Words Words Words

Brainy Quote is a website which displays notable quotes from notable people. Here are some interesting quotes made by candidate, then President, Barack Obama:

“Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. “

“I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes. “

“I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House.“

“I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office.”

“I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class.”

“It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

“My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks.”

“Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go.”

“We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely.”

That he made those statements is undeniable. Barack Obama fashioned his image and reputation on the basis of these and similar statements. Whether he has kept the promises made in some of those statements, and whether he is in truth the man he presented himself to be, is now the proper focus for debate.

Thoughts on Bible Prophecy

I was watching TV earlier this week and caught one of those old programs about Nostradamus. You know, the French guy from Sixteenth Century France who – if you believe the spin – accurately predicted every important event between then and the end of the world. Our boy Michel – I’m gonna call him Mike – grew up in a Jew-converted-to-Catholic family with no money or influence, which meant he got into a lot of scrapes with the Inquisition (yeah, those guys who figured the best way to express the Love of God and Christ for Humanity was to torture confessions outta people and burn heretics to death). Mikey picked up a few patrons along the way; reportedly the Queen thought he was all that and a basket of croissants, which helped him build both his reputation and a defense against his enemies.

Mike had a problem. On the one hand he had all these great prophecies spinning in his noggin, just screaming to be put down on paper. On the other hand, Mikey had a lot of enemies, who could be counted on to use anything he wrote against him, and misuse the prophecies for potentially horrific results. So, Mike wrote his prophecies down in a strange sort of verse called Virgilianized Syntax, mixing in words from other languages and playing word games. While this produced a book of odd verse which many have taken for profound prophecy, it’s a bit difficult to credit it completely, precisely because our boy Mike was a big vague on details. I’ve read Mikey’s prophecies and while some of them seem to have hit the mark, others are hard to consider proven, and some are just too darn weird to take any specific meaning from them.

And that brings me to the Bible. The Bible is also a book with many prophecies, and some of the wording makes it hard to understand. My problem here, is that while I can pretty much ignore Mike’s prophecies with no worries because I really do not see anything to indicate that I need to be up to speed on what a dead Frenchman’s saying on the issues of the day, I do happen to believe in the Bible, and that includes the prophecies. So I believe that I need to pay attention to what God’s saying in the Bible. And that is sometimes harder than I would like.

Part of that is the number of people who want to sell their own interpretation of Scripture. Nothing wrong with someone saying what they think, except that some of these folks are not calling it their own opinion, but selling it as God’s truth. That gets a person into real trouble, right quick. So before I post again on this subject, let me be very clear that whatever think on the matter of prophecy, it’s nothing but my guess and take it as that and no more than that.

to be continued

What I See So Far About HR 3200

There are a lot of words in the 1,017 pages of HR 3200, even by my standards. The bill is poorly written from what I can tell, since it constantly directs the reader to consult other laws and regulations to see the way a particular section is to be applied. If the Democrats were listening to me, the first piece of advice I would offer is to rewrite this thing in plain English, with a simple Table of Contents and page listing, along with a synopsis of each section to explain its intent and function. People tend to resent a piece of legislation which involves a lot of tax money, will be permanent, and which seems to be rushed, when it is difficult to understand and discuss. It may be that the Democrats have put together a really effective piece of legislation, but if so they should be happy to discuss it in detail, not act defensively and as if they have something to hide.

Anyway, to the bill. HR 3200 is a huge piece of work, but to start its examination, we see that it has three “Divisions”, seventeen “Titles”, and fifty “Subtitles”. Division A is titled “Affordable Health Care Choices” and Title I therein addresses the description of heath care plans, access, benefits, and consumer protections. Title II is important, as it creates the government entity known as the “Heath Insurance Exchange”. Section 201 lays out how it works, as follows:

The government will set up a new bureaucracy called the Health Choices Administration, with a Commissioner who reports directly to the President. The HCA will create and supervise an entity known as the Health Insurance Exchange, wherein all nominal insurance coverage will be administered at the federal level. The HCA would have complete authority to determine whether individuals, employers, or insurance companies met the requisite criteria to participate, and the tone of the Title implies that the final decision will be made only with government approval. The function of the HCA invites legal challenge on at least two constitutional grounds – first, the traditional separation of powers does not allow the Executive Branch authority to control domestic commerce in this way; on a practical level imagine the fallout if this bill becomes law and if/when a Congressman or Senator wishes to look more closely at the HCA’s activities he/she is told that Congress is excluded from such authority? The second conflict is that creation of the HCA would effectively eliminate the state insurance boards, as all insurance would be controlled and directed from the federal level, in what appears to be a direct violation of state’s rights under the U.S. Constitution.

There’s a lot more to consider, but for now it might be interesting to consider the almost certain legal challenges which this bill would face were it actually to become law.

Discussing Health Care

Thursday I wrote about the bureaucratic and cumbersome definitions being used in the text of HR 3200. Having thought about that, I think we would do well as a nation to establish clear definitions of our own for the key points on this issue – doing so would not only make it simpler to discuss what we want or oppose, but might also establish some common ground. To that end, I am presenting what I think are the root questions to this issue.


1. What is Health Care, anyway?

Health Care is one of those things that sounds plain to most people, but which can still trip folks up when they get into specifics. For most people, after all, they can take care of their ordinary health needs and in fact they do not like being told what to do on decisions that they consider personal, like nutrition, exercise, and recreational behavior. How many people have you met who agree that smoking is a bad idea but they do it anyway, that they agree they should lose weight but still have high-fat foods in their diet, for instance? People go a doctor for occasional check-ups or mild illness, when experiencing life events like pregnancy or trying to diet, emergencies like a heart attack, stroke, or for a serious condition like Diabetes or Cancer. So, it seems to me that there are these four categories make up Health Care for most people, and some of these categories will be important to only certain types of people.


2. Is this one debate or two? Is Health Care the same thing as Health Insurance, and if not, why are the two being mixed in this debate?

The Obama Administration speaks of “Health Care Reform” on two fronts; changing insurance rules and changing how medicine is practiced. But the Democrats speak of their plan as one action, as if the same measures which – so they say – will reduce costs will at the same time as improving medical care. Such a bold claim needs to be explained in depth, rather than simply asserted.


3. Does Health Care work well in America?

This is a key question in the debate. The plain fact is, medical care in the U.S. is pretty darn good. If you collapse in the street of any major city in the U.S, you can expect to be in an emergency room within 20 minutes in normal conditions. Diagnosis and treatment of Cancer, Heart Attacks, Trauma, Burns, and many other fields is unsurpassed.


4. Does the present Health Insurance system work well in America?

More than two out of three Americans have insurance coverage that they like. It would seem, then, that there are three areas of contention – how to provide satisfactory medical care for people who cannot find suitable private insurance, how to insure the availability of quality medical care going forward, and how to control rising medical costs. A proper discussion needs to cover this ground with consideration of all major perspectives.


5. Are private insurance companies a good thing or a bad thing?

Private insurance companies are routinely demonized for charging higher and higher premiums from customers, but rejecting valid claims in order to make unfair profits. Certainly there are individual companies which do this, but we should remember that every state has an Insurance Board which governs the conduct of insurance agencies, insurance agents must be licensed and the industry is well regulated. In addition, while many Americans are displeased with their automobile and home insurance, most are happy with their health insurance and do not want major changes.

