Why You Can't Hurry Love Pt.1

Damn, what a great song. It's so great that thinking about the song has spawned ideas for three separate blog posts. I'm not sure why this song is so good. I mean, I know it's good, I know it's really really good. Perhaps it's because it's a example of when music was simpler, still in transition as the influences of The Beatles had not quite taken over the music industry yet. Perhaps it's because what Diana sings is so true. True and simple is best. For me personally it could be all these things, but it could also be that it takes me back to a simpler time in my own life.

Some of you may know this, but I didn't venture out into the modern day music scene until I was 16. I got my first CDs for Christmas in 2003 when I received Welcome Interstate Managers by Fountains of Wayne and Fallen by Evanescence. Needless to say I learned quickly therein after. Fountains of Wayne has consistently been one of my favorite bands since and I have no idea where that Evanescence CD is now. Before Christmas of 2003 most of my exposure to modern day music was minimal KROQ time in the car (before I started driving) and the constant Weezer and Cake my sister would play at home. I love Weezer and Cake by the way. But the majority of music in general I listened to came from KRTH, known affectionately by many as K-Earth 101. If you know the station then you've just heard the jingle in your head.

K-Earth was the oldies station, and as such was a large reason why most of the music I listened to in my formative years was much much older than me. It was the music my parents were listening to in their formative years. But that didn't matter to me. It was the music I listened to as a kid. The Beatles, Rolling Stones, and Beach Boys were my rock music (that and some 70's and 80's rock. Arrow 93.1, where have you gone?) But the 60's featured another type of music, the type Miss Diana Ross and her Supremes fell into: Motown. I may be a skinny white boy who has lived in Southern California his whole life, but Motown is one of my favorite types of music. Smokey Robinson, The Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Martha Reeves, The Four Tops, The Contours (Do you love me now that I can dance?)

It's my assertion that Motown is continually overshadowed due to the fact that the height of its popularity was shared by The Beatles and other rock bands, when music really started to shift and shape, and that Motown is arguably be one of the greatest music movements of the 20th century. This is a pretty good lead into Pt. 2, which may turn out to be pretty meaty, so while you think about my bold statement and form your own stubborn opinion take a look at the live video up top of Diana Ross and The Supremes performing* the namesake of the post. An absolutely great performance. Enjoy!

*My apologies for the audio not quite syncing up, but YouTube had no other live performances of this song by them.

Why Health Care Needs a Different Reform

At the onset of deciding to write about this, I knew that it would either end up incredibly long or kinda short. I tried to opt for the "short" version to spare you all, but then I realized that it would be nearly impossible to make it short. I've done my best. First, some relevant things about me:

I studied Economics for four years in college, including a crash course on the health care systems of the world in a Public Policy class. The previous statement pretty much establishes many of the other things I want to point out: I'm smarter than average, I have a general sense of how taxes and policies work, I've paid attention to the happenings of this reform, and I feel I have a correct solution. Some of the facts I put on here may not be directly cited, but they are facts. If you feel you need a citation, I will be able to provide one.

However, some disclaimers. If you find something wrong in my case or disagree with me, just refer back here.

I'm not a genius [close though ;)]. There is a lot I (and most others) don't know about this whole reform, and I may be wrong on some things I say here. I'm not a politician or a lobbyist. I'm not a professional economist. I'm not any sort of advisor. Although I am officially in the Democratic party, I don't find myself always agreeing with the left side. My argument is very basic and simple. I don't know what hidden effects could happen if they did what I suggested. This blog is probably the closest I'll ever come to being any sort of a media outlet. And most importantly, this is all just my opinion, maybe shared by others, maybe not.

My opinion on health care reform is that I don't care. That is, I don't care whether health care in this country stays completely privatized or goes completely public or provides a public alternative to private companies. But I do know it needs to change. This is the opinion I have as an economist (not professional). I want change for efficiency's sake, and really that's what's wrong with health care in the US. It's not efficient. The US spends nearly twice as much on health care than the average industrialized country, yet it consistently underperforms. One of every six dollars that we the people spend goes to health care, and yet we have one of the lowest life expectancies of industrialized countries. BUT it is not because we have at this point completely privatized health care. It's not the private sector, but really the fact that the insurance market is not acting like a free market is what is hampering us, being tied mostly to the job you have, it's a very restrictive market.

