Which came first, global warming or the tsunami?

Thomas Friedman in the New York Times writes of the "two tsunamis" that have hit the U.S. economy: The Great Recession and what he terms "the Great Inflection."  His article confirms the insight of my European economist colleague (whom I have mentioned in previous posts):  over the long term, recessions and depressions make a country better, leaner, and more efficient.

This current difficult economic period is definitely "sweeping the past away."  The technological advancements are less than a tsunami, however.  Changes in technology have been evolving over decades. The rapid pace of technological changes has long since become accepted.

The economic depression, however, is the "tsunamic" catalyst that has turned more persons and businesses (those otherwise not inclined to embrace technology) to now grasp technology as if it were a life ring.  Software and the internet have entered our world in a parallel to the mechanization of the industrial age.  Many facets of doing business (labor, travel, hotel stays, car rentals, paper, pencils, bricks and mortar, etc.) are simply better done (or done without) using fairly mainstream technology at this point.  There will be no turning back.

We are experiencing a final "clearing of the landscape." Rather than seeking to rebuild an old order, rather than clinging to the past, we must now move forward developing different ways to thrive in this brave new world.

When a frame of reference changes, actions we choose to pursue obviously will differ.  Once a structure in which we must decide is confirmed, as is this new post-tsunami world, then we can move ahead with some confidence in our chosen actions.  Instead of using the phrase "creation of jobs" with an emphasis on "jobs" (in which the vision of those jobs is based on the past), we need to shift emphasis to that of "creation."  The types of work that will exist in the future have been redefined.  The structure for jobs may not even be corporate.  We may, in fact, have redefined the entire structure of business.

Juxtaposition causing irony, or reversal of intention

There are a number of businesses or services that most of us would just rather avoid. Doctor, emergency plumber, auto body repair are a few examples.  But we recognize the necessity of these businesses in our lives. We are grateful to those persons who have skills as well as kindness during terrible times.  We think of these individuals with gratitude, from time to time, but this is typically not a seasonally-oriented fondness.

I just came back from my mailbox. Imagine getting a business Christmas card from the funeral service that handled the death of a family member that occurred in February?  Did I really need to be reminded that someone who was here last Christmas, isn't here this Christmas?  Of course, the card didn't literally say this.  It contained the usual cheery and politically correct non-denominational "Seasons Greetings."  It was signed by everyone at the funeral business (some probably hadn't even met me).  Those who I did meet earlier in the year were good, kind people. I'm sure the intentions may have been good, but the effect ambushed me with sadness.

Some companies rule out sending business "holiday" cards due to costs.  (But the industry persists. Just google it.)  Businesses need to consider not only costs in terms of money, but the costs in terms of the reversal of intention.

Good intentions, but serious consequences

In my continued perusal of the 1,990-page House health care bill, I have come upon an interesting exception to the mandatory purchase of insurance. It will become a rather nice loophole, or at least a good alternative if one cannot face the proposed $5,000 medical insurance "cost sharing" (after unspecified premiums, but including a $1,500 deductible) each year for individuals, and if one does not wish to pay the proposed 2.5% of adjusted gross income penalty for not having insurance.

"(5) RELIGIOUS CONSCIENCE EXEMPTION.— 
(A) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) shall not apply to any individual (and any qualifying child residing with such individual) for any period if such individual has in effect an exemption which certifies that such individual is a member of a recognized religious sect or division thereof described in section 1402(g)(1) and an adherent of established tenets or teachings of such sect or division as described in such section." 

Cause-and-effect thinking is critical while making decisions. Simply asking "If we resolve this issue in this manner, what might happen?"  It is hard to imagine such a test having been made before the above clause was made a part of the Bill.

What will happen when people "find" religion, and then later "lose" it at the time their health becomes critically endangered?

Is the government overstepping its scope by declaring which religions in the U.S. are considered "valid" religions?  How would that designated list of "acceptable religions" sit with those who believe choice of faith and belief systems are the individual right of citizens in this country and do not necessarily require belonging to an "established" religion?

From a slightly different angle, there are other questions that arise:

If persons of any faith are still required to contribute to the public school system, even if they send their children to their own faith's system of schools, why should persons be exempt from a mandatory payment into a health system based on their religious belief?  One can understand rejecting all forms of health care offered to one on religious grounds.  However, just as one might refuse a public education, it would seem that the obligation to pay for the country's health system, as with education, should not be waived.

Cans of worms are being opened with some of the exemptions that are being included in this Bill, because while overly detailed focus has been put on some areas, the potential follow on effects in others have not been carefully anticipated.

Thank you for not calling.

A quiet evening. One is settling into a good book. Maybe even trying to watch the news or a film.  The phone rings.  As a registrant of the National Do Not Call Registry, and but a few days out from an election, one is pretty much assured that this interruption will be a political "robocall."

One wonders if the candidate's campaign strategist has even thought through the ramifications of this method of "solicitation of votes."  If a constituent registers for the National Do Not Call Registry, does the candidate's strategist think that receiving a phone call (even if legal) is going to thrill this constituent?  Do they think that the fact that the "voice" on the other end of the phone is a robot is going to delight that person even more?

The irritation of these calls surpasses that of pop up messages on the internet blocking what one is reading.  Are these candidates actually so deluded to think that they can irritate a vote out of someone?  And a vote in their favor?

Legislation has been introduced to "outlaw" this type of campaigning.   I imagine there are many who are asking "Why wait for legislation?  Vote for the candidate who does not call."   Surely, if one could simply anticipate this reaction, a smart candidate will discontinue this annoying mechanism of "communication."

Signing on for Faith, or Religion