Insurance was not originally meant to be mandatory. For decades the various forms of insurance, whether Life, Health, Vehicle, Home, Liability or Property, were made available as an option to hedge against catastrophic loss or expenses that could not be met under certain conditions. It should be noted that government requirement that all drivers must be covered by at least liability insurance has neither reduced the frequency of motor vehicle accidents nor the cost of such incidents; the requirement that homes bought on mortgage agreements must carry homeowner’s insurance has not reduced the number of claims made on such policies, nor slowed the growth of the cost of that insurance. It is, on the evidence of the history, absurd to imagine that requiring individuals to obtain health insurance or requiring all employers to provide it will in total improve the condition of health of the nation’s citizens, nor reduce cost. There is no evidence whatsoever from past experience to justify such a claim.


6. Would the government do a better job than private insurance companies?

Looking at the history of the VA Hospitals, Medicare and Medicaid, it’s very hard to imagine how replacing any private insurer with a government program would be an improvement. This is an area where proponents of the new plan need to explain how the waste, errors, and sheer corruption of the past would not simply be repeated on a much larger scale.


I would start a discussion with these six questions. It would be a nice change if even these initial starting points could be addressed.

Why No Congressman Wants to Talk About HR 3200

I have a headache. This is because I have been reading the full text of HR 3200, with the self-described “simple” title of “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009”.

Ow.

Remember how some genius created non-alcoholic beer, and in so doing managed to create a beverage with rotten taste, no nutrition, no buzz, and a higher-than-beer price tag, thereby creating something which no sane person would ever wish to purchase, much less imbibe? Well, this bill might be the legislative version of that concoction. It’s frankly very nasty stuff. Want proof? OK, here is the list of definitions of terms from Section 100 of the 1,017-page monster. Read it through and see how well your noggin likes it:

“GENERAL DEFINITIONS.—Except as otherwise provided, in this division:
(1) ACCEPTABLE COVERAGE.—The term ‘‘acceptable coverage’’ has the meaning given such term 5 in section 202(d)(2).
(2) BASIC PLAN.—The term ‘‘basic plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(3) COMMISSIONER.—The term ‘‘Commissioner’’ means the Health Choices Commissioner established under section 141.
(4) COST-SHARING.—The term ‘‘cost-sharing’’ includes deductibles, coinsurance, copayments, and similar charges but does not include premiums or any network payment differential for covered services or spending for non-covered services.
(5) DEPENDENT.—The term ‘‘dependent’’ has the meaning given such term by the Commissioner and includes a spouse.
(6) EMPLOYMENT-BASED HEALTH PLAN.—The term ‘‘employment-based health plan’’—
(A) means a group health plan (as defined in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974); and
(B) includes such a plan that is the following:
(i) FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL GOVERNMENTAL PLANS.—A governmental plan (as defined in section 3(32) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), including a health benefits plan offered under chapter 89 of title 5, United States Code.
(ii) CHURCH PLANS.—A church plan (as defined in section 3(33) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974).
(7) ENHANCED PLAN.—The term ‘‘enhanced plan’’ has the meaning given such term in section 203(c).
(8) ESSENTIAL BENEFITS PACKAGE.—The term ‘‘essential benefits package’’ is defined in section 122(a).
(9) FAMILY.—The term ‘‘family’’ means an individual and includes the individual’s dependents.
(10) FEDERAL POVERTY LEVEL; FPL.—The terms ‘‘Federal poverty level’’ and ‘‘FPL’’ have the meaning given the term ‘‘poverty line’’ in section 673(2) of the Community Services Block Grant Act (42 U.S.C. 9902(2)), including any revision required by such section.
(11) HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—The terms ‘‘health benefits plan’’ means health insurance coverage and an employment-based health plan and includes the public health insurance option.
(12) HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE; HEALTH INSURANCE ISSUER.—The terms ‘‘health insurance coverage’’ and ‘‘health insurance issuer’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 2791 of the Public Health Service Act.
(13) HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE.—The term ‘‘Health Insurance Exchange’’ means the Health Insurance Exchange established under section 201.
(14) MEDICAID.—The term ‘‘Medicaid’’ means a State plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act (whether or not the plan is operating under a 6 waiver under section 1115 of such Act).
(15) MEDICARE.—The term ‘‘Medicare’’ means the health insurance programs under title XVIII of the Social Security Act.
(16) PLAN SPONSOR.—The term ‘‘plan sponsor’’ has the meaning given such term in section 3(16)(B) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
(17) PLAN YEAR.—The term ‘‘plan year’’ means—
(A) with respect to an employment-based health plan, a plan year as specified under such plan; or
(B) with respect to a health benefits plan other than an employment-based health plan, a 12-month period as specified by the Commissioner.
(18) PREMIUM PLAN; PREMIUM-PLUS PLAN.— The terms ‘‘premium plan’’ and ‘‘premium-plus plan’’ have the meanings given such terms in section 203(c).
(19) QHBP OFFERING ENTITY.—The terms ‘‘QHBP offering entity’’ means, with respect to a health benefits plan that is—
(A) a group health plan (as defined, subject to subsection (d), in section 733(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974), the plan sponsor in relation to such group health plan, except that, in the case of a plan maintained jointly by 1 or more employers and 1 or more employee organizations and with respect to which an employer is the primary source of financing, such term means such employer;
(B) health insurance coverage, the health insurance issuer offering the coverage;
(C) the public health insurance option, the Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(D) a non-Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the State or political subdivision of a State (or agency or instrumentality of such State or subdivision) which establishes or maintains such plan; or
(E) a Federal governmental plan (as defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health Service Act), the appropriate Federal official.
(20) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.— The term ‘‘qualified health benefits plan’’ means a health benefits plan that meets the requirements for such a plan under title I and includes the public health insurance option.
(21) PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.— The term ‘‘public health insurance option’’ means the public health insurance option as provided under subtitle B of title II.
(22) SERVICE AREA; PREMIUM RATING AREA.— The terms ‘‘service area’’ and ‘‘premium rating area’’ mean with respect to health insurance coverage—
(A) offered other than through the Health Insurance Exchange, such an area as established by the QHBP offering entity of such coverage in accordance with applicable State law; and
(B) offered through the Health Insurance Exchange, such an area as established by such entity in accordance with applicable State law and applicable rules of the Commissioner for Exchange-participating health benefits plans.
(23) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ means the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
(24) STATE MEDICAID AGENCY.— The term ‘‘State Medicaid agency’’ means, with respect to a Medicaid plan, the single State agency responsible for administering such plan under title XIX of the Social Security Act.
(25) Y1, Y2, ETC.—The terms ‘‘Y1’’ , ‘‘Y2’’, ‘‘Y3’’, ‘‘Y4’’, ‘‘Y5’’, and similar subsequently numbered terms, mean 2013 and subsequent years, respectively."

If that all makes sense to you and your head is not screaming for relief, see your doctor as soon as the government tells you you are allowed to do so.

