Please pass along and help as you are able

This blog entry starts with very disturbing news. A homeless man was stabbed outside the Arlington Heights Memorial Library. Read the story:Man stabbed in Arlington Heights - Chicago Breaking News; and then note the following comment (quoted here in its entirety, though without permission. I hope no one minds...) I would appreciate anyone who can verify (or refute) any of the details and/or provide additional information.

An AH resident who knows the truth on December 28, 2008 9:08 AM

There is an agency called Journeys from PADS to HOPE that has a very good and safe system of emergency and temporary shelter offered in the coldest months of the year. Many do not know that they also place people in permanent housing...currently, 6 people are housed in some of their units, those were previously on the streets. Journeys also has a day center that is open 9A-4P Monday through Friday. They would live the day center to be able to expand its hours but A) The Village of Palatine restricted their hours with Special Use and even if they could change that limitation with the Village and B) they can't currently afford to hire more staff to man the additional hours. Journeys has tried the road of expanding it's shelter system and service area in to Park Ridge when asked by the City officials and religious leaders to do so but the comunity responded with negative and hateful attacks at an agency that tries to pick away at the homeless issue with dedication and skill. Volunteering at Journeys allows me to know that their wish is to have a fixed site year round shelter but there isn't a community out there that is jumping to partner with them. In fact, are you aware that Journeys is the one that asked the Village of Arlington Heights to police their public locations with less passiveness so that those who loiter and drink that are homeless might be forced to cme to the center for help with their issues instad of causing problems with the Village and thus the cameras went up in the train station. However, the Village likes to claim that the decision was solely due to a formed Task Force. The Task Force met with Journeys to get their advice - funny how they don't gve the credit where due. Also, are you aware that the Village of Arlington Heights is funding Journeys less than the surrounding Towns are funding Journeys in order to address a population no one else wants to support. Arlington Heights tells Journeys they don't have more than a couple thousand dollars yearly to support their efforts but yet they can put millions in to their "Emerald City" Village Hall? You ask...can the Village of AH pull off a year round shelter system? The answer is No but Journeys can if supported...

Thanks to @HarvardAvenue for pointing me to the story on his blog.

Seriously, I Wish Someone Could Convince Me

This morning at the grocery store I spotted a friend of the family. Since I don't know her too well I considered avoiding her completely but for some reason decided to stop her and say howdy. After brief chit-chat she asked about my job search. When I told her that there has not been any progress she immediately responded, "Well Obama's coming soon. He will turn it all around."
I probably should have just smiled at her, said goodbye, and hauled ass to the car. But that's not like me. Of course I wasn't going to engage her in a full-on political debate either so I reached for something I thought would be factual and mostly non-confrontational: I said, "We can't afford to wait that long."
I was completely shocked by her response, "We're just going to have to. What choice do we have, right?" She continued to try to get me to agree with her, but how could I? I mean I know being a retired grandmother, she and I are in very different places in our lives. But could she really be that fatalistic? Do people really think we are that powerless? What do they think we are supposed to do in the meantime?
I can't help but feel really bad for her. Sure, financially she is much better off than I, but I wouldn't trade places with her if I could.
If this is the attitude of the country, things are definitely going to get much worse. Please, please, please convince me I am wrong...

Candidate for Sale?

Well I haven't chosen an office to pursue or filed any paperwork yet, but today on Facebook I announced my candidacy for office. Check out the group link here if you have an account.

You may notice the announcement seems a little juvenile and ridiculous. But so is the state of politics in Illinois these days.

Folks, as long as we allow government to have so much influence over our daily lives we will have corrupt politicians. Until we admit the causal relationship between the two we are going to continue to be disappointed in our public officials.

And even if you don't agree ideologically, wouldn't it make sense to at least follow the Constitution? Whatever else we do, let's at least abolish the unconstitutional policies, programs, and practices that have been implemented over the last century or so. They either do more harm than good or just don't work at all.

Keeping it Bite-Sized Today

There are some great lines in the post: Socialized Medicine In The US Could Cost Me My life. « Storm Warning!

If you think healthcare is expensive now… just wait 'til it's free!
Get a GRIP, America! There is NO FREE LUNCH! There never has been! If you want it… you must be prepared to pay for it.

Another great line I heard this morning is: "The Constitution may not be perfect, but it's better than what we have now."

A classic liberal out of water

The reason it has been so long since I wrote anything here is mainly because I have been too angry (frustrated, maybe?) to write. It's not getting better but I cannot keep it inside any longer. It feels like the election of Barack Obama has emboldened the liberals* to grow increasingly more outrageous day by day.

