randomfoolishness.com

Universal Health Care and Man Laws

randomfool — Sat, 27 Jan 2007 00:01:32 +0000

I have been struggling internally lately with my opinions on national health care. Obviously now with the election cycle already in overdrive and Hillbillary trying to “chat” in a seemingly desperate effort put some limit on Obamamania, the Democratic candidates are all supporting universal health care…and that issue was so successfull for Hillbillary before. All of the ridiculous rhetoric aside, I think it is embarassing that our “capitalist democracy” (which is actually neither capitalist nor a democracy…discuss), as rich and successful as it is cannot figure out how to make sure that our citizens have the benefit of the health care technology that is available. However, I also understand that the development of the technology we have is largely due to the very Darwinistic nature of our brand of capitalism. There is no substitute for true competition to generate the technological breakthroughs that we have been able to achive and, in competition, there necessarily must be losers in order for there to be winners. If there are no winner spoils to go after, there would be less investment and less achievement. I guess the primary reason I have not been able to support nationalized health care to day is because any effort to develop it is sucked into the idiotic political process that we have and we end up getting Hillbillary on a bus tour that results in her husband holding up a national health care card during the State of the Union. No thanks…I’d rather just have Darwin as harsh as the outcome might be. So, I guess I agree that we need to figure out, as a society, how we are going to deliver medical care to our citizens at a rate that is appropriate given our wealth without jeopardizing the benefits of the economic system that results in the wealth in the first place. What are the chances that the political process will ever be able to generate that result. Zero. And that’s why I am a permanent cynic.

Similarly troubling is the Man Law commercials for Miller Lite. I find them to be funny but I seem to be struggling internally with it. It’s as if I am uncomfortable with the fact that they are funny. I read recetly that the ads are being pulled because, while hugely popular with their target audience, they have not been effective at all in increasing the sales of Miller Lite. This idea that there is a glass box somewhere with people I like (Jerome Bettis) and people I can’t stand (Jimmy Johnson) deciding what manly men should and should not do in certain cirumstances (e.g., no baking on game days) is funny. But it is also disturbing that things like that are funny. The typical beer ads with pretty women in bathing suits for some reason doesn’t bother me as much (even though they make the same sad statement), maybe because I am jsut so desensitized to them by now. I’m gald that they are pulling the ads so I don’t have to spend time thinking about this.

So how could these two topics possibly be related? They are both examples of the best and the worst America has to offer. The Man Law commercials are strangely funny and, despite their popularity, have not helped their sponsor sell their product. Universal health care, I think, is probably a very popular idea but our own stupidity (in the form of our political process) prevents us from implementing it. It’s kind of embarassing being an American sometimes. If we weren’t so sad, we would be really funny.

Bulls, Bears and Colts: Classic Case of Being Fooled

randomfool — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:41:17 +0000

On the day after the Chicago Bears qualified for the Superbowl for the first time in 21 years, I of course spent some time reading blog entries and analysis of yesterday’s games and the Superbowl on February 4th (not to mention ruling out any chance that I might have had to go to the game given the ridiculous cost of a ticket). Superbowls, like presidential elections, receive so much attention that they are terribly overanalyzed and the results are often associated with any number of outcomes that are totally random. In this case, there is the statistic that people actually spend time discussing which uses the Superbowl as a stock market forecaster. Apparently, when an old NFL team, like the Bears and the Colts, wins the Superbowl, the stock market increases for that year 78% of the time. When two old NFL teams face off (which has happened seven times), the stock market increases 100% of the time.
Now, obviously, there is no correlation between the Superbowl teams or the outcome of the Superbowl and the stock market. The correlation is clearly 100% random and this is a classic case of looking at two totally unrelated events and backfilling a story to the perceived patterns. The thing is, I can’t tell sometimes whether people who are explaining or advocating these kinds of theories are being sarcastic (like I am) or if they actually believe that there is a correlation.

Forget Barak Obama…it’s Beckhamania

randomfool — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 02:00:25 +0000

Grant Wahl of Sports Illustrated wrote a very interesting article about the David Beckham signing that attempts to give clarity to exactly how much money Becks (that what soccer insiders call him) will make and the blow-by-blow of the several years of negotiations that it took to make it happen. It’s good reading even if you don’t follow soccer or sports. I don’t follow soccer at all (I didn’t watch any of the World Cup) and I certainly do not follow Major League Soccer. It’s not that I don’t understand the sport’s worldwide popularity, I just don’t have room in my life to follow any more sports than I already do. However, I have to admit that I have been reading articles about David Beckham’s, a worldwide super celebrity who even I know about, signing with the Los Angeles Galaxy. If MLS is ever going to break into the realm of major sports in the U.S., this is one way to get it there.

The Bull@*&t College System

randomfool — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 23:17:58 +0000

I didn’t even bother watching the national championship game last night and I am happy about that choice. Now that Florida is the national champion, it has become even more obvious that a playoff system is needed in NCAA college football. The primary reason I don’t watch college football is because the outcome of the games is judged by a vote and, lately, a computer formula. Every other major college sport has a playoff but the BCS schools, it seems, in the name of protecting study time for their “student athletes” and to protect the tradition of the bowl games. First of all, do we really need to continue this charade that college football players (at that level anyway) are anything but professional athletes? Do they really need the month of December to study? Why is it that nobody has a problem with college basketball players traveling like they do and, for those who make it to the NCAA tournament, taking essentially a month off in March (as pointed out by John Feinstein on NPR this morning)? Second, exactly what bowl tradition are you protecting when there are so many bowl games named after sponsors that attendance has been dropping, when you have blown up the main bowl traditions for rotating BCS national championship games and when the national championship is played on January 8th?

The issue of taking time off from school is retarded and I just ignore it. The issue of bowl traditions could still be upheld, in fact far better than the BCS system does today, and a playoff system could follow in January based on a seeding set after the bowls are played. The bowls would actually be meaningful then, a real national championship playoff could be played in January on Monday nights leading up to a national championship on the Sunday during hype week for the NFL. If the NCAA and the BCS schools are truly motivated by money (which they are), they could make so much more money and protect the sanctity of the bowl system. I just don’t understand why they don’t adopt something like this…it just makes absolutely no sense to me.