Take a look at the sports page of any newspaper, or watch the sports segment on your local news, and a troubling pattern is emerging. For years many die-hard fans and critics have complained about the stratospheric salaries and endorsement deals that professional athletes have been blessed with.
There is a very legitimate argument that this is a free-market system, and that basically this is what the consumer wants. The sports entertainment consumer wants to see the best athletes on the best teams, and the supply/demand equation means higher prices/salaries.
At what point will there be a correction or back-lash? Is there no ceiling on the amount of money that sports fans will pump into this system? Ultimately, the money that funds these salaries comes from the fans of these sports. When do they become so disgusted that the money begins to dry up?
Look at the effects of this money today:
1. NBA referee Tim Donaghy has been accused of having a relationship with "low-level" mafia contacts in order to alter the outcome of NBA games in such a way as to be beneficial to these gamblers.
2. Michael Vick, the Quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons is accused of organizing a dog-fighting ring which resulted in the barbaric deaths of an unknown number of dogs. While his greed probably didn't lead him to do this, his large salary did subsidize the creation of this organization.
3. Within the past week at least three riders in the Tour de France have been linked to doping. Of course, for years the sport has been plagued with doping allegations, and last years winner was disqualified for testing positive for doping.
4. Barry Bonds is on the cusp of breaking Hank Aaron's home-run record. Most consider this record the most hallowed in sports. Tarnishing this accomplishment are the constant allegations that Bonds used steroids to improve his power, and break the record. Just today a chemist from Balco has identified Bonds directly as having been provided steroids.
I certainly don't know how much more the average sports fan can take before they allocate their entertainment dollars elsewhere. However, these stories and others may have no effect at all. I would expect more and more of this type of story in the future, if the fans don't balk at this. In other words, if the current state of professional sports is not getting the consumer's attention, it likely never will.
Ultimately, these fans control the money, and by extension, they ultimately control the behavior of these sports leagues. You just have to follow the money.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Paul Potts singing Opera
I haven't been able to post for a while, but here is a triple-feature to make up for it.
Paul Potts is a cell-phone salesman who was working at "Car Phone Warehouse" when he made this audition for "Britains Got Talent".
I think it's safe to say that he can quit his day job.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
State Farm Accused of Conspiring with Xactware
A Federal suit has been brought by a couple in Louisiana who allege that State Farm conspired with a software firm named Xactware to low-ball repair estimates, and consequently underpay claims caused by Hurricane Katrina.
You can find an article here from the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
After reading the article I am left a little confused. The suit names State Farm and Xactware, but also alleges that State Farm used numbers for replacement costs and repairs that were lower than the numbers Xactware provided.
What is especially interesting to me is the argument against using Xactware. According to the article Xactware is used by 16 of the top 20 insurers to help adjust claims. The law-suit alleges that Xactware conspires with the insurers to develop lower pricing for repairs, and that this is a direct result of insurers being exempted from much of Federal Anti-Trust legislation.
First of all, the reasoning behind these exemptions is to allow for competition by smaller companies. Companies such as State Farm or Allstate handle millions of claims each year, and have large volumes of data regarding claims payments. However, a smaller or regional company might not have the best data. Therefore, allowing these companies to share data with each other through Xactware or some other entity, allows for the "small-guy" to have access to the same information. It also benefits the larger companies in seeing that they are paying similar amounts for services that other insurers are paying for. In other words, in theory, this helps everyone, including consumers who benefit from more companies being able to compete in the market-place.
Now, for what really puzzles me. Many of these companies also use Xactware to develop the estimated replacement cost of dwellings when initially writing coverage on homes. This feature presumably uses the same data in order to develop what the total replacement cost of a home would be should a total loss occur, and make sure that an insured is carrying the proper coverage.
I am guessing that if you ask any insurance agent about "replacement cost estimates" for homeowner's policies that you will hear a groan. It is a constant source of mis-understandings, and one of the most difficult concepts to help a consumer to understand.