Again, I am so frustrated I am not sure where to start. The first thing that pops into my head is what I heard on the radio** Tuesday afternoon. The host was hyping the typical "tax the rich" rhetoric which always makes my blood boil. However he actually made what I thought was a well-reasoned argument. He said that by raising personal income tax rate on the wealthy it would spur an increase in the money invested in businesses; both in capital improvements and human resources. Despite my resistance I thought there might be some logic to this. His argument was based on the idea that a business has a couple of options with what to do with profits. They can take the profits out as personal income or they can reinvest them in the business.*** By raising the personal income tax he postulates that business owners would be less likely to take the distributions out of the company. I admit he had me fooled for a minute until what came next: by reinvesting the money in the company they can avoid taxes altogether. That's right, when a company spends money (in most cases) it comes out of their pre-tax dollars. This is one of the reasons you hear all the time how the "wealthy avoid paying taxes" - because they instead spend the money legally on their businesses. So I was quickly awakened from this hazy dreamworld by the logical contradictions:

1. If the business owners really are encouraged to spend profits in this manner, then the additional taxes will raise NO ADDITIONAL tax revenue. The politicians say they do this to raise the money they need for all of their elaborate new social programs, but the fact is the money would never actually get taxed. In fact you could argue that tax revenue would really drop for this very reason. This is the effect the Laffer Curve illustrated. This is the argument of Reaganomics. This is what sane, intelligent people have been trying to make you understand for decades.
2. I would be shocked if there were gaggles of business owners out there who are really so dumb as to neglect the long range success of their companies by not making these capital investments when needed. After all it is hard to get where they are without proper long range strategies. Who are we to tell them when such expenditures are necessary. This radio host claimed he was once a business owner and this is how he did it. Well, so what? He should know that all businesses are different. You cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all strategy. Even if 99.9% of businesses needed that push, we have to respect the 0.1% that doesn't. Yes I made those numbers up.
   Going slightly off-topic: Democrats seem to be lacking the gene that allows for long-term planning. They always present programs that sound good in theory at first glance but don't hold up down the line. They can always point to the one life they will make better; they completely ignore the countless others who will be harmed. It sounds good for us all to have health care. You can go find a family without healthcare and demonstrate how their lives will improve. They don't show the countless others who would have to go without common treatments because the waiting lists are too long. They don't show the numerous drugs and treatments that won't be discovered because they've eliminated the profit motive for research. They don't show the countless other things that I don't even know about because following an immoral course of action always has unintended negative consequences. But the Dems seem to be unwilling or unable to consider the long term. And I guess they think that's what the American public wants. Or they think you are too stupid to see through it. After this past election I am afraid to answer which...
3. Actually more related to item #2. If the incentive is to spend the money on the company tax free instead of taking the taxed personal income, then the incentive exists regardless of the personal income rate. Whether the personal income rate is "high" or "low" it is still cheaper to pay zero.
4. Taxation, especially income tax, is 100% immoral. Taking property without permission is theft by any definition. No matter what else you say there is nothing that can change this fundamental fact. It does not matter if you think the victim deserves it. It doesn't matter if you give to billions of homeless starving African children with AIDS. Wrong is wrong. You cannot achieve moral ends through immoral means.
   

So I beg of you to keep a critical eye open. You don't have to be wealthy to denounce Robin Hood. Just as you don't have to be black to oppose slavery; you don't have to be gay to oppose "Prop 8"; you don't have to be Jewish to see the evil in the holocaust. It might help to be human to fight for human rights.

*By "liberals" I am referring of course to today's "Robin Hood" liberals like the President-elect and others in the Democratic Party. Their "ideals" are a far cry from the classic liberalism which founded this country and to which any rational, freedom-loving human should subscribe.

**92.7 FM for the curious

***There are probably other options, but having never owned a profitable business what do I know?

----------------
Now playing: White Zombie - More Human than Human
via FoxyTunes

In fact, Gay Marriage Should NOT be Legal

Hope that got your attention. I'm sure several of my Facebook friends would be surprised to think I would have reversed my position supporting their "right" to marry. While it's true I certainly believe you and I should have no say in whether two other people choose to marry - and I admit I wrote the title mainly to get you to read on - I do stand behind my statement, with a bit of clarification: gay marriage should not be legal and neither should heterosexual marriage, Christian marriage, atheist marriage, or any marriage period.

Since marriage began as a religious ceremony, shouldn't the first amendment have prohibited the government from taking any actions with respect to how, when, where, why, or especially who? But because it did, now we have new problems with people wanting government to again step in and "redefine" the word. Those who oppose gay marriage have one thing (sort of) right: "Where will it stop?"