Now for some basic but idealized economics. A free private market (which we don't have) creates competition. Competition in a market drives companies to better their products (provided no collusion) to get more customers. This means simply better health care. It does also mean higher prices, though through labor economics (something I know a lot about) if companies don't pay for health insurance they are more inclined to raise wages which means employees can more easily afford it. They get higher wages and pay lower taxes since the government doesn't cover their insurance, they pay for it out of pocket. The competition also means that customers of able to pick and choose the type of coverage that fits them best (an *efficient* outcome).

[An Aside: One reason for high health care costs may come from one of our basic rights in the Constitution, our right to sue. Since we can sue our doctors, they more often than not settle out of court for large sums. They must also pay for their own malpractice insurance. By increasing their costs and hospital costs, they in turn are forced to raise costs for all the services they provide, which gives incentive to patients to sue doctors because they can't pay their medical bills and they realize they can get some money if they sue. One vicious cycle.]

In a completely public health care system, it's about the complete opposite. The prices are much lower and everyone is covered. Good thing? Yes, but having a universal health care system is a monopsony (one provider of a good or service) and restricts the amount of coverage an individual can get. And if run by the government which they all are, the government gets to pay for it. To pay for health care, government needs taxes, and it needs to raise them. Look at the countries with completely government run health care and then look at how much their citizens pay in taxes. We would all love to be covered, but it definitely would take money from your paycheck, and for some stupid reason people don't seem to comprehend this. However, the higher taxes and greater government spending mean this is also an *efficient* outcome.

We have in this country right now is a mixed market system, with a very restrictive private health insurance market and no free public option, despite the government accounting for 45% of health expenditures. That's why 50 million Americans are uninsured. Obama wants to include the free public option for insurance. Two teensy weency problems: he doesn't want to raise taxes (most politicians don't because it looks bad) and we are over 11 trillion dollars in debt and counting. How he intends to pay for a public option is beyond me. In fact, a hillbilly-sounding mustache-sporting NRA-member from Montana asked him that very question over the weekend. Bravo to him. I only wish I had actually heard his answer but an actual accredited news source The Daily Show is not. I love it, but it's not news, it's comedy, damn good comedy.

What Obama appears to intend to do is provide a public option alongside the private insurance companies, and move us closer to the two-tiered system that the UK has. That's fine, but in order to do so Obama needs to raise taxes. That's the price we as citizens pay. I'm OK with it. I don't care if we drive insurance companies out of business and everything is provided by the government, as long as the government taxes the shit out of us to pay for it. I don't care if we stay privatized to leave taxes alone, but a free market needs to be created and we don't have that. I don't care as long as we are being efficient because that is our biggest problem.

I've always been a person to want to get things done efficiently, so it almost seems like economics was made for me. Much of it is ideologies, and it does dishearten me at times that some theories can't be put into practice. I know it's not easy to change health care. Historical evidence suggests that health care reform is mostly evolutionary, not revolutionary, meaning it may be very hard to change the system we run through force, which seems to be what we are trying to do. However, I hope whatever the government tries to push through gets passed, preferably if it conforms to some standards of efficiency, because whatever we have now isn't working.

Why You Should Watch the Little League World Series

As you may know, I am a big baseball fan. In fact, I'm fairly positive you know. Anyway, during summer months of my more youthful youth, I would watch ESPN's Baseball Tonight for around-the-country baseball highlights. One of the analysts on the show was a man by the name of Harold Reynolds, whom no one outside of baseball fans will recognize. Reynolds played second base for several seasons in the 80's and early 90's, primarily with the Seattle Mariners. In addition to his analysis in ESPN's Bristol, CT studios, he would travel down the road to Williamsport, PA to be the color commentator for the Little League World Series, the championship game of which has been televised since 1963. The LLWS has seen its coverage expand since 1963, as for the third straight year, all games will be telecast, and in more recent years the tournament has expanded to actually be a global competition, unlike its big league counterpart.

