CommenTerry

Want to Have a Major Advantantage over Everyone Else?

Most people make their decisions based on feelings, emotions, fears, superstitions, dogma, traditions, and/or prejudices. Those who can instead make their decisions based on logic and reason have a major advantage over everyone else.

Third, Not Second!

In team sports, when two teams are tied for first place, the team with the next best record is in third place, not second place. It's impossible for a team to be in second place if two other teams are ahead of it. This same principle also applies to sports or game shows in which individuals are competing.

Here's a Real Oxymoron...

Have you ever heard a political candidate referred to as being from the "independent party"? I have, but that's actually an oxymoron and tantamount to saying you paid toll on a freeway! If a candidate is indeed an independent, he/she couldn't be a member of a party; if he/she were a member of a party, he/she couldn't be an independent candidate.

The Hypocrisy of Insider Trading Laws

Perhaps Walter Williams and I are the only two people on earth who can see the hypocrisy of insider trading laws. I somehow doubt it, though. Williams wrote a column last year, lambasting these laws and I'm going to pick up where he left off. These laws run counter the notion we accept in every other aspect of society that life is unfair. In every facet of life, there are people who have access to advantages that others do not have. However, we don't attempt to make these advantages illegal except when it comes to insider trading.

I've often heard the argument that it is not so much about fairness as it is about trust of the system, i.e., that people will not invest their money knowing that others have advantages they don't have themselves. Baloney! The advantages people have in other things do not cause those without these advantages to not participate. I will cite several examples to show how the lack of similar laws in other areas of life does not cause any real problems. They will also show how hypocritical it is to create special laws just for the world of investment and not apply that same logic anywhere else.

Let's look at fraternities, sororities, and other private clubs and organizations. It's completely legal to join them even though many of them are exclusive in nature and do not allow just anyone to join. Of course, this right is covered by the freedom of association guarantees in the U.S. Constitution. However, being a member often gains one access to benefits that he or she wouldn't have by not being a member. One of these benefits is access to desirable high-level positions within major corporations. Many of these positions are not available to non-members. That's not fair but I have yet to see a law against it. Despite that, people still apply for good jobs within corporations every day. They don't sit on the sidelines and not apply just because they believe the insiders are getting all the best positions.

What about inherited wealth? It's not fair for someone to take advantage of their inherited wealth when most people don't have this kind of access. However, it's perfectly legal. Many people with inherited wealth have a brand new car given to them as soon as they are old enough to drive. They have their college tuition paid for. They usually have a nice cushy job awaiting them when their college days are over, regardless of how well (or poorly) they performed academically. They don't even have to work at all if they don't want to. How can this be fair when many other people have to work for everything they get? Until there are laws against it, everyone else will refuse to go to college, work, or pay for anything they get, right? Wrong! Most people realize that there are people with inherited wealth who don't have to work for anything. People accept that as a fact of life and go on with their lives. They go to college (for which they have to pay most of the tuition themselves), go to work, and pay their bills every day. Life goes on and no fairness laws are needed here.

What about people who are attractive and/or have charming personalities? Having these assets is just fine, but it's unfair for people to use them for personal gain when others like me, who are ugly and blunt, don't have this privilege. However, I've never heard of any attempt (in this country anyway) to make a law against using good looks and positive personality traits to one's advantage. People use these assets to help them land desirable jobs and work their way up the corporate ladder. They use these assets to help them win friends and get favors the rest of us can't get. They use these assets to attract higher quality mates than those of us who are lacking can attract. How does this make the rest of us feel? It makes us feel so discouraged that we never apply for a job, attempt to make friends, or perform any normal daily activity, right? Of course not, that would be silly. We go on with our lives just like the folks with the good looks and charming personalities. We are not going to sit out on life, waiting for laws to be passed to restrain all the pretty and charming people from getting a better deal in life.

I could go on and on, of course, but it seems to me that if insider trading is illegal because of the unfairness aspect, we ought to outlaw all other forms of unfairness as well. Sure, insider trading is unfair and very unethical. However, I doubt that the lack of laws against it would cause the markets to collapse. Other areas of our daily lives have not collapsed under the weight of unfairness that legally occurs every day. Also, when we outlaw some forms of unfairness while ignoring or even encouraging other forms of it (some of which are just as unethical), isn't that in itself unfair?

NL West Debacle Highlights Three-Division Problem

Well, the San Diego Padres just clinched the National League West division with a .500 record and four games remaining. They will have to win at least three of their remaining games to avoid becoming the first team in Major League Baseball history to gain a post-season berth without a winning record.

The obvious blame for this debacle is baseball's three-division format in each league that went into effect with the 1994 season. Once this went into effect, I knew it was only a matter of time before something like this was going to happen. In fact, it would have likely happened the very first year of the three-division set-up, had it not been for the 1994 season-ending strike. At the time the strike occurred (mid-August), the Texas Rangers were leading the American League West with a losing record.