The Constitution of the United States and Its Usurpation

One of the more over-used claims I have heard in my lifetime, is how this condition or that somehow violates someone’s rights. The U.S. is a great country, in my opinion the very best, but we have waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many lawsuits, not to mention protests against just about everything. We read, see, and hear about ‘Animal Rights’ (not to mention that a certain Obama Administration official once wanted trees to have legal standing to file lawsuits), ‘Right to Life’ vs. “Woman’s Right to Choose’, ‘Right to Die’, and the popular meme of the moment, the ‘Right’ to Healthcare.

There are, it seems, three common sources for the notion of enumerated rights; the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution of the United States, and the popular imagination. The key phrase from the Declaration of Independence is that line about “certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”; while some folks try to draw inferences that government should be providing these things to people, I would remind the audience that when this document was written, the theme and tone were to tell the extant government – Britain, King George III and Parliament – where they could go and with what accessories. The Declaration of Independence was in no way an endorsement of government power and influence.

The Constitution of the United States is where most people come to think of rights, yet many beliefs are mistaken. The founding fathers, for instance, have made it abundantly clear not only in the text of the Constitution but in other writings of the time that the Constitution was created not to spell out the rights of the people, but to define the limits of the federal government’s power. The Bill of Rights was noted not to lay out what the citizens were allowed to do, but to emphasize certain boundaries which the government may under no circumstances trample. From that original context, therefore, it is important to understand that “rights” come to mean areas where the government is not allowed to exert power or influence, even with the best of intentions. The legitimate power and authority of government extends only to that degree where the Constitution specifically grants that power and authority – sadly, the actual affairs of government have gone well beyond those limits, and it is doubtful that we shall ever again see the government truly envisioned by the founding fathers. We must make do with the reality in which we live.

The reality of the Constitution, is that it’s really a very simple framework. Let’s have a walk through the structure of the thing and I hope you will see what I mean:

Preface

”We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That sets out what we’re doing. Union, Justice, Peace, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty are the goals. The rest of the Constitution lays out how these goals are to be accomplished.


Article I

Article I lays out the Congress of the United States, how it is created and how it shall operate. Section 8 is particularly important, setting out taxation, debt, commerce, naturalization of citizens, bankruptcy law, the treasury, post office and rail roads, patents and copyright, the establishment of courts, and the conduct and operation of the military, in that order.


Article II

Article II lays out the Executive Branch, the qualifications for President of the United States and how he/she may be elected. The Constitution clearly shows the President to be Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, to have the right to make appointments and to recommend actions to Congress, and that he may be removed only by impeachment for “high crimes”, such as Treason or Bribery. The President’s role is clearly set out distinct from the role of Congress; the Congress is expected to deliberate and move slowly and with the deliberation appropriate to its great power, while the President is in a leadership role, so that he may move more quickly but with less effect than the Congress.


Article III

Article III sets out the judicial system, derived from the Supreme Court and – as the Constitution describes them – inferior courts. It is interesting that Section 1 specifically qualifies the right of any judge to sit on the bench to their “good behavior”; I cannot help but wonder how many of our esteemed honors would actually pass a reasonable examination to see whether in fact their behavior as judges could properly be called ‘good’.


Article IV

Article IV gets into greater detail than the previous articles, addressing the rights of states to conduct their public acts with the confidence that other states will consider such acts as legitimate within their own jurisdiction to the degree that relations between those states are affected, the universal applicability of criminal law and civil judgments, the territory and boundaries of states, and the universal protection by the armed forces of each state from invasion or attack.


Article V

Article V sets out how amendments to the Constitution may be created and ratified. This plainly worded section is perhaps the most effective means by which the Constitution remains relevant.


Article VI

Article VI almost reads as an afterthought to the main body of the Constitution, but two points in this article are of paramount importance – the clear affirmation that the Constitution of the United States is the “supreme Law of the Land”, which rather snuffs the notion that interpretation of foreign law should be considered anything close to equal in standing to the Constitution as written and ratified; and the direct admonition that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States”, which is in actual fact the strongest clear statement of the separation of Church and State; note that this separation is effected in the conduct of public officials, not in the rights of private citizens.


Article VII

Article VII sets out the ratification of the Constitution.


The Amendments

The twenty-seven Amendments to the Constitution of the United States are, to me anyway, a fascinating historical commentary on the enduring value and stability of the Constitution. It should be remembered, after all, that other nations had Constitutions which failed because they ignored them – the politicians in, for example, the Soviet Union ignored their Constitution whenever they felt like it, or – why does this sound familiar – decided whatever they wanted to do was actually allowed under the Constitution, even where specifically proscribed by the actual document. We see maddening debates over the meaning of the wording in various places, but at least our judges still consider the Constitution as the rule book on our laws.

The first ten amendments, of course, were created at the time of the original Constitution, and are collectively known as the Bill of Rights. It shows something of the concern by Mr. Madison and his colleagues, that even in a document which clearly set out to limit the scope and power of government, they determined it was necessary to enumerate specific rights which may not, under any circumstances, be abrogated. In short summary they are as follows:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Right to Firearms
3. Quarters for Troops
4. Search and Seizure limits
5. Rights of the Accused
6. Criminal Prosecutions
7. The Right to Juries
8. The Right to Bail, limits on Punishment
9. The Bill of Rights does not list all rights of the people
10. Powers not specifically accorded the federal government by the Constitution belong to the states, or to the people

It gets interesting after that. The eleventh amendment addresses lawsuits against states, the twelfth concerns the election of the President and Vice-President, the thirteenth abolishes slavery, the fourteenth details due process rights, equal protection, and voting rights, the fifteenth prohibits racial discrimination of voting rights, the sixteenth establishes income tax, the seventeenth addresses the election of senators in more detail, the eighteenth banned alcoholic drinks, the nineteenth confirmed the right of women to vote, the twentieth addresses the succession of the President of the United States, the twenty-first repealed the eighteenth amendment, the twenty-second limits the President of the United States to two full terms of office, the twenty-third allows D.C. residents to vote in Presidential elections, the twenty-fourth bans the poll tax, the twenty-fifth details specific conditions for succession of the President, the twenty-sixth sets the voting age at 18 across the nation, and the twenty-seventh prohibits the Congress from voting on their pay more than once in a two-year period. From this, we can see that of the 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights, four address the actions and election of the President of the United States, eight address elections and voting rights, two clarify the operation of the federal government, two ban certain practices, one establishes a new power for the federal government, and one simply cancels a prior amendment.

The sum effect of the Constitution and its amendments, for me anyway, is that this is a simple framework meant to be applied in the spirit of limited government and maximum rights for individuals. From this spirit, it follows that individuals may do as they please, with the common sense restrictions that each of us is responsible for the effect of our actions upon others, and that as a member of our community we have obligations to promote its welfare. There is no right to a certain minimum number of years of life, nor to perfect health, no right to social networking or a secure job, nor to the exclusion of annoying people or discomfort, no right to guarantee that the police can solve every crime or the government solve your every worry.