As for Reynolds, I didn't particularly care for him as a commentator. I didn't agree with everything he said and he has had some especially asinine comments at times. He has since been unceremoniously fired from ESPN amid a sexual harassment complaint, something he has vehemently denied and sued ESPN for. He later took a job with MLB.com and eventually went back to being on TV covering baseball since the launch of MLB Network last January. Lucky me, I just can't shake him, but the one thing I did always like about him was that he loved the game of baseball so much, so it was something I could resonate with him. One thing in particular he loved was the Little League World Series, which I'm sure he requested to cover every summer he was working at ESPN. It escapes me to find or remember a direct quote, but about every game he covered he probably made a phrase to the effect of "This is what Baseball is all about."

Take whatever literal meaning you want out of that statement, but my interpretation is that at the LLWS, baseball is at its purest form. You could tell he really loved baseball, and so I believe that's what makes him drawn to the LLWS. I love the game and I've never played it competitively, and I've always been drawn to it. Outside of seeing the Dodgers in the playoffs, the LLWS is my favorite baseball event. Greater than the Home Run Derby or All-Star Game, greater than the still young World Baseball Classic (though that is probably third), and greater than the pennant races and playoff series that don't involve the Dodgers. The difference on the outside is that these are just 12 year old kids playing baseball instead of 30 year old adults. But it is much more than that.

I believe that the LLWS is baseball, nay all sports, at its finest and purest, because kids are playing. The kids don't care about multi-million dollar contracts. They don't have agents or scouts watching their every move (yet). There aren't and have never been steroids, amphetamines, or spitballs running rampant through the sport. Except for the Danny Almonte age-scandal in 2001, problems are hard to come by in this event. Many of the kids may want to grow up to be baseball players for their careers, and though several participants have, many will also not pick up a glove past high school, and not necessarily for a lack of ability. The point is, there is never a question about their motives. All they want to do is play baseball and win. And while you can say the same about some professional athletes, you never truly know whether or not they're fighting for that extra dollar or a new sponsorship. In fact, last offseason helped separate those who were, as many free agents were forced to accept much lesser deals than they wanted or expected just for a chance to play baseball, thanks to the impending recession. Some sat out and didn't take any deals because they were chasing the money, and some had money thrown at them (thank you very much, New York Yankees).

It's fun watching the LLWS because the kids that play really love that game. They want to succeed and play so badly that some cry after a loss, and sometimes even a strikeout. And I think you see more joy in the winner of the Little League World Series than you do the Major League World Series, because that's all the kids ever wanted. The whole thing is more emotional for them, and it makes it more emotional for the viewer. It's good that they have rules in place where every player must play a certain number of innings or have at least one at-bat, and it does teach good sportsmanship by the teams exchanging high fives afterwards, but it's the emotion and motivation that make it so great to watch.

::::::::::::::::::::::::

Two final thoughts: The LLWS is more than a baseball event because of the age of competition. So I don't particularly care if you don't like baseball or even sports, it is still fun to watch the kids compete, and I suggest you find a way to do so. It will harken you back to your more youthful youth in one way or another, I guarantee it. Also, I believe the coverage of the LLWS reaffirms baseball as the national past-time (as if it needs it [read:1920's]). It may not be the most popular sport now, but what other sport airs competition of pre-teens competing in it? I don't ever remember seeing pee-wee football on ESPN, or 12 year old basketball players. Baseball is the sport that most easily connects generations of this country together, and the LLWS is part of that reason.

Why the Debate Between Macs and PCs Is Just Plain Stupid

Macs are not better than PCs, and PCs are not better than Macs. There are advantages to buying and owning both. But if you have a Mac, need a new computer and can't afford another Mac, or want to ditch your compatibility problems with other technologies, or need specific hard drive, RAM, and processor requirements, then don't be afraid of adjusting to PC life. And if you are a lifetime PC owner who has money to spend, wants a sleek, efficient computer, or if you're just plain tired of dealing with ad/malware and Anti-Virus programs, then don't be afraid of joining the Mac community.