What's the solution? I suggest returning to the two-division format in each league while retaining each league's wildcard entry. Here's how it would work: In each league, the winner of both divisions would get automatic post-season berths along with a wildcard team (the non-division winner with the best record). The team finishing with the best record in the league would get a bye during the divisional playoffs. The other division winner and the wildcard team would compete in a best-of-five divisional playoff, with the winner meeting the bye team in the league championship series in a best-of-seven playoff.  The advantages of this format would be three-fold - it would reduce the likelihood of teams with losing records making the post-season by eliminating small divisions (no division would have fewer than seven teams), prevent the team with the second best record in each league from missing the post-season (by retaining the wildcard entry), and give a huge advantage to the team finishing with the best record in each league (hey, those were the only teams that made the post-season, pre-1969).

Why So Much Heartburn About Product Placement?

I don't understand all the hand-wringing over product placement in TV shows. It seems to be a very efficient form of advertising and many eventually make commercial breaks in programs a thing of the past. I see that as a good thing. Maybe I have Adult ADD or something, but I find it almost impossible to sit through those commercial breaks without giving my remote a workout. Many times, I end up stopping on another channel and never returning to the program I was originally watching. I bet I'm not the only one. That's why advertisers are finding product placement advertising more and more attractive.

The Hidden Danger of the So-Called "Right to Die"

Earlier this year, the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube once again brought into focus the debate over the so-called "right to die." As you well know, the Florida woman died after being removed from her feeding tube following a court battle that dragged on for several years.  I'll take issue with her unrepentantly adulterous husband's "right" to make life and death decisions for her in a future post.

The debate over the right to die will likely take center stage again soon when the Supreme Court (probably with John Roberts presiding) reviews Oregon's law allowing physician assisted suicide. But I wonder if the right to die is something we really want? I always shudder a bit when politicians start talking about giving me more rights. Rights have a funny way of morphing into obligations.

In the state where I live, you can legally make a right turn at a red light if there is no sign stating that you can't. This right is supposedly optional. However, if you're sitting at a red light with your turn signal on there are five vehicles behind you with their horns honking, it doesn't seem quite so optional. I fear this will be the case with the right to die if it ever becomes law.

Some people just don't have strong wills and I'm one of them. Many times in my life, someone with a stronger will has coaxed me into doing something I really didn't want to do. I could never serve on a jury because I wouldn't be able to maintain my independence. I would just go along to get along; even it meant not expressing what I honestly felt.

Recently, there was a study released which found that many of the people who signed up for the federal do-not-call list regularly bought stuff from telemarketers. The conclusion reached by thy group that did the study was that these people lied when they said they did not want to be called. I see it differently. I think they honestly do not wish to be called by telemarketers. Why then have they been buying from telemarketers? Because they don't have very strong wills and telemarketers pressure them into buying stuff they do not really want. That's why they have registered for the do-not-call list.

I believe a similar thing would happen with the right to die. Many people will say they don't ever want to be kept alive artificially because that's the fashionable thing to say and they know that's what other people want to hear. However, deep down, some of them would like for all means possible to be used to keep them alive. Saying you want to be kept alive artificially is not a popular thing to say. Most people will criticize you for it. Even people who have enough courage to actually say this will often back down when the pressure begins to mount. People will scold them with statements like "you shouldn't be so selfish", "why do you want to be such a burden to your relatives and friends?", or "you're old, you should be willing to die and make room for the younger people."

When someone is on life support and is subsequently found to be brain dead, they can be taken off life support without the permission of their family in many states. Even with that being the case, most doctors will still euphemistically tell the family they need to make a "choice." Of course, in the case of brain death, there is no real choice, since it's totally different from euthanasia or cutting off life support from someone who is still alive. I wonder, though, if we would have any real choice if we actually got our right to die.

Who Really Started This Blame Game?

The news media elitists are having a field day poking fun at former FEMA Director Michael Brown for playing the "blame game" with the Katrina debacle. But is he the one who started this game? Wasn't it was started by Congress? They are the ones who called him in to testify before them. This was obviously an effort to try to pin all the blame on him. When he, in turn, tried to shift that blame elsewhere, he was cited by the media knuckleheads for starting a blame game. Actually, he finished what Congress started. Just like in sports, though, the guy throwing the second punch is always the one who is caught and penalized.

Flu Shots Available to Everyone This Year

After last year's shortage, which generally limited flu shots to the elderly, small children, and those with chronic diseases, they will apparently be available to everyone this year. However, they will be slightly more expensive, with an average price of about $30 compared to about $18 in the last several years. Of course, I don't see this as a problem as long as I can get one. In fact, I would get one even if the price was $30,000!

Is Personal Responsibility a New Concept?

Here's an original idea: let's start holding people responsible for their own actions. When someone commits an illegal act, that person and that person alone should be held accountable, not those who may have unknowingly made their crime easier or failed to stop them. For example, when someone deliberately shoots another person, go after the shooter, not the gun manufacturer or the guy who owns the local gun store.