The most effective way to solve this problem once and for all, fairly and equitably for everyone, is to remove the concept of legal marriage altogether. Keep it in the civilian world completely. This way if some church or other group doesn't want to recognize your marriage, then who cares? Ignore them. If some person refuses to perform your ceremony, find someone who will. We asked a friend of ours if he would be willing to get ordained online to perform our ceremony because we only wanted friends and family involved in our wedding. There are other solutions besides more government involvement.

Now we would still need some form of legal partnership available to tackle such issues as survivor benefits, child custody, and other responsibilities I may not even know about. This is where the concept of civil unions or domestic partnership would come into play. They would not just be for gay couples, but for any consenting adults who have committed to one another ("married" or not) and want to formally protect their rights in the legal system.

Absolutely we should keep the concepts of marriage and domestic partneship separate: one civil (marriage) and one legal (domestic partnership). You would be free to enter into one or both (or neither) as you see fit.

Obviously I have shown how this system would benefit "gay rights" but we would also need the religious conservatives on board. My plea to you, besides the inherent "rightness" of this solution, is to recognize that this really is no change from what you are currently seeking. Your church is still free to define marriage as you see fit. No one will force you to recognize gay marriage or perform those ceremonies if you still feel they go against the beliefs of your faith. Whether there is a law on the books or a Constitutional amendment, there really is nothing that can stop someone from having a wedding and calling themselves married, even today.

Further infringement of human rights (and thus greater government involvement) is the crime, not the solution.

----------------
Now playing: The Who - Love Reign O'er Me
via FoxyTunes

I'll take the Maserati and some fuzzy dice

A man and his wife are out car shopping. They cannot agree on what to buy. He wants a red Porsche and she is pushing for a blue Prius. He wants a convertible but she doesn't think even a sunroof is worth the extra money. The Porsche has leather seats; she only wants cloth. I don't see a compromise in the immediate future.

They will keep arguing about it anyway despite the fact that they are missing the big picture. You see, they cannot afford to buy a new car right now. Even if they could, neither of these cars would meet their current needs. The most useful car for them would be a van they could fit their six children in, probably in a neutral color that won't show the dirt. Surprisingly enough, this is exactly the vehicle they already have, which is part of the reason they cannot afford a new one.

What's worse than the fact they don't realize this is where the story gets more absurd. You see, never mind that they don't need a new car, can't afford a new car, and couldn't agree on what to get even if they did - they are shopping at a grocery store. They are wandering up and down aisle after aisle; past milk, eggs, and ice cream; each fully expecting to leave with the new car before the day is over.

You would think the store manager would be able to point out to them that grocery stores don't sell cars, but this one is trying to be accommodating. He has a lead on a motorcycle with a sidecar and he is certain he can convince them to buy it today. Sadly, he may be right.

OK this is one of the most surreal stories I have come up with. However I did not have to work too hard at it. This is what is going on in the United States federal government on a daily basis. The Republicans and Democrats spend their days trying to convince the public to support their choice of "car." Special interest groups and lobbyists will push their own agendas for "color choice" or "make and model." Citizen watchdog groups will question how the "new car" will be paid for. But there are precious few voices pointing out the fact that it's a "grocery store." And while over the years grocery stores (literal and figurative) have expanded their inventories to include greeting cards, medications, and propane tanks, they are certainly not capable of being competitive in automobile sales. Sure, in theory a store that sells one item should be able to sell any other; that doesn't mean they will be good at it.

I am not saying (in this post) that we should not have health care, welfare, or even standards and practices for business. Only that we cannot and should not demand them from Washington. After all, the people we elect are no different from us, no smarter, no more trustworthy. Why should we be giving them more power over us when they have a monopoly to begin with? They need to be protecting our rights: human rights, property rights (physical), and intellectual property rights. They can't do this when they are trying to do everything else we are asking of them.

If you've read this far and...

• want to learn more
• have more questions
• think I am whacked

...then please post a comment, ask questions, and/or check out these other great sources of information:

• The Cato Institute
• ABC News: John Stossel's Web Page
• The Libertarian Party
• The Ayn Rand Institute
• Ron Paul for President
  

----------------
Now playing: Pearl Jam - Dissident (Live)
via FoxyTunes

The only thing worse than no health insurance...

From the Cato Institute: Universal Coverage Kills

Federal bureaucrats have announced that, as of this month, the Medicare program will no longer provide financial rewards to doctors and hospitals who harm patients.
That is not a typo. For more than 40 years, Medicare has provided financial rewards to providers when a patient requires follow-up care following a medical error.