In my experience the estimates for replacement cost developed by Xactware are pretty similar to actual construction costs when comparing what someone paid for a home that was recently built. This leads me to believe that Xactware is pretty accurate in these estimates.
The problem comes when a home is not brand new. When a home is 10, or 20 or 50 years old, the market value will typically be quite a bit lower than replacement cost. A 1500 square foot home built in 1980 might sell at $75 per square foot in a particular market, while construction costs for new construction might run $95 per square foot in the same market. Keeping this example pretty simplistic, and ignoring the value of the land, this leads to a difference of $30,000 between "market value" or what a customer paid for the property and "replacement cost" or what it would take to replace it.
Most customers are able to understand this after an explanation, however, many believe that this is just a way for the insurer to "jack up" their premium. The see that they are paying $112,500 for a home, and the insurer wants to cover it for $132,500 thereby increasing their premium, and paying for coverage they don't feel they need. After all they are only investing $112,500. When it comes to paying the premium, the customer (somewhat understandably) wants to pay the bare minimum.
So, this becomes interesting, that when a policy is written, there is conflict that the insurer, through the use of Xactware is inflating costs, and over-charging. However, when a claim is filed, the same insurer and Xactware are accused of low-balling estimates. The insurer and Xactware will tell you that they use the same data for both estimates.
On the surface, it seems like no matter what the insurer does they are accused of taking advantage of the customer.
You can find an article here from the New Orleans Times-Picayune.
After reading the article I am left a little confused. The suit names State Farm and Xactware, but also alleges that State Farm used numbers for replacement costs and repairs that were lower than the numbers Xactware provided.
What is especially interesting to me is the argument against using Xactware. According to the article Xactware is used by 16 of the top 20 insurers to help adjust claims. The law-suit alleges that Xactware conspires with the insurers to develop lower pricing for repairs, and that this is a direct result of insurers being exempted from much of Federal Anti-Trust legislation.
First of all, the reasoning behind these exemptions is to allow for competition by smaller companies. Companies such as State Farm or Allstate handle millions of claims each year, and have large volumes of data regarding claims payments. However, a smaller or regional company might not have the best data. Therefore, allowing these companies to share data with each other through Xactware or some other entity, allows for the "small-guy" to have access to the same information. It also benefits the larger companies in seeing that they are paying similar amounts for services that other insurers are paying for. In other words, in theory, this helps everyone, including consumers who benefit from more companies being able to compete in the market-place.
Now, for what really puzzles me. Many of these companies also use Xactware to develop the estimated replacement cost of dwellings when initially writing coverage on homes. This feature presumably uses the same data in order to develop what the total replacement cost of a home would be should a total loss occur, and make sure that an insured is carrying the proper coverage.
I am guessing that if you ask any insurance agent about "replacement cost estimates" for homeowner's policies that you will hear a groan. It is a constant source of mis-understandings, and one of the most difficult concepts to help a consumer to understand.
In my experience the estimates for replacement cost developed by Xactware are pretty similar to actual construction costs when comparing what someone paid for a home that was recently built. This leads me to believe that Xactware is pretty accurate in these estimates.
The problem comes when a home is not brand new. When a home is 10, or 20 or 50 years old, the market value will typically be quite a bit lower than replacement cost. A 1500 square foot home built in 1980 might sell at $75 per square foot in a particular market, while construction costs for new construction might run $95 per square foot in the same market. Keeping this example pretty simplistic, and ignoring the value of the land, this leads to a difference of $30,000 between "market value" or what a customer paid for the property and "replacement cost" or what it would take to replace it.
Most customers are able to understand this after an explanation, however, many believe that this is just a way for the insurer to "jack up" their premium. The see that they are paying $112,500 for a home, and the insurer wants to cover it for $132,500 thereby increasing their premium, and paying for coverage they don't feel they need. After all they are only investing $112,500. When it comes to paying the premium, the customer (somewhat understandably) wants to pay the bare minimum.
