Just off another two-day jaunt on the Register's Annual Great Bike Ride Across Iowa (RAGBRAI). Similar to last year, I rode a little over 100 miles in the two days, this time in northwest Iowa. My 2014 observations:
* Just because somebody puts up a snow fence and sells beer within the perimeter, it doesn't mean you should call it a beer garden.
* Confirmed: Northwest Iowa is the flattest part of the state. Day 1 had maybe one semi-serious hill to climb.
* You could not ask for a better overnight area than Okoboji and the Iowa Great Lakes. Anyone who went to the main entertainment venue in Arnolds Park saw a nice sunset over West Lake Okoboji, and heard great live music.
* Found no pineapple pie this year!
* A little disappointing to not see some of the cycling 'teams' that made RAGBRAI semi-famous, like Team Whiners or Team Roadkill or Team Killer Bees. Age must have broken them up, because it's hard to believe I didn't see any of them over those two days.
* It's not the heat, it's the headwinds.
* Best jersey seen this year goes to Old Fart Cycling Team. Their motto: "Age & Treachery Will Always Triumph Over Youth & Agility."
Wednesday, July 23, 2014
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Baseball's All No-Star Game
The Major League Baseball All-Star Game is this week in Minneapolis. It's a big event, in close proximity, and it would be cool to see in person. So why am I not even fired up to watch it at all?
Because Major League Baseball continues to be a flawed sport.
The last time Minneapolis hosted the MLB All-Star Game it, I was there, in the old Metrodome. It was wall-to-wall future Hall-of-Famers: George Brett, Carlton Fisk, Cal Ripken, Wade Boggs, Don Mattingly (that's just the American League), Ozzie Smith, Dave Parker, Ryne Sandberg, Nolan Ryan, and Pete Rose. (I know, Rose isn't in the HoF because of gambling, but we all know he should be.) This is a short list -- there were others.
Nearly 30 years later, there aren't more than a couple of cinch HoFers in the game, maybe only one (Derek Jeter). It's been diluted by too many teams with too many players making too much money on too few contending teams.
About five years ago, I wrote about reasons why Major League Baseball sucks. A couple of these have been partially cleaned up (replay and PEDs), but in the end, nothing has changed enough for me to spend a lot of time watching it.
Not even the All-Star Game.
Because Major League Baseball continues to be a flawed sport.
The last time Minneapolis hosted the MLB All-Star Game it, I was there, in the old Metrodome. It was wall-to-wall future Hall-of-Famers: George Brett, Carlton Fisk, Cal Ripken, Wade Boggs, Don Mattingly (that's just the American League), Ozzie Smith, Dave Parker, Ryne Sandberg, Nolan Ryan, and Pete Rose. (I know, Rose isn't in the HoF because of gambling, but we all know he should be.) This is a short list -- there were others.
Nearly 30 years later, there aren't more than a couple of cinch HoFers in the game, maybe only one (Derek Jeter). It's been diluted by too many teams with too many players making too much money on too few contending teams.
About five years ago, I wrote about reasons why Major League Baseball sucks. A couple of these have been partially cleaned up (replay and PEDs), but in the end, nothing has changed enough for me to spend a lot of time watching it.
Not even the All-Star Game.
Monday, July 7, 2014
I (Religiously) Object
Last week, there were a couple of Supreme Court rulings of major interest. The most interesting, and polarizing, one was Burwell v. Hobby Lobby.
In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.
As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy. The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.
Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint. I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate. And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women. (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)
However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism. While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.
So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling. While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate. While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.
Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business. The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around. Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay. (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)
Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance. If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid. (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care. But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)
Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic. Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform. Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.
In brief (pun intended), the court struck down the contraceptive coverage mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). It further ruled that closely held for-profit corporations could be exempt from a law they religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interest.
As expected, this ruling sent progressives into a tizzy. The basic themes were 1) corporations are not people, and 2) now every employer will be able exempt itself from federal laws by saying they have a religious objection.
Anyone who looks back at this blog knows that I generally side with the socially liberal viewpoint. I even posted an entry about the self-righteousness of some groups opposing the mandate. And yes, it does seem crazy that 5 Catholic males on a court could make far-reaching decisions that affect only women. (On second thought, not only does that seem crazy, it IS crazy.)
However, anyone who looks back at this blog will also know that I generally side with fiscally conservative capitalism. While there's nothing specifically fiscally conservative about this ruling, generally speaking, I don't believe that employers should be federally mandated to provide medical coverage of any kind.
So, I'm having a hard time getting worked up about the Burwell ruling. While I disagree with it, I also think the one absolute problem with the ACA is the employer mandate. While everything else about the ACA may turn out just fine, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate is dumb.
Regardless of whether it's the 'job-killer' conservatives want to believe it is, employers (and other related third-parties) should not be in the health care business. The ACA should mandate that employers NOT provide coverage, instead of the other way around. Employers will then have to compete for quality employees solely on the basis of pay. (I've just solved the minimum wage issue, too!)
Let the people be responsible for getting their own coverage, as with other forms of insurance. If that sounds like it discriminates against the poor, that's why we have Medicaid. (I know, I know, this attitude means taxpayers like me might be paying for more indigent medical care. But on balance, I think it would still be no worse, and probably better, than it is now.)
Suffice it to say, I think the Burwell ruling is illogical, and anti-female, but I don't think it's the end of the republic. Corporations surely aren't people, but even corporations should have some protections from the law, e.g. tort reform. Too bad Hobby Lobby didn't focus on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)