month, or eat DQ Blizzards at every meal.

It's all about moderation. Tebow isn't moderate in his proselytizing. I find that annoying.

Second, there's something off-putting about the way Tebow is just so sold out to Jesus. The closest comparison I can make is to Bill Maher--who is utterly smug, who is utterly contemptuous of those who disagree with him, and who is utterly wrong most of the tme (often out of ignorance, rather than logical error). I mean, it's one thing to be smug and contemptuous if you're the smartest person in the room, and if you're rarely ever wrong. It's fine, too, to be wrong most of the time if you show the requisite humility about it. But to be smug, contemptuous, AND ignorant...well, that's annoying.

Tebow doesn't give off an air of smugness, but he does give off an air of certainty...as if the truth of what he believes if self-evident, and beyond question or dispute. My view--documented on this blog in sickening detail over the years--is that the case for Christianity is flimsy. If you are a Christian believer, therefore, I think you are called to humility in the claims you make on behalf of your faith. Tebow doesn't exhibit that humility.*

I hope the foregoing doesn't come off as bigotry. I'm not anti-Christian, anti-faith, etc. That, in fact, is why I wrote this post. I think it's important to understand that not everyone who's sick of Tebow's public professions of faith is an anti-religious bigot, or a cynic rolling his eyes at Tebow's altar boy image. I'm just a normal guy experiencing what I consider to be a normal reaction to excess.

*Christians often skip over the historical record and talk about what God has put in their hearts. To them, what's in their hearts trumps the fact that, for example, the authorship of the Gospels is unknown. My question to such people is this: "How do you know God put that in your heart, rather than, say, your parents putting it there, or your pastor, or someone you admire in the community, or just your own brain? It's not hard to find examples of people convincing themselves of things that are demonstrably untrue, particularly when there are social, psychological, or material rewards for doing so."

The answer is usually along these lines: "It's just a feeling I have." If that's Tebow's answer, it's a pretty shaky foundation on which to erect such an ostentatious monument to Jesus.

Try to read this out loud without passing out

I found this sentence online in what is, ostensibly, a professionally written review of the new Mission Impossible movie:

Anyone worried that his gifts might not transfer from animation to live-action can breathe easy because "Ghost Protocol" contains some of the very best action scenes to hit movie screens this year and what is especially refreshing about them is that, with the exception of the knockout explosion at the Kremlin early on, the scenes rely less on over-the-top pyrotechnics and an obvious over-reliance on CGI trickery and more on pure filmmaking skill and a genuine sense of jaw-dropping spectacle that has become all too rare at a time when virtually any imaginable sight can be conjured up with a battery of computers.