The article says it better than I can. I guarantee our next President only wants to make this worse. Not intentionally, of course, but what is it that makes every politician blind to the simple laws of logic? I guess it's the fact that we keep electing them. Yes, we need a change all right. The kind of change we can't get from a Democrat or a Republican. We need real, down to the core, surgery kind of change that we can only get from bringing in outsiders to every office.
The Democrats all said, "vote for us and we'll get out of Iraq." Well you voted for them and they've had two years in which they've changed nothing (not for the better, anyway.) Both Obama and McCain are helping to give away billions of your tax money to wealthy bankers (and formerly wealthy bankers) who already proved they could not be trusted with the money they had. You think a vote for a third party is a wasted vote? What would you call a vote for one of those two?
And don't let your focus be completely stolen by the Presidential election. There are dozens of other choices you will have to make on your ballot. The way I see it you can handle them one of three ways: a) do your research ahead of time and try to make a reasoned choice; b) leave it blank; c) choose blindly. I hope you will not consider option "c" as a reasonable option.
Don't be bullied into going to vote just for the sake of voting. If you go, vote because you want your voice heard. A vote for a republocrat is pee in the ocean. A vote for a third party (or even a line left blank) will scream much more loudly. If you don't want your voice heard, then why vote?

----------------
Now playing: Pearl Jam - Why Go
via FoxyTunes

The best I can give you is how NOT to vote...

I typically vote for a strong third party candidate or else "None of the Above." Some may say that is a wasted vote, but I usually respond that a vote for a Republocrat is even worse. Besides, Illinois is hardly a swing state. I hate to be cynical but NOT VOTING for one of the two leading candidates is the ONLY way my vote will actually count for anything.

It's looking like we will have to get used to the idea of a President Obama so I watched the final debate with a critical eye to try to get a picture of what that will be like. It is no secret that the Illinois Senator is well-spoken. I found him to be intelligent and believe he can certainly lead the nation. I would prefer someone with more experience, but when it comes down to it what other experience compares to being President of the United States of America?

So it comes down to one basic idea. And I am afraid it is a deal breaker.

The context: Senator McCain attacked Obama's health care plan by saying that companies that did not provide this coverage would be fined. Senator Obama corrected him, stating that the fine would only apply to larger companies "that could afford it." I had almost forgotten I had heard him use similar language before when talking about his tax plan (regarding those who make "more than $250k/year" and can "afford it").

The problem: No one - no man, no woman, no special interest group, no church leaders, and especially no government - has the right to tell me what I can and cannot "afford." It does not matter what your motivations are. This type of thinking is evil and threatens the very core of freedom.

A mugger on the street might decide you can afford to give your wallet to him. He uses a gun; a politician uses his position. You might sleep better at night thinking there is a difference but how can there be a difference? Using power to take what is not yours is wrong no matter how you look at it. The whole purpose of government is to protect us from thugs with guns. If our leaders are going to act the same way then why even bother?

By allowing those words (of who "can afford it") to carelessly flow in our political discussions we illustrate we have no concept of right and wrong. And yet this belief system is embedded in the foundation of the Democratic Party. Senator Obama has illustrated why he belongs to that party and why I cannot vote for or in any way support him.


I find it very hard to actually publish this post. Most of my friends are Obama supporters. I understand what they like about him. I thought about not writing this at all. I decided that staying silent against a threat is just as bad as condoning it. I know they won't see the truth in what I am saying and if that means the end of some friendships then I will be sad. Ultimately I would rather mourn the loss of a few friendships than the loss of my integrity.

----------------
Now playing: Rush - Malignant Narcissism
via FoxyTunes

Who is more honest?

There is a new poll on from The Director's chair

I am interested in your opinion...

Training Wheels and Tough Love

Stock futures signal partial rebound after sell-off; Street awaits next move on Capitol Hill -- chicagotribune.com

Dow Jones industrial average futures rose 200, or 1.91 percent, to 10,674 after falling more than 777 points, or 6.98 percent, Monday. It was the blue chips' largest point drop and 17th largest percentage drop.

The market is trying to correct the value of the dollar because the fed won't. We need to pressure our leaders to pull excess dollars out of circulation and get interest rates rising again. Just like Dad teaching us to ride a bike, the training wheels need to come off and he needs to let go. When we fall, it's ok, as long as we get back up and try again. We learn nothing if he won't let go.

On a related note, I wrote the following comment on "A Little Creative License" yesterday:

It seems to me it's quite a bit like tough love. I would imagine as a leader (government or otherwise) it is hard to watch the economy in rough patches and not act to "fix" it.
Herbert Hoover is a perfect example. He knew that nonintervention was the best policy. But as things failed to recover and he watched his approval rating plummet he was pressured to act. Since recovery can take longer than we might like, things did not turn around before the next election. His opponents seized upon his apparent "failure" claiming he did too little too late. As we know, despite (or because of, I would say) FDR's "New Deal" policies, things got much worse.
If only Hoover had the courage of his convictions (and also been re-elected) we might never have heard the term Great Depression.