I can speak from personal experience as I have been an exclusive PC user all my life until June when I bought a new MacBook Pro as a graduation gift to myself (with the help of a $5000 check from my grandfather). While I will never know the reverse, the principles of switching one way or the other are largely the same. I bought a MacBook Pro over a new PC laptop for three main reasons: I had money to spare, I was tired of dealing with viruses and Anti-virus programs, and I thought it would be a good idea to essentially increase my own human capital by familiarizing myself with Macs. I have to say that I've enjoyed the transition even with a few gripes. One pro is obviously not having to buy Norton, MacAfee, etc. (or deal with them slowing your computer), but a 7 hour battery life and fancy tools like Dashboard, Exposé, and a newly designed trackpad that senses the number of fingers you're using to perform different tasks makes my new toy follow Apple's status quo of creating user-friendly, fancy, trendy, hip (and expensive) technology.

The cons of Macs do however extend beyond the hefty price tag, though it does play a big part. You can get a comparable Hewlett Packard or Dell laptop for nearly half the price of a Mac, and desktops can be even cheaper. Macs also come with preset specs, so unless you buy from the online Apple store, you're stuck with 1GB RAM, 160GB hard drive, and other specs that PC nerds will scoff at. I bought mine online to have the option to bump it up a notch (and to save $100 through the education discount) and it still came at a premium of $1250 for a 13" screen. I personally didn't require a larger screen, so it was a non-issue. But if I had, you could have easily tacked on a couple hundred more wing-wangs to that price. With all the competition within the PC markets you get a much wider range of specs at a significantly smaller price, something Windows makes sure you know in their ads.

While PCs tend to seamlessly blend in with other technologies of the day, Macs are notorious for requiring all that is Apple to connect. Yes, there are some Windows software versions for Mac and vice-versa, but I have had my PC desktop hooked up to my LCD TV for the past year without having to do anything but plug it in (there is an RGB connection built in). I've looked into it, and for my Mac to do the same, I would have to buy a series of cords that total around $80, or I could buy Apple TV for well over $100. You can't even plug in an iPod into a wall socket anymore without spending an extra $30 for an adapter (something they used to include with iPods, and it even took Apple awhile to include a USB cord with one, as it was solely Firewire use). Apple (and its fuck-buddy AT&T) continue to piss off their own customers when it comes to applications and service on the iPhone and iPod Touch. Despite talks, I've had a relatively easy time with Dell Customer Service years after buying my PC and without having to pay, whereas you must spend over $100 to receive Apple Care Support beyond 1 year (which is also conveniently when many Apple products tend to being having problems). It's as if you buy Apple software products you're stuck with Apple products, and high prices on accessories continue to build. Even when Apple software shows up on PCs it takes up an insane amount of RAM to the point where most computers not built from scratch buy saavy computer geeks will slow down horrendously if iTunes and Quicktime are left running beyond 30 minutes.

It's amazing that what gets lost in the ad campaign wars between Macs and PCs is the fact that many people fear adjusting to different technology. They're comfortable with where they are, and would rather not change. It's easy to fear getting attacked by viruses if you've never dealt with them before, and it's easy to fear paying hundreds of dollars extra when you can deal with what you have. But I've witnessed many comments essentially concerning the structure of the operating system, and having to adjust to using Mac OSX or Windows. I would say that navigating through a Mac and through Windows is practically the same, and most differences are pretty negligible. They have tutorials on the Apple website tailored to converts like myself explaining the differences. I thought at first that these could prove helpful. How wrong I was. I watched one video and it didn't tell me anything I couldn't have figured out by myself within two minutes of turning on my Mac. Sure enough, anything and everything I've learned about a Mac has been learned through my experiences on a PC for the last 20 years, by 2-second trial and error processes, or my intuition. Incidentally, my intuition helped me navigate DOS when I was 2 (my mom has told me the story often. My dad freaked because he thought I would erase all his files, but I was merely observing my older sister enter in DOS commands earlier and I copied what she did in order to play this one game. I figured out DOS when I was 2 - born to be a nerd, was I).