So, this becomes interesting, that when a policy is written, there is conflict that the insurer, through the use of Xactware is inflating costs, and over-charging. However, when a claim is filed, the same insurer and Xactware are accused of low-balling estimates. The insurer and Xactware will tell you that they use the same data for both estimates.
On the surface, it seems like no matter what the insurer does they are accused of taking advantage of the customer.
Monday, June 11, 2007
Insurance and Bad Drivers
There is an interesting story developing in California regarding one of California's State Senators, and her apparent poor driving. Here is a good story which looks at the impact on California's tax-payers.
I have to give credit to David Rossmiller for his earlier post here which brought this to my attention, and includes a couple of earlier articles on this story.
The situation is that we apparently have a driver who has had more than her fair share of accidents. To wit: 1. The current accident in which she apparently side-swiped a guard-rail, and then rear-ended another vehicle, injuring the driver and shaking up the child in the car; 2. Side-swiping a bus on June 8, 2006 causing over $5,000 in damage; 3. Two "minor fender benders while parking" in 2005; and 4. Running a stop sign in 1996 and injuring another driver.
This particular driver is a California State Senator, and as such is provided a 2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid to use for state business, which I infer from the articles includes her daily commuting. During "official business" the insurance for this vehicle is provided by the State of California. This is a benefit provided to the Legislator's, and as such these "risks" are not underwritten. In other words, if you are elected to the California Legislature, and you are legally entitled to drive, you are automatically insured in the State's vehicles no matter how bad your driving record.
In a "normal" underwriting structure an insurance company would certainly review this type of claims history, and I am guessing that many, if not most companies would now be trying to divorce themselves from the risk that Sen. Migden represents, if they hadn't done so already. At the very least, she would presumably be paying some hefty surcharges for this accident/claims record.
However, the citizens of California don't get much of a voice in the matter. The State of California is "self-insured" and as such, is on the hook for these claims. Short of a change in State Policy this practice will continue, and I doubt that these legislators would vote to end this benefit.
What is the effect of this lack of underwriting? The article listed above mentions that the State's annual "frequency" of claims is 22.5 per 100 vehicles, which compares with 14.8 per 100 vehicles for California drivers in general. That is approximately a 52% higher frequency than the general population.
Most insurers attempt to write "better-than-average to average" drivers, or at the very least price in additional charges for drivers who are "worse-than-average". Taking on anyone who walks in the door, or in this case, any legislator makes for some bad risks.
This is the reason that insurers cancel folks after they've had accidents, or don't write new business that has previously had bad experience. If an insurer is not allowed to weed out the bad risks, they end up with much higher claims expenses than their competitors. In this case the California tax-payers are the insurer, and they are the ones footing the bill for this program.
Within an insurance company, this would have some pretty dire consequences. If you are not allowed to get rid of these bad risks, your rates must increase to pay their claims. In essence, the good drivers are forced to subsidize the bad drivers.
Good drivers, who don't like their insurance rates increasing start to shop around. If they find a better deal, they will leave. The bad drivers, tend to stay put, because nobody else will take them on, or nobody else offers them a more attractive price for their coverage. If not kept in check, this can cause a nasty spiral of higher premiums, higher claims expenses, and a shrinking book of business.
This type of "death spiral" doesn't apply to the California situation necessarily, but it does point out that the tax-payers are paying for careless drivers, who are driving some pretty fancy cars. If I was a California citizen, I would be loudly protesting this program, starting with providing brand-new high dollar vehicles to bad drivers in the first place.
I have to give credit to David Rossmiller for his earlier post here which brought this to my attention, and includes a couple of earlier articles on this story.
The situation is that we apparently have a driver who has had more than her fair share of accidents. To wit: 1. The current accident in which she apparently side-swiped a guard-rail, and then rear-ended another vehicle, injuring the driver and shaking up the child in the car; 2. Side-swiping a bus on June 8, 2006 causing over $5,000 in damage; 3. Two "minor fender benders while parking" in 2005; and 4. Running a stop sign in 1996 and injuring another driver.