----------------
Now playing: Queensrÿche - Bridge
via FoxyTunes

"three good reasons why Congress should reject this legislation"

Ron Paul’s House floor remarks on the bailout

Thanks Alison for pointing me to this information. Somewhere in the back of my mind I knew the plan was a mistake but I was not sure why.

----------------
Now playing: Metallica - The Ecstasy of Gold
via FoxyTunes

Put the "Mad Money" Man to the Test

On the “Today” show this morning, Jim Cramer (“Mad Money”) told Ann Curry he believes the proposed bailout is a good deal for taxpayers and that he wishes there was a way he could invest directly with his own money because of the potential upside return and the safeguards in place for protection.
This makes me wonder…why can’t he? Why are you and I going to be forced to contribute to this plan involuntarily when there are Jim Cramers out there who would be willing to fund it?
There are only two reasons I can think of. The first is ignorance. Perhaps Washington thinks $700 billion can only be raised by the federal government. It certainly sounds like a gargantuan sum. Let’s put it in context though. In simplest terms it works out to a little more than $2,000 per citizen. That’s more than I think we can ask of the average Joe. But fortunately Forbes just released their annual report on the 400 richest people in America. The combined wealth of this 0.00013% of our population is $1.57 trillion – more than twice the amount of the bailout. Now I am not asking them to shoulder the cost alone, but merely illustrating that they could. We have not even talked about the 5% of Americans making more than $250,000 per year, according to Senator Obama. Five percent by the way is roughly 15 million people. The cost of this bailout divided evenly among them would be just under $50,000. You’re probably sick of my math and we’ve only discussed private citizens so far. I won’t get into the dollars available in the corporate world. Hopefully we can agree that if Congress wanted to fund this bailout privately they could.
This leaves the other reason: corruption. If Washington can keep spending your money however it wants it maintains control over you. Politicians get to keep their power. If they fund this bailout privately they have to admit that the free market works. They will have a hard time justifying their bloated salaries and repeated attempts to pass more legislation when the Congressional Record is already far longer than anyone can read.
Anyway I got slightly off topic. My point is this: most of us are too far removed or don’t have enough of the facts available to really have a good opinion of what needs to be done (or not, as the case may be.) We will have to hope that through all of the arguing and butting heads between the idiots we are overpaying to look out for us that the truth will come out. And if the bailout is necessary we should go to our Congressmen and Senators and demand that they recover at least a significant portion of our money by issuing securities to the private sector. Let’s make the option available. I for one am more than happy to let Jim Cramer shoulder “my” portion of the payout.

----------------
Now playing: Genesis - It's Gonna Get Better
via FoxyTunes

Don't you hate it when people forward emails? Almost as bad as throwing away $85 billion, right?

Sept. 17, 2008

Dear Concerned Libertarian,

Did that Miami Herald headline grab your attention? It did to me. So what does the White House think about our economy? Good question. Here is [their] answer today from Press Secretary Dana Perino:

"I recognize that this issue of 'strength' (of the economy) has come into the 2008 election," she said. "I'm not going to try to get involved in it." (AP 09/17/08)

She followed this up with, "While no one would have liked to have ended up in this situation, you have a government that is willing to lead" - well, only if you call an $85 billion bailout of a major US Corporation and not getting involved leading.

Oh wait, there's more; here is what she says next: "I understand that people want to hear from the president during this time." Well of course they do, but then again, he doesn't want to get involved!

I don't know about you -- but I am fuming at this Government -- and apparently so are the markets (which closed down another 450 points for the day).

First, on Sunday, they said no more bailouts. Then, (no surprise) they do exactly what they said they would not be doing. Spent $85 billion of YOUR MONEY on AIG.

ONLY Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party have been screaming from the mountaintops the past few weeks, "No bailouts!"

All the others have simply been agreeing with what the Fed's been doing:

McCain says it's necessary to "protect millions of Americans" and wants to set up a "commission" on the financial crisis. Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin says it's "understandable."

Obama? Well, he wants more regulation! He is calling for "a new, 21st century regulatory framework" to solve this mess! And, Biden? Well, he's in the dark I guess: "The truth is, I don't know what the bailout is yet...haven't had a brief on it."

Mr. Biden, it's $85 billion of money the Fed has no right to spend!