Which brings us to that problem of imagination. Where did all those government programs come from, if our founding fathers did not had over the authority to create them? In a word, sophistry. Consider the Louisiana Purchase, for example. While I agree that it was a great deal for the United States and a brilliant bit of strategy, it was also clearly unconstitutional. And what about Lincoln suspending the writ of Habeus Corpus during the Civil War? Many historians have argued persuasively that the action was necessary, but again there is no authority in the Constitution for President Lincoln to have done it. The New Deal? As grand as FDR described it and as proud as so many are of their work in those years, nowhere does the Constitution allow the President or the Congress to take over the commerce of the nation in order to try out political theory, as happened in the 1930s. And yes, that in turn makes the Bush and Obama attempts to do the same thing unconstitutional. Frankly, the very notion of borrowing huge amounts of taxpayer money for the benefit of selected companies and industries is so offensive that one imagines Hamilton and Franklin retching at the mere notion, not to mention its repetition in succeeding terms. It will, no doubt, be observed that many courts in the United States, including the Supreme Court, have signed off on these egregious violations of the limits of government, but one might remind such individuals that the courts have made myriad mistakes over the years, from Dred Scott to Plessy v Ferguson to Hepburn v Griswold to Everson to Roe v Wade to Grutter to Kelo v. New London and so on. To this, we must also note that when there is influence or power to be gained by advancing the breadth and grasp of the federal government, the Constitution fares badly throughout history, in courtrooms as much as the halls of Congress.

Many critics of the current proposals argue that we cannot afford them, but at some point it is bound to occur to the citizens of the United States that they never got to vote on these obscene orgies of spending, that the hateful practice of ‘taxation without representation’ is in full effect in the modern world, and that in the end the only hope for the Republic is for its citizens to demand its return. The only right we have, in the end, is the right to take responsibility for our own condition and actions, and their consequence. The only proper role for government is to protect the citizens from enemies and continue the maintenance of infrastructure, but otherwise to shut up and get out of the way of those who do the real work at hand.

A Clear Sign, But What Does It Say?

I have not written much at all about President Obama’s Approval Ratings in the polls since he was inaugurated in January, but noting the recent trend it seems appropriate to do so now.

I have said many times that for me, the gold standard in opinion polling is the Gallup Organization. This is due not only to Gallup’s long history, but also because Gallup follows a very consistent methodology and set of questions. This allows interested researchers the opportunity to track support within a poll over a period of time, to better gauge the actual cause and effect of his policies and decisions.

The people at Real Clear Politics provide a very useful resource, where general polling support can be easily tracked.

Looking at these polls, the following polls provide a track of Obama’s job approval since January:

Gallup: 68% when sworn in, 56% now, loss of 12 points
Rasmussen: 62% when sworn in, 50% now, loss of 12 points
CBS/NYT: 63% February 22, 58% now, loss of 5 points
NBC/WSJ: 60% March 1, 53% now, loss of 7 points
Pew: 64% February 8, 54% now, loss of 10 points
NPR: 59% March 14, 53% now, loss of 6 points
FOX: 65% when sworn in, 54% now, loss of 11 points

In every case of long-term tracking, President Obama’s levels of job approval are the lowest overall he has seen since taking office, across the board.

But a closer look shows the problem may be more serious, nothing to worry about, or paradoxically, both.

In addition to a high-level overview, the Gallup Organization also publishes support by demographic groups.

An examination of those 28 demographic groups, determined by gender, age, geographic region, race, education, wages, political affiliation and orientation shows that in 22 of 28 demographic categories, support for President Obama is at its lowest or tried for the lowest level since he took office. The six demographic areas where support for President Obama is not at its nadir, are Non-White voters (85% support highest on April 26, 75% lowest on April 5, presently at 79%), Black voters (96% highest on July 5, May 4, and March 8, lowest at 86% on January 25, presently at 95%), Hispanic voters (85% highest on April 26, 70% lowest on April 5 and March 22, presently at 72%), Voters making below $24,000 a year (76% highest on May 4, 66% lowest on June 21, presently at 68%), Republicans (41% highest on January 25, 20% lowest on July 12, presently at 21%), and Liberals (90% highest on June 28, May 31, May 24, and April 26, 83% lowest on January 25, presently at 86%). All of those demographics are relative minorities to the voting population at this time.

Even with the loss of support, however, President Obama still enjoys support levels above 50% across the board, indicating that his personal popularity is strong and the general theme of his administration is well-received. Therefore, it may be reasonable to consider the loss of support nothing more than a shaking out of the fair-weather support, and displaying a strong core of support for the President. That is, of course, assuming his numbers do not continue to fall.

It should, however, be noted that President Obama has lost significant support among major demographic groups. Between February 1 and July 26, President Obama lost twelve points of support from female voters, who were the dominant gender in the 2008 election. White voters made up 74% of the electorate in the 2008 election, and since taking office President Obama’s support among whites has fallen sixteen points according to Gallup. The largest demographic age group in the 2008 election was the 30-49 age group; among this group President Obama has lost twelve points since taking office. Among moderates, the largest political philosophy demographic, President Obama has lost ten points since taking office. The South was the most important geographic region in the 2008 election, and among Southern voters, President Obama has lost twelve points of support since taking office. In the 2008 election, the largest demographic by education was the ‘Some College’ category, and in that category President Obama has lost fifteen points of support since taking office. And among voters earning between sixty thousand and ninety thousand dollars a year, again the largest demographic in their section, President Obama has seen his support fall by twenty points since taking office. The conclusion is unavoidable that, if this loss of support is not rebuilt and assuming the Republicans can present a credible candidate, that at this time President Obama has seriously damaged his re-election chances, since every dominant demographic group from the 2008 election has significantly reduced support for the President since his Inauguration.

My Survivor Guilt

In late 2006, I was diagnosed with a rare form of cancer, Pseudomyxoma Peritonei, or PMP for short. PMP is a rare form of abdominal cancer, free-floating cells which grow in size and block the transfer of fluid throughout the abdominal cavity, and when the cells metastasize the cancer attacks multiple internal organs, either through . The nature of the cancer is such that normal warning signs simply do not appear; the only early warning signs of PMP are high blood pressure, weight and water gain, and sluggish body movements.

Those signs are also symptoms of simply being overweight, which is far more common and far less serious. Consequently, victims of PMP usually become aware of the cancer only when it begins to attack internal organs, at which time the chances of survival plummet. A study by the National Institute of Health said PMP patients have a 1-year survival rate of 98%, but a 5-year survival rate of just 53%, and a 10-year survival rate of only 32%. That study is a bit dated now, but it does give you a sense of how serious this cancer is to the people who must fight it.

An account of how one patient in Canada fought PMP may be read here. And I applaud Steve's courage and candid account of his fight.

In short, no one really knows what causes PMP, why it floats around loose in the abdominal cavity, what causes it to go from relatively harmless to aggressively life-threatening, or why some cases are discovered early but most only when it is too late. PMP is a damnable thing to have to face.