The Mac's equivalent "Start" menu is called the "Finder," the Apple logo at the top right is like "My Computer" on PCs. Individual page menus (stuff like File, Edit, and View) are separate from the open applications and instead are at the top of the screen. Instead of MS Word, it's Pages, instead of Internet Explorer, it's Safari, Recycle Bin is instead Trash (oh snap, PCs are more green!), Windows Media Player is Quicktime. If you had locked someone in a room and along with life essentials only exposed him to PC/Windows products and nothing Apple, I just listed everything that guy would need to know to be competent working on a Mac. If that guy happened to have the IQ of a fifth grader, I would have just wasted my time telling him this information, because by the time I would have he would have figured it out. And you know what? Reverse everything I just said, and the same rules apply to someone who would not have previously known Windows if Bill Gates came up and grabbed him by the balls. It's just not that difficult to run a Mac OS or a Windows OS, despite what you've been exposed to.

There are many good reasons to switch from one type of computer to another, but if I had to offer only one piece of advice on shopping for a new computer, it is this: do some fucking research. Don't listen to Windows ads or the annoying-as-hell Mac ads on your television screen (obviously because a person rambling on the internet is much more qualified to tell you what to do). I would advise, unless you already have substantial knowledge of computers, to even go beyond reading those little cards in the stores that have the specs on them. Go to Cnet.com, which reviews electronics, or try reading a few Consumer Reports, and really pick a computer based on what you specifically need or want, not on names, ads, or operating systems. I have a PC desktop and a Mac laptop. Next time I buy a computer, I'm doing the really smart thing, and building my own computer and installing Linux, because it's way cheaper and safer than anything, as long as you know what you're doing ;)

Why Hockey Will Rise Once Again, and the NBA Will Fall

I recently had a mini-argument over Facebook with someone about the popularity order of professional sports. It's pretty clear what the Big Four of American sports are, but this guy was arguing that baseball was a distant third in the sports world, with the NFL and NBA going 1-2 (leaving the NHL in the cellar). Now, I could be suffering from some bias here with baseball as my far and away favorite professional sport, but I believe that MLB is second with the NBA at third. After apparently agreeing to disagree and leaving the topic alone for awhile, my brain revisited it and started to wonder what makes a particular sport popular in this country. Certainly there are plenty of factors, but it seems that the basic rule has to do with the team element more than anything.

I'm not exactly claiming that one sport is more of a team sport than another. In football a QB can't throw a touchdown without receivers and a running back can't run for one without some blocking. Baseball players can't drive in many runs without their teammates on base, and even then you need to rely on the pitchers and each other to keep the other team from scoring. In the NBA and NHL, successful plays, defenses, and formations require the whole unit working together. But the popularity of the NBA and NHL is much more heavily dependent on the popularity of the individual, whereas the NFL and MLB is more dependent on team popularity. Do you really think half the people interested in the NBA now would be if LeBron or Kobe weren't playing? Shaq's closer and closer to retiring, Kobe is aging, and LeBron has been worked to the bone the last couple years to the point where he could have his incredible career cut prematurely by injury. Popularity will still suffer if Kobe leaves and LeBron stays healthy because that individual rivalry will be lost.

Now look at the sports superstars in the NFL and MLB... hm... well the problem with that is that there isn't quite the separation of popularity between the first tier and second tier of superstars in these sports. I've been racking my brain trying to figure out who in the NFL and MLB world really separates themselves from the pack. Tom Brady and Peyton Manning? Albert Pujols and David Ortiz? There's still some questionability in claiming those players the most popular. Anyone who follows either sport could easily make a case that a third player is more popular than the choices I presented. In the NBA there's no question, absolutely no doubt, that LeBron and Kobe are the most popular players. They have their own stupid Nike puppet commercials, for shit's sake!