What has Bob Barr and the LP been saying: "No one voted to pour taxpayer funds into Wall Street. And no one voted for the government to take over an insurance company. If the Federal Reserve can spend as much money as it desires to bail out any company that it desires, is there anything that it cannot do with taxpayer funds?”

If you are upset as I am and you want real change, then I urge you to vote Libertarian November 4. Please help us SEND A MESSAGE to Washington by donating today at https://www.lp.org/contribute.

Every dollar will help get our message out and will be greatly appreciated.

In Liberty,



Robert S. Kraus
Acting Executive Director
Libertarian Party

Killing Trees

Lately I have been killing trees. Way too many to count. Maples, actually. I never realized that a tree could be a "weed" until we bought a house. Craziness...

I need to borrow a video camera for a few days. Anyone?

Plzthxbai!

----------------
Now playing: Rush - The Trees
via FoxyTunes

Let's go with Paul Lynde for the block, please...

My wife tells me that there are people who don't cover every square of their waffles with butter and syrup. These must be the same crackpots who want me to believe Pluto is not a planet. What do you do with the pieces without syrup, eat around them? Sounds like a waste of good waffle to me, you freakin' weirdos.

----------------
Now playing: Machines Of Loving Grace - Butterfly Wings
via FoxyTunes

Be Serious and Have Fun!

I received an email today containing an article titled "Be Serious and Have Fun!" by Dan Coughlin. I am including this excerpt below, just because I laughed explosively when I read it.

Several weeks ago I gave a keynote at 9 AM at a conference in Newport, Rhode Island. That night I had dinner with several of the attendees at the big banquet. The speech went over well and I was feeling pretty good about myself. The waiter brought a great looking salad and a small white container that I thought contained a hot Thousand Island dressing. So with a real flourish I poured it over my entire salad.

The woman sitting next to me fell on the ground laughing. When she picked herself up and sat back down, I said, “What's so funny?” With tears rolling down her cheeks, she said, “You just poured your tomato soup all over your salad.” Then I started laughing. She said, “Don’t say anything. No one will notice. Just knock over the soup bowl and I’ll tell the waiter you accidently spilled it, and ask him to bring you another one.” When the waiter brought a new salad and new soup, he leaned over and said, “Don’t worry. A lot of people thought that was the salad dressing.” Then I really laughed.

"Dan Coughlin is a business keynote speaker, management consultant, and author of "Accelerate: 20 Practical Lessons to Boost Business Momentum," which made it to #4 on the Barnes & Noble Business Bestseller List. He has been quoted in USA Today, the New York Times, and Investor's Business Daily. Dan's clients include Coca-Cola, Toyota, Boeing, Marriott, McDonald's, AT&T, American Bar Association, the St. Louis Cardinals, and more than 100 other organizations in over thirty industries. He speaks on entrepreneurial habits, quality, leadership, branding, sales, and innovation."

Off the cuff

I joined Toastmasters a couple of years ago to develop my speaking ability and confidence. I learned I have a knack for speaking "off-the-cuff." Surprising, because I have always had the worst time with improvisation. As an actor I felt the most comfortable and gave the strongest performances when I had a script and had prepared and rehearsed thoroughly. I had always preferred to deliver someone else's words to an audience "out there" beyond the apron of the stage. The larger audience the better - my nerves only get me when I am one-on-one.
Now in Toastmasters I am frequently called upon to improvise speeches on topics given on the spot. I should be terrified but instead I embrace the challenge. I take the topic – the little seed that I am given - and find a connection with my audience one by one. It is more intimate than I expected public speaking to be and much more so than even those performances at the tiny "Armory Free Theatre" in college. I find I have to work harder to bring my prepared speeches to the level of these extemporaneous speeches.
Now to be fair, the bar is necessarily set a little lower for "Table Topics" speeches, as they are called in the club. What I take away from this though is that I can be comfortable speaking on any topic.

And someday maybe I will stop being amazed at all the things we can do if we would get out of our heads and just go do them.

My local club: Toastmasters Plus
Toastmasters International

----------------
Now playing: Dokken - In My Dreams
via FoxyTunes

Own your words and your deeds

Why is it so hard for anyone to take responsibility any more? When you screw up and you get what you deserve, why can't you just own up to it and move on? Sheesh, we all make mistakes - that's how we learn! I can't find an attributable quote but I'm sure you've heard about learning "more from my failures than from my successes."
Forgive my rant but my latest complaint has been ongoing for several months. After finally negotiating a solid offer for our new house, we obviously had to purchase homeowners insurance. Having had two decades of solid customer service from State Farm, I naturally decided to stick with my local agent. She ordered the appraisal, worked out the coverage with me, and I paid the quoted amount for one year of coverage.
A few weeks after we closed, I received a bill from State Farm for an additional $125. I was confused so I brought it up with my agent. (To be fair, my agent was on maternity leave, so I was dealing with someone in her office, but who happens to be a close friend of the family herself.) She checked with the underwriter who stated simply that the new rate took into account information from our credit file. Now I have separate issues with that idea which I will address at the end...