And this is why I feel guilty. I went in to M.D. Anderson yesterday for more tests and evaluations, and today I spoke with Paul Mansfield, the doctor who is in charge of my case and one of the top four or five experts in PMP. My tumors have not grown for more than two years, and all in all things are going very well for me. So well in fact, that I began to wonder if I had not been misdiagnosed, that maybe I did not in fact have cancer. Dr. Mansfield, along with the Colorectal Cancer team at MDA, assure me that I do indeed have PMP, but for me the cancer is strangely quiescent, not growing or making any signs of threat to my health or well-being. The cancer is not gone, but it’s not attacking me either. It’s like walking past a neighbor’s house every morning, and a gun is always pointed at me but never fired.

Why?

Why do I have a cancer that most people have never heard of? And why have I been blessed by having a cancer that only threatened me for a short time, never actually putting my life in real danger, when so many others are killed by the thing, or put through months of hellish suffering?

I never deserved to have cancer. At the same time, there are many people with cancer who deserved my good fortune far more than I do. I hate the trips to MDA, because I almost feel that I have no business being there, next to people who have suffered so much because of their cancer, while mine has cost me so little up to now. I know in my head that I should be grateful, especially for my wife and daughter who worry about me and who had a much harder time when I had my last operation than I did. But in my heart I do not wish to suffer, but I wish I could help the others suffer less – it feels wrong to be so helpless to help the others.

I stopped writing to my PMP Patient forum. I could not bring myself to write about my health and well-being, when so many of my fellow patients were suffering from slow recuperation, and so many lost their battles.

So damned many.

I don’t know why I have been spared. I don’t know what to do.

M.D. Anderson has started a study of the disease, having received permission from an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to do so, and I will be participating with whatever I can contribute. At least I can feel like I am doing something to help, though it’s small steps in a long journey.

The Problem With Racial Dialogue

It seems strange to me that we cannot, as a nation, discuss race relations in anything like a civil manner. The recent incident between a white police officer and a black university professor in Massachusetts seems to only highlight that fact – there has been a flood of accusations and assumptions, but very few people have been able or willing to sit down and examine the incident on the evidence and known facts. Even the President of the United States, to use his own words, “acted stupidly” on this issue. The Civil War ended in 1865, Civil Rights were specifically codified in 1964, yet here in the Twenty-First Century there is no consensus on definitions of human rights, much less the proper relationship between people of different races. We have even reached a point where a person can start an argument by their choice of label used to describe a group of people.

To me, the heart of the problem is the tone. Most people mean no harm in how they speak and act, and so they don’t much like being lectured to by folks who don’t know the first thing about them, how they are guilty of this or that by association, or how they have to speak and act a certain way whenever they encounter someone of another race. In short, people don’t like being expected to take orders from someone just because of their race, no matter what race they happen to be. They do not respect the message from someone who delivers that message in a tone of condemnation simply for being a different race from themselves. A Black person who holds Whites in contempt is clearly no better than a White person who holds Blacks in contempt, or a Hispanic who hates Asians, or an Asian who hates Native Americans, or a Muslim who hates Jews, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum. The first requirement for a racial dialogue is mutual respect by and for all parties.

Thought For The Day

Imagine for a moment that when we die, we go to a place where we meet everyone who ever lived. Not just the people we wanted to meet from history or our favorite friends and family, but everyone.

As in, everyone you ever lied to.

As in, everyone you ever hurt.

As in, everyone you ever treated rudely or with disrespect.

As in, everyone you judged on the basis of how they looked, or what they could do for you, or whether you could make them do something you wanted.

If you knew, absolutely, that everyone you meet in this world, you will meet again in the next, with full knowledge of what you thought, said and did, and you would be the full and permanent consequences of how you acted here and now … how then would you choose to act towards the people you know, meet, and interact with in this life?

Demographics and the Presidential Election

Politics being an American sport as much as football or baseball, there has already been a lot of discussion about the 2012 presidential election (in addition to more reasonable discussion about the upcoming midterm elections next fall). It seems to me that to get a sense of the landscape for 2012 even this early, we would do well to look at the demographic conditions prevailing in the 2008 election.

I got my information by looking at election and exit polling results from presidential elections in 1972 through 2008. Dave Leip’s Atlas of Presidential Elections was very helpful in that part, while I had to use a variety of sources for the exit polling, although the New York Times was generally the most consistent source.

I am still chewing through the data, but found some interesting indicators worth consideration. For instance, the total voters for 2008 made up 41.5% of the population, slightly down from 2004’s 41.9% but above the 1972-2008 average of 39.3%. Obama in 2008 took 2.8 million more votes than Kerry did in 2004, while McCain in 2008 took 4.5 million fewer votes than George W. Bush in 2004. Barack Obama won the White House by about 8.5 million votes, the largest popular-vote margin of victory since Reagan’s 1984 re-election, when he beat Mondale by 16.9 million votes. 2.7 million more men voted in the 2008 election than in 2004, while women voters increased from 2004 to 2008 by only 450 thousand voters. White voters decreased from 2004 to 2008 by 1.3 million, while black voters increased from 2004 to 2008 by 2.9 million voters – since McCain won white voters by a margin of 55% to 43% while Obama won black voters by a margin of 95% to 04%, this demographic shift is an important element in the Democrat’s victory. Hispanic voters increased by 1.5 million from 2004 to 2008, and since Republican support by Hispanics fell from 44% to 31% while support for the Democrat increased from 53% to 67%, this also represents a significant shift which favored Obama. Voters under 29 (a strong demographic for Obama) increased by 1.8 million, while voters over 60 (a key sector for McCain) decreased by half a million voters, which also played into Obama’s advantage.

Consequently, the exit polls demonstrated that race, gender, and age all affected the outcome of the 2008 presidential election. The next step would be to consider the thresholds of those demographic qualities, or the historical levels of support needed to win.

With regard to male voters, Bill Clinton won in 1992 with only 41% of male support. Barack Obama came close to that, with just 43% support. If male voters continue to grow faster than female voters, this could be a problem for Obama in 2012.

The 13% representation by black voters was the highest ever in a federal election. Obama won the black vote by a margin of 14.9 million votes (meaning that Mccain took 6.4 million more non-black votes than Obama). To win re-election, therefore, President Obama needs to enjoy similar turnout by black voters; statistically every black voter who voted in 2008 but does not vote in 2012 is twenty-three times more likely to hurt Obama than his Republican opponent by staying home.

Seniors represent a readitionally significant and active voter bloc. If they return in numbers in 2012, this will be a significant problem for Obama.

End of a Despot

I write to bury Walter Cronkite, not to praise him. I almost did not write this article, since it is unseemly in the main to speak ill of the dead. What’s more, Walter Cronkite was undeniably a pioneer in broadcast journalism and many of his works and actions are worthy of praise. But then, we could say the same of Richard Nixon.

I mention Nixon because Nixon is rightfully stained forever for his actions in the Watergate scandal. Richard Nixon was also a pioneer in many ways, perhaps most notably his diplomatic strategy which set Beijing against Moscow in the Cold War. Nixon’s 1972 re-election victory is still the most second-most profound popular vote landslide in the history of presidential elections, Nixon having captured 60.7% of the popular vote (FDR in 1936 claimed 60.8%, the only time a presidential candidate ever got more of the popular vote). While no darling to Conservatives, Richard Nixon infuriated the Left, who looked long and hard for something to use as a political weapon against him. President Nixon handed his enemies that weapon in Watergate. There is a broad consensus that if Nixon had not resigned the Presidency, he would have been impeached, and if impeached he would have been convicted. Nixon was not nearly the only politician to abuse his power, but there was no real doubt that Nixon did abuse his office.