I mentioned the player rivalry of Kobe-LeBron, but player rivalries don't exist in the NFL or MLB. Players have tiffs and confrontations and arguments, but no real rivalries. That's left to the teams: Red Sox-Yankees, Cowboys-Giants, Cardinals-Cubs, Packers-Bears, Dodgers-Giants, Chargers-Raiders. That's just the top of the heap though. In the NBA there's not much I hear beyond Celtics-Lakers, and even then only recently has it been revived, and only in the Finals does it matter. The NFL and MLB have compelling rivalries that will always garner interest and will forever garner interest because the teams aren't going anywhere. Players' playing careers come and go, along with their rivalries, so say goodbye to Kobe-LeBron in a few years, and the popularity of the NBA with it.

The NBA and NHL rely on individual star power, and that's why they're subject to swings in popularity. So as Kobe-LeBron we will say goodbye to before you know it, a more interesting player rivalry from the NHL will take center stage: Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin. Not since Mario Lemieux has there really been as captivating a player as either Crosby or Ovechkin, and it escapes my very marginal knowledge of the sport of hockey to come up with another interesting player rivalry as this one. Crosby is by some hailed as the next Wayne Gretzky. He just won his first Stanley Cup with the Pittsburgh Penguins this year, and has a Golden-Boy image about him. Ovechkin by direct contrast to Crosby has been labeled as the bad boy, and the two have already had an epic 7-game playoff matchup this year. In addition to this rivalry, the pickup of games by the VS. channel and its transition to basic cable, rule changes since the 2004-05 lockout that help increase scoring, and an affluent fan base have helped the NHL reach a record number of sponsors and viewers in 2009. The NHL is definitely on the upswing, and even I was interested in this year's Stanley Cup Playoffs after years of neglect, and the more I watch Hockey the more I enjoy it. I will be paying attention when the new season starts, and I bet many more will join me.

The NBA will enter a sport's recession. It's happened before all around. Baseball's players' strike in 1994 crippled the sport until division realignment and the 1998 season (and by ironic proxy steroids) saved it. The NBA reached an all-time high in ratings in the 1997-98 season, but a lockdown following said season caused wild fluctuations in popularity and led to an all-time low in ratings in 2005. The NHL had its 2004-05 season entirely cancelled, but has come roaring back in the last season. Avoiding such player salary complications is probably a large reason why the NFL has constantly stayed the most popular sport in the country. Baseball has been in some turmoil for the past 6 years once this whole steroid thing started coming out, and while there are some lingering stories left in this saga, the MLB has reformed and has come out of this intact thanks to the wild-card format, expansion, and thus increasing parity. Despite a decade-low rating for the 2008 World Series (one that did feature a smaller composite market), 8 different teams have won a World Series since 1999, keeping fans from all around interested.

Team sports will always remain more popular than individual sports. Popularity with individuals sports come and go with the individual. Where would golf currently be without Tiger Woods? Swimming without Michael Phelps? Snowboarding without Shaun White? That's why it's interesting that the guy I was discussing this topic with said he believed that the UFC will overtake Hockey in popularity. It won't happen. I understand that the UFC has a growing, select, and very loyal fan base, enough to last, but it is still an individual sport, and those sports will never carry the same weight that team sports do. It's the individual focus in the NBA and NHL that allows it to suffer. What happens when everyone's favorite player retires? People stop watching basketball and hockey, but fans are more concerned with their team in football and baseball. Who knows why that is? Maybe we like the idea of overpaid millionaire athletes working together to win a trophy. Maybe it's easier to attach yourself to a team because of the city you live in, but how do you choose a person who plays golf or bowls or swims? Because they're the best? That's what creates douchebags and represents all the wrong things about routing for a team.

My favorite sport is and always will be baseball. But now that I'm living in a city with an NFL team, and now the NBA team from my hometown has once again become champions, and now after actually watching Hockey and enjoying it, I keep at least a moderate interest in all four major American sports. Right now I'm wrapped up with the best team in baseball, so at this moment it's all baseball all the time. All sports seems to converge sometime in October, so check back with me then.

Edit: One more thing I should mention is the fact the NBA salary cap is going to decrease the next couple seasons. With the decrease of the salary cap and luxury tax levels, the growing recession and the impending free agency of some of the game's premiere players that will demand top dollar, unless something is changed it looks like we're going to be heading into another player lockout. Hopefully it won't come to that (unless, of course, it is required for me to be right :) ).