Issue #1
I went back and forth with her and ultimately got the direct number for the underwriter. When I finally reached him the conclusion was that we should have been quoted the higher amount initially. Now I can understand that someone made a mistake in preparing the quote. What I don't understand is why I should have to pay for it. In all my business dealings, when you make a quote you stand by it. Someone is making a purchasing decision based on your quote and the understanding that you will keep your word. Not once in my communications with State Farm has anyone acknowledged that fact. It just shows that you only really find out someone's integrity when things go wrong. It's easy to keep your word when no one calls you out.
So in the end I am still waiting for a return call from some sales executive named Roger to find out if they are going to stand by the quote. If not I don't see how I have any choice but to take my business elsewhere. Unfortunately I have a feeling I will end up with more of the same no matter where I go.
If you have run into a similar situation or have a solution, please leave a comment.

Issue #2
So what bearing does my credit file have all of the sudden on homeowners insurance? I mean if my structure on my land in my neighborhood costs X amount to insure, doesn't it still cost the same regardless of my credit? And, ok, let's say I am someone with a low score (which we're not by the way. We're well above average - not that it is any of your business...), shouldn't my relationship with their company carry greater weight than some number given by a complete stranger? They know my payment history and claim history for the last 20 years because I have been with them for as long as I have been driving. I have had car insurance, motorcycle insurance, health insurance, personal belongings, and renter's policies, over the years. I've had two claims, both of which were 100% not my fault. I don't get it. Seriously I am completely befuddled (thanks for the word Mike!)

----------------
Now playing: Nine Inch Nails - 1 Ghosts I
via FoxyTunes

Time to Barter (or, Let's Git Tradin', y'all)

I found some things in my house that I really don't need but for various reasons they should not be thrown out. Some I stopped using and some I never even used once. I would like to trade them for your "awesome crap" (you know, another man's garbage, and all that).
Currently available:

• HP iPAQ Pocket PC h1910 - this is a nifty, if outdated, little PDA running MS Windows and includes Pocket Outlook, Word, and Excel. I am including the USB cable and power charger/adapter. I plugged it in to make sure it still works and it seems to run just fine. You will need a new battery though if you want it to truly be portable.
  I never learned how to do anything with the IR port, but I hear you can make these into truly powerful universal remotes. Hmmm....maybe I should hang on to it and find out...
• D-Link WBR-1310 Wireless G Router - great for an inexpensive home network. I thought I would be able to use it as an extender, but I was mistaken. It lacks the advanced functionality of my Belkin, so I don't need it. It has only been plugged in long enough to play around with the settings. Otherwise it is practically brand new.
• Acoustic Research MS280 Digital Optical Cable 3ft. (Qty 2) - Two high quality cables with TOSLINK connectors.
• RCA Car Cassette CD Adapter (qty 2) - the kind we used to use when we had cassette players. All I can say is, "Never been opened!"
• Plantronics Vista telephone headset volume control - see picture or google for details.
• Audio/Video Converter (unknown brand - "Hecho en china" - Qty 2) - Use your S-Video/Composite Video/Component Audio devices with your old RF/Coax TV. With power cable.

Please reply with your best trade offers or else I will be forced to send these to eBay...
Additional pictures available at http://chicago.craigslist.org/nwc/bar/787285439.html
----------------
Now playing: Tori Amos - Taxi Ride
via FoxyTunes

I, ego

On Language - Me, Myself and I - NYTimes.com

I will keep this one short. I think it is important to at least comment on this one. I disagree with the author's faint assertion that we would be a better society if we did not put ourselves first. I must act in my own best interest; otherwise how am I to ascertain what is "good"? I encourage you to read "Anthem" by Ayn Rand. I do not think it is necessarily her best work, but it is enjoyable, short, and gets the point across well. I now look forward to your comments.

----------------
Now playing: Rush - 2112
via FoxyTunes

No punishment no crime?