And this brings the story back to Walter Cronkite. Ordinarily, members of the press enjoy a certain celebrity and influence, but rarely is one journalist considered to speak as the complete authority on the nation’s welfare and direction. Cronkite built his credibility to the point, where for many Americans he spoke with indisputable authority. Cronkite played on that trust with his tag line each evening, saying ”and that’s the way it is.” A man never elected by the public, and answerable to no one, could say what he wanted and have it taken as absolute truth by many millions, simply because he was the person saying it. There is no indication that Cronkite ever stopped to consider the moral obligation he carried, or to balance his broadcasts in order to make sure he was as objective as his image. Instead, in interviews many years later, Cronkite admitted his liberal agenda and that he saw his role as an advocate for that agenda. Where politicians were known for their bias according to ideology and party support, Cronkite chose to hide his in order to falsely portray his opinion as established fact and popular consensus. In this, Walter Cronkite became a media despot, able to direct national opinion without any checks on his power and privilege. He was able to convince Americans that the war in Vietnam was unwinnable, by hiding facts which worked against his argument and distorting the significance of events in Vietnam. Cronkite helped build public support for politicians and programs he liked, while helping build opposition to politicians and programs he opposed. For all the talk from the Left in favor of the Fairness Doctrine, Cronkite had no intention of letting both sides be heard on key issues on anything like even terms. The man was a despot who cost lives and money and damaged the balance of power in America, showing that unelected dictators could claim influence and power here through sheer lies and trickery. In that regard, Walter Cronkite should not be compared to Richard Nixon, after all. Nixon, in the end, resigned and went away, and his actions were properly denounced even by his own party as wrong and against American ideals. Walter Cronkite could not manage even that much honor or integrity. He did much good, but far more damage.

The Right to Make Bad Decisions

When I was young, my father made a point about the importance of looking at things from other points of view. He believed strongly in Dr. King’s dream that all people should judged by their character and work, not their race, creed, gender or any superficial aspect. I was a bit disappointed, therefore, to find his ideals a bit inconstant when I told him about my fiancé, shortly after I proposed to her. My wife, you see, is of a different race, and while in theory my father was a man of broad mind, in the actual event he was far narrower in his tolerance. As time passed, he came to respect my wife and when we had a daughter he was delighted, but I recall the incident as an example of the distance between ourselves and whom we would like to be. I have met some very fine people in my lifetime, some of whom were people of great integrity, courage and ideals, and some who dismayed me with their attitudes and behavior. I notice that as I got to know people better, while some were clearly better or worse in their morals and actions, none were completely worthless and no one was perfect. Also, some people whom I could not stand in one way, were good people in others. You have to really get to know the person to see more than one dimension of their character, and over time many of us learn from mistakes and our judgment and behavior improve. That should not really surprise anyone; the whole automobile insurance industry is predicated on the belief that experienced drivers are generally safer and better risks than new drivers, and that education and time will improve the skills and habits.

I have also learned that some folks have to find things out the hard way. Having just completed my MBA, I went looking around for advice on the classes I still need to take in order to sit for my CPA license. Along the way, I found an interesting website which had a number of college forums. I visited the section on business schools, and found some lively discussions, including a number of prolific members with strong opinions but poor experience. It’s fascinating in a way, how people will voice an opinion on something they have never done and about which they really know very little. Part of that, I suspect, is the attraction of online forums, where you can writer as long a post as you please without fear of interruption. Sure, you may get a sharp retort, but the thing there is that it comes in response to your article or comment, and that means you are making things happen. In blogging, that’s pretty cool, but it’s far less cool when politicians start doing it.

Laws. There’s no doubt that we need them, but at some point they get to be burdensome, especially when the guys passing the laws make sure that they are not forced to abide by those laws. And at some point they become unreasonable, ridiculous, and cross the line into tyranny. Take the seat-belt law, for example. I’m all in favor of people wearing seat belts, they are a great invention. But a law requiring everyone to wear a seat belt? That, to me, is over the line. Think about it – if I have an accident and I am stupid enough to not wear a seat belt, who does that hurt besides myself? It does not increase the danger of the situation for other drivers or pedestrians, or the public at large. So what is that law meant to do? It’s a law meant to keep us safe. That may sound good, but nowhere in the federal or any state Constitution does it say that the government can pass laws in order to make us safer from ourselves. That’s why it makes no sense to ban trans-fats. Yes, it’s stupid to gorge on things that will give you a heart attack, but the government has no business choosing the meals of honest citizens. It’s one thing and a good idea to require restaurants to tell is what’s in their foods, so we can make informed decisions, but quite another to tell us we cannot make those choices ourselves.

The government passes more and more laws every year, and for what? Some of them are necessary, but in truth most are not at all necessary, and more and more of them take away our choices in order to protect us from the consequences of those choices. The thing is, if we are not allowed to make our choices, to face natural limits to what we can do and to see the direct consequences of our actions, instead being told by the nanny state that others will decide for us, then how do we learn? People today decry what they see as environmental threats, but they fail to realize that humans have faced such threats before – efforts to eradicate rats began when it was discovered that they carried plague, sanitation of the water supply began when it was discovered (then forgotten and later rediscovered) that there was a way to provide a clean water supply and remove foul waste, and coal was largely replaced with oil as the new energy source proved more efficient and cleaner. All of this happened without a single environmentalist agency. We are quite capable to seeing and addressing our needs through our own faculties and efforts, if only the government would stop pretending we cannot. Our economic markets can repair themselves, indeed history shows they always have, if only the government would stop borrowing generations of future earnings to try to create a solution by artifice. And the voters can be trusted to find and support the best candidates and political platform, there is no need or cause to keep presenting us with a PR-spun packaged candidate as fake as the late MJ’s nose.

We will make mistakes, to be sure. Some of them will be huge blunders, and that’s a fact. But that’s how we learn, and for all the best intentions of government, it’s more than time for these esteemed politicians to stop spending our children’s future, stop pretending they can control everything and prevent any bad news, and just go home to do some honest work. They do far more harm than good, and it’s apparent they are learning nothing themselves.

Nasty Politics

The word “nasty” was first used somewhere around 1400 CE, probably derived from the Old French word nastre which meant something bad and strange. But when used in conjunction with politics, the word ‘nasty’ puts me in mind of the political cartoonist Thomas Nast. Nast was the most famous cartoonist of the 19th Century, and is commonly regarded as the man who affixed to the Republican and Democratic political parties their mascot animals of elephant and donkey, respectively. Nast built his reputation and success on political attacks in his cartoons. His most common theme was to cast a well-known politician as a crook or predatory animal. That’s not to say that many of Nast’s targets were not the villains he cast, but Nast’s cartoons were effective partly because there was no forum for debate, no available recourse for the target – if the public believed the cartoon, you were toast. While many political historians lionize Nast, it should be remembered that he introduced a new dimension to character assassination, legitimizing the caricature of people as inhuman monsters in order to persuade his audience, without any sort of debate on the facts or evidence. In many ways, the rants of Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann simply carry on the tradition of Thomas Nast, the petty venom of Peggy Noonan and George Will carry on the same behavior of an earlier flame-thrower from their party (Nast was an important player in Lincoln’s 1864 re-election, and he was particularly savage in his malignment of George McLelland).

To some degree, such artists of malice are an evil we must endure; the same protection of freedom which allows one idiot to dress up as Hitler and stomp down a street on the one hand, allows David Letterman to prove himself a moronic misogynist and thug on a nightly basis on the other. But a line has been crossed when elected officials act in such manner. Without naming names, it is sadly obvious that the political world has degenerated to such a condition. We now have the closest thing to one-party rule with deliberate public disparagement of all disagreement for the first time in two generations. And as long as the public puts up with such behavior, it will remain the new standard, or become even fouler.

Education in Context

Going back to school to earn my MBA and pursue my CPA license gave me an interesting opportunity to revisit the way students think about their education. I had forgotten, frankly, the many assumptions students have about the effort needed to succeed and the worth of their degrees. As I entered my final semester at UHV and chatted with classmates in our capstone Strategic Management course, I was a bit surprised to find how many expected their degree to somehow automatically produce good job offers for them, even as the recesssion continued. Some of that, I think, goes back to the way students have lived up to a certain age – through the first 18 years of life, everything happens more or less in predictable fashion. Finish tenth grade, move on to eleventh grade, get the summer job one year, decide whether to go back there or try something new the next summer, because there’s always summer work, et cetera.

What also surprised me, though, were more experienced people like myself who returned to school and seemed to believe that their new degree would open new opportunities for them, in a fashion not very different from the kids. You’d think that a few years in reality would remind a person that the degree is a tool, and while it can be very useful or even critical to success, you have to use it effectively to get results, and your success depends on your work, your ability, and your opportunity. I spend a lot of time asking God to give me some of that third quality. Unfortunately, there’s no magic wand in this world, and that includes a degree from even the best university. I read earlier this spring in BusinessWeek that even some graduates from the Harvard Business School were unable to find job offers. That’s a real wake-up call for anybody, but that snooze button is more popular.

When I first became a manager, I hated marketing and sales. Not that they are bad in themselves, I just had no taste for them and wanted to work without having to sell things. Reality taught me, however, that you have to sell things all through your life, and if you don’t learn to sell then you are cheating yourself. Product number 1 is You. The package is how you portray yourself and your work, and your resume is the printed ad. And the degree(s) you earn are features you offer. I mentioned some time back that I chose to go to a lower-profile business school not only because of price and convenience, but also because I have established my resume to the point that a fancy school would not significantly improve my offers. That does not mean that prestige has no value, but you’d better think hard about what you have to put in and what you hope to get back, and how it will work.

The big jump from high school to college is not just that the work gets harder and much different in form and style, but also that you choose your school, your classes, the number of classes, and of course your major, concentration, or focus. And as you work your way through the degree plan, you may well make changes and adjustments to your plan. Some people even change their school, either upgrading to a more prestigious school or changing for other reasons, like distance or personal comfort. What is important here is to understand that earning your degree is meant to outfit you for the life ahead, at least to equip you with the tools to succeed in your work.

Basically, here’s how I see college programs and degrees in terms of work value. Before I start, I want to remind you that you should always get more than one or two opinions on this sort of thing, even if you completely agree with one person’s position:

School

Top-Tier for Specialty: If you can afford it and have the ability to handle a difficult and strenous curriculum, you should consider applying to the top school in your chosen field. It will be hard to get in, and such schools will drain you in the pursuit of your degree. However, earning your degree from the school generally acknowledged to be the best will help you get not only offers when you graduate, but better ones. The chief caveat here, aside from the cost and making sure you can handle the work, is to get a very wide input of opinion; for every school that is truly the best in its field, another six will claim to be as good.

Regional Leader: If you ask around, you should be able to find out which school is the best-respected overall in your part of the state. If you cannot afford or receive entry into the top school for your field, or if you are unsure about your field, it’s generally a good idea to go to the best-known school in your area.

Major State: Most college students go to a big state university, for the obvious reason that such schools tend to be reasonable in cost, have a respectable reputation, and are not excessively difficult. A nice, safe, average road to travel.

Prestigious Private: There was a time when I would have said this was a smart road, a way to stand out without obscenely high cost or difficulty. Now, I am not so sure. Private schools cost more than public schools as a rule, but from speaking with managers and executives I have found that private school graduates do not impress any more than public school graduates, except for top schools in a certain field. So, if you are considering going to a private school in your area that is not specifically known for excellence in the area in which you wish to major, you might want to rethink your plan.

Common State: The old stand-by, the closest large school. This has the advantages of being relatively inexpensive and not all that hard to graduate, but it also looks the part. The biggest problem is that there are a lot of schools that look like a student settled for them when they could not get into their first or second choice. And yes, your resume might look like that as well when you try to go find a good job with a degree from Boring State U.

Small Private: This is one to avoid. If a school is private but can’t point to any good reason you should pay more to go there than a public school, leave it well alone.

Corporation U: By that tag, I mean the for-profit schools which try to sell you on the idea that their degrees will change your life and be just as good as the schools your parents knew and might have gone to. The good news, is that many of these schools are accredited, they offer flexible schedules and they have a lot of students. The bad news is that businesses do not regard degrees from these schools as equal to a “real” degree. Sure it’s prejudice, but it’s also reality.

Diploma Mill: I should not have to mention these places, but they pop up so much I feel I had better say something. In short, here it is – your degree is bascialy worth the work you put into earning it. There’s no educational value to “life experience”, if you put one of these on your resume you will be discovered sooner or later, and when it does your career will be ruined. Diploma mills are like prostitutes; you should not be tempted, but if you are for some reason, remember what can go wrong for that one bad decision.



The next part is the sort of Degree you earn:

Associates:

The Associates degree is useful if – and only if – you then continue on to at least a Bachelor’s degree. No major employer is impressed with an Associate’s degree.

Certification: This can be useful or worthless. A certificate is nowhere near a degree, at best it represents a small set of courses, ususally fewer than five, in a specific category of study. However, for some jobs certification is an advantage if it applies to the work.

Bachelor of Arts: It’s commonly said that what took a high school diploma in the 1960s, needs a Bachelor’s Degree today. But there are two general flavors of Bachelor’s degree, and the B.A. is clearly the weak sister on this level. The reason for this, is that the majors which lead to a B.A. degree are generally less practical than those which lead to a Bachelor of Science degree. Also, some majors allow for either a B.A. or B.S., but require more work for the B.S. degree. The B.A. is best when it leads to a more advanced degree.

Bachelor of Science: This degree is the basic tool for an effective education that leads to gainful employment (I include the B.B.A. in this category). The Bachelor of Science degree represents real world at an established standard level of proficiency, and it also can serve as the foundation for further degrees.

Masters Degree: The Masters degree takes your studies to the next level, but also discriminates against general knowledge. That is, a Masters degree in a subject focuses on the concentration more than does the Bachelor’s degree, so there is less flexibility. That is, a Master’s in one subject will not qualify you for jobs requiring a Master’s in a different area.