Putting the 45-m.p.h. construction-zone speed limit to the safety test -- chicagotribune.com

It seems like everyone is sick of the state of speed limit laws in this country. None of it makes sense to me. I have had my share of speeding tickets in the past and I am determined not to get any more. But somehow I feel like doing the "right thing" makes you a schmuck.
Someone once told me, "If everyone follows the rules, then everyone wins. If everyone follows the rules but me, then I win." If the system does not reward those who follow the rules, and hardly punishes those who do not, then what are we supposed to infer?
I don't know the exact statistics, but from my experience the only "punishment" those idiots speeding past me on the highway get is to arrive at their destination sooner than I do. Sure, after a couple hundred of them pass me I will see one pulled over by a state trooper. If I were a Vegas handicapper I would like those odds.
After my last ticket (well over a decade ago, now) I tried a similar experiment as mentioned in the article. Every time I drove on the highway I stayed in the right line with my cruise control set as close to the speed limit as possible. I did this for several months but it was too frustrating to continue. I was amazed, not just at how many drivers were speeding, but also at how much faster they were going.
This article asserts that despite these conditions, driving the speed limit is still the responsible choice. That may be, but one thing I found in my experiment that they did not mention is that even when you feel like the slowest vehicle on the road, you will likely still get stuck behind someone even slower. And with traffic as thick as it usually is in Chicago it is extremely difficult to get around these pokeys if you are not keeping up with the flow of traffic.
While I am compiling my own list of possible solutions, I would love to hear yours. Please take a second to add a comment.

The story of the accidental entrepreneur | Entrepreneur | Reuters

The story of the accidental entrepreneur | Entrepreneur | Reuters

This article reminded me of why I started this blog. And no, not just to point out the misspelling of the last name of George Patton; not to correctly identify the quote as coming from Seneca, the Roman statesman; and certainly not specifically to mock the idea of "angle investors". As much fun as those ideas might be...

One week ago today I was relieved of the burden of being employed. Ironically, I had been fantasizing for over 5 months about the day I could march in and tell them where they could stick it, or perhaps something more eloquent.

For various reasons, some obvious and others to be revealed later, I cannot remain unemployed. That's not to say I don't find the idea quite appealing. I would like to use this forum to sound out my ideas and help me come up with a solid plan. Having never done this before I can't say if it will work but it can't hurt.

I'm sure I could come up with pages and pages of why CrossCom National is an awful company to work for. I don't think it would do any good though and it would probably just sound like sour grapes. I prefer instead to look forward and focus on the positives. That being said - if anyone ever reads this and wants to know more just give me a shout and I will be happy to fill you in.

A Day Off

Why on Earth would this blog be considered spam? I tried to login yesterday and was told I was blocked for possible terms of service violation. Sheesh! I haven't yet begun to violate the terms of service! You see, we build to that.
So instead I went to the racetrack. I had been hoping to get there all summer and it seemed like a perfect day. I arrived about 45 minutes before post time for race #1. All the buzz was about Mamma Lina, who was purchased a few months ago for $260,000. A look at the board told me she was the odds on favorite. I dislike betting on races with a horse so clearly picked to win. To me it's just not worth wagering, mathematically.
Still, I wanted to at least dip my feet in the pool. I saw another horse with a decent chance, Napoleon's Retreat, being ridden by a well-known jockey, Christopher A. Emigh. Actually I have no idea how well-known he is. I just know that I have heard of him and since I know very little about racing it stands to reason that he is fairly well known among more knowledgeable types. Besides, he has won quite a few races that I have bet on.
I decided to start slowly with a two horse Exacta Box bet. Betting simply on the favorite to win doesn't really pay, but choosing the second horse in addition can pad the winnings. And if by chance Napoleon's Retreat managed to sneak ahead of Mamma Lina, then so much the better.
Sure enough Mamma Lina won the race handily. Unfortunately for me, Napoleon lost steam and nearly retreated before the finish line. As I found myself doing throughout the afternoon, I had chosen the horse that came in last.
Along the way I managed to have one good race that made up for the others. But by and large I was choosing two of the three top finishers (and sometimes three of the top four) and one who came in dead last.
I think I can rule out handicapping as my next career goal.

Arg!!!

Most mornings I find myself with one of those "Arg" moments. You know how it is when whatever you are doing is taking five times longer than it needs to or simple tasks require you to backtrack and start over at least three times

Come to think of it, I have those pretty often throughout the rest of the day too.

When I was setting up this blog I came up with a couple of titles that I liked, only to discover they were already in use. (I choose to believe that means they were decent ideas.) All I wanted to do was start writing my blog, but I couldn't because I needed a title first. Since all my ideas were taken I started to feel like I was the last person to start a blog. This is where I got the idea for "Last American Blogger." I seriously doubt I am, but whatever... I just want to get started.

Personally I prefer to write my titles after the text is complete. When I write, sometimes the words take me on a unexpected journey and I end up somewhere I didn't even know existed when I started. So, sure, I may fully intend to outline my proposal for the 28th Amendment to the US Constitution, but with any luck we will end up discovering something much more important along the way.