Master of Business Administration: The M.B.A. is the premier degree for business professionals. That said, if the job specifies a different degree, such as a Masters in Accountancy, the M.B.A. will probably not meet the requirement.

Doctorate: An effective degree for teaching, research, and government positions. Otherwise, not likely to be worth the effort, except in specialized fields like Medicine or Law.

Top Online MBA School Profile - #10 The University of North Dakota

The University of North Dakota finished in tenth place among AACSB-accredited schools offering online MBAs. This article profiles the school.

The University of North Dakota was founded in 1883. An interesting bit of trivia, is that the University was named for North Dakota six years before the territory was named as the state of North Dakota.

UND offers only one MBA degree but says it is “interdisciplinary".

UND’s MBA requires 32 hours of coursework (11 classes). The curriculum requires a minimum two years to complete.

According to the AACSB, the average GMAT score of UND’s MBA students is 566.5. UND says the minimum accepted GMAT score is 500.

Tuition at UND for all students is $244.75 per semester hour, plus $52.74 per credit hour mandatory fees, $50.00 per credit hour for online fee, tallying $347.49 per semester hour. Therefore a student will pay $11,120 in tuition and fees for an MBA from UND. Add in books, and a student will pay about $13,320 for a UND MBA.

According to the AACSB, 102 of 1,744 total students at UND are MBA students (05.8%).

Top Online MBA School Profile - #9 University of Colorado at Colorado Springs

The University of Colorado at Colorado Springs finished in ninth place among AACSB-accredited schools offering online MBAs. This article profiles the school.

UCCS was founded in 1965 as an extension of the University of Colorado system.

UCCS allows students to earn their MBA in face-to-face classes or online as they choose; the courses are identical. Degree specializations are Finance, General Business, Health Care Administration, Information Systems, International Business, Management, Marketing, Project Management, Space Systems Management, and Technology Management.

The curriculum requires 12 courses for 36 hours of work, to be taken in 18 to 60 months, but usually completed in 2 or 3 years.

According to the AACSB, the average GMAT score of UCCS’s MBA students is 555. UCCS says the average GMAT score for its students is 550.

Tuition and fees at UCCS vary by the number of hours taken per semester. Since the school recommends 2 or 3 years, the average of 30 months for the 12 courses, or 6 hours per semester is used here. The tuition for Colorado residents is $2,929 for six hours of courses, and $5,879 for non-residents. Therefore a Colorado resident will pay about $8,827 in tuition and fees for an MBA from UCCS, while a non-resident will pay $17,677 in tuition and fees. Add in books, and a Colorado resident will pay about $11,227 for an MBA from UCCS, and a non-resident will pay about $20,077 for an MBA from UCCS. UCCS has a $25 Matriculation fee and a $15 Student ID fee.

According to the AACSB, 402 of 1,436 total students at UCCS are MBA students (28.0%).

Top Online MBA School Profile - #7 (tie) Wayne State University

Wayne State finished in a tie for seventh place among AACSB-accredited schools offering online MBAs. This article profiles the school.

Wayne State is an urban research university located in Detroit, Michigan. Wayne State was originally founded in 1868 as the Detroit Medical College, which is now the Medical School at WSU. The school took its present name in 1956.

Wayne State offers a variety of MBA programs, traditional to part-time to Saturday to Online classes (warning – online classes require final exams to be taken in person on campus) to a dual JD/MBA degree. Wayne State offers concentrations in Accounting, Finance, General Business, Management, Marketing, Human Resource, International Business, Leadership and Organizational Behavior, Management Information Systems, Quality Management, and Taxation.

Wayne State’s MBA requires 36 semester hours, or twelve courses, byond what it calls pre-foundational requirements, which can usually be satisfied with a Bachelor’s degree in a business major.

According to the AACSB, the average GMAT score of Wayne State’s MBA students is 530. Wayne State says the minimum accepted GMAT score is 450.

Tuition and fees at Wayne State for Michigan residents are $414.50 per semester hour, and $846.10 for non-residents. Therefore a Michigan resident will pay about $14,922 in tuition and fees for an MBA from Wayne State, while a non-resident will pay $30,460 in tuition and fees. Add in books, and a Michigan resident will pay about $17,322 for a Wayne State MBA, and a non-resident will pay about $32,860 for an MBA from Wayne State. If foundational courses are needed, a Michigan resident will pay $25,983 for an MBA from Wayne State and a non-resident would pay $49,289.

According to the AACSB, 1,186 of 3,924 total students at Wayne State are MBA students (30.2%).

Top Online MBA School Profile - #7 (tie) Morehead State University

Morehead State finished in a tie for seventh place among AACSB-accredited schools offering online MBAs. This article profiles the school.

Morehead State was founded in 1887 as Morehead Normal School in Morehead, Kentucky, becoming Morehead State University in 1968.

MSU offers an online MBA with concentrations in Accounting or Management.

MSU’s online MBA is a twelve-course, 36 semester hour curriculum, provided that six “foundation” courses in business are already taken; an undergraduate business degree will suffice, or the student must take these initial courses in addition to the 12 courses needed for the MBA itself.

According to the AACSB, the average GMAT score of MSU’s MBA students is 499. Morehead State says the minimum accepted GMAT score is 400.

Tuition and fees at MSU for all online students is $422 per semester hour, or $1,266 per course. Therefore an MBA from Morehead State University will cost $15,192 for a student with a Bachelor’s degree in a business major, or $22,788 for a student who needs to take the foundation courses. Add the cost of books and course supplies, and a Morehead State MBA costs $17,592 for a student with a business bachelor’s degree, and $25,988 for a student who needs to take the foundational courses.

According to the AACSB, 202 of 884 total students at Morehead State are MBA students (22.9%).

Top Online MBA School Profile - #5 (tie) University of Houston at Victoria

UH-Victoria finished in a tie for fifth place among AACSB-accredited schools offering online MBAs. This article profiles the school.

UH-Victoria is an extension of the University of Houston system. The University of Houston was founded in 1927, and the Victoria campus was opened in 1973, and became UH-Victoria in 1983. UHV was created primarily as a school for upper-level undergraduates and graduate instruction. UHV received approval this year to become a full four-year university for undergraduate studies, making it a full university in every respect.

UHV offers a variety of MBA programs, all of which allow some or all courses to be taken online. The Strategic MBA, UHV’s most popular MBA, allows for concentrations in Accounting, Finance, General Business, Management, Marketing, and International Business. The Strategic MBA requires 48 hours of coursework (16 classes).

According to the AACSB, the average GMAT score of UHV’s MBA students is 479. UHV says the minimum accepted GMAT score is 450.

Tuition and fees at UHV for Texas residents is $268 per semester hour, and $495 for non-residents. Therefore a Texas resident will pay about $12,864 in tuition and fees for a Strategic MBA from UHV, while a non-resident will pay $23,760 in tuition and fees. Add in books, and a Texas resident will pay about $16,064 for a Strategic MBA, and a non-resident will pay about $26,960 for a Strategic MBA from UHV.

According to the AACSB, 866 of 1,189 total students are MBA students (72.8%).