This particular driver is a California State Senator, and as such is provided a 2007 Toyota Highlander Hybrid to use for state business, which I infer from the articles includes her daily commuting. During "official business" the insurance for this vehicle is provided by the State of California. This is a benefit provided to the Legislator's, and as such these "risks" are not underwritten. In other words, if you are elected to the California Legislature, and you are legally entitled to drive, you are automatically insured in the State's vehicles no matter how bad your driving record.
In a "normal" underwriting structure an insurance company would certainly review this type of claims history, and I am guessing that many, if not most companies would now be trying to divorce themselves from the risk that Sen. Migden represents, if they hadn't done so already. At the very least, she would presumably be paying some hefty surcharges for this accident/claims record.
However, the citizens of California don't get much of a voice in the matter. The State of California is "self-insured" and as such, is on the hook for these claims. Short of a change in State Policy this practice will continue, and I doubt that these legislators would vote to end this benefit.
What is the effect of this lack of underwriting? The article listed above mentions that the State's annual "frequency" of claims is 22.5 per 100 vehicles, which compares with 14.8 per 100 vehicles for California drivers in general. That is approximately a 52% higher frequency than the general population.
Most insurers attempt to write "better-than-average to average" drivers, or at the very least price in additional charges for drivers who are "worse-than-average". Taking on anyone who walks in the door, or in this case, any legislator makes for some bad risks.
This is the reason that insurers cancel folks after they've had accidents, or don't write new business that has previously had bad experience. If an insurer is not allowed to weed out the bad risks, they end up with much higher claims expenses than their competitors. In this case the California tax-payers are the insurer, and they are the ones footing the bill for this program.
Within an insurance company, this would have some pretty dire consequences. If you are not allowed to get rid of these bad risks, your rates must increase to pay their claims. In essence, the good drivers are forced to subsidize the bad drivers.
Good drivers, who don't like their insurance rates increasing start to shop around. If they find a better deal, they will leave. The bad drivers, tend to stay put, because nobody else will take them on, or nobody else offers them a more attractive price for their coverage. If not kept in check, this can cause a nasty spiral of higher premiums, higher claims expenses, and a shrinking book of business.
This type of "death spiral" doesn't apply to the California situation necessarily, but it does point out that the tax-payers are paying for careless drivers, who are driving some pretty fancy cars. If I was a California citizen, I would be loudly protesting this program, starting with providing brand-new high dollar vehicles to bad drivers in the first place.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
This Guy Really Likes His Health Drink.
You'll probably have to read this to believe it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19067777/
I'm curious to know how he is going to prove his case. I wouldn't think that Boost Energy Drink would have this effect. It would certainly hamper most "normal" exercise routines I would think.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19067777/
I'm curious to know how he is going to prove his case. I wouldn't think that Boost Energy Drink would have this effect. It would certainly hamper most "normal" exercise routines I would think.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
Mass Media is an Easy Target. . .But This?
I was just made aware today of a heinous crime that took place in Knoxville Tennessee.
What is especially interesting about this crime is the reason that it was being discussed. The crime itself was really not important to the conversation. What was being pointed out was the mainstream media's reporting of this crime.
You see, it appears that a young couple who were out on a date were car-jacked, tortured and murdered by a group of five individuals. Really sad in and of itself. However, the catalyst for the discussion was the fact that the mainstream media didn't cover this story nationally. Outside of Knoxville, you probably didn't hear about it.
Do you feel like you are missing a piece of the story? If so, it is because you are. You see, the young couple was white, and their attackers were 5 African-Americans.
It seems that the white-folk are constantly being attacked, and subjugated by other races, and our news-media just don't report it enough. Or at least that's what some would have you to believe. They would point to all the coverage that the Duke Lacrosse story, or the James Byrd murder in Texas received, and compare that to this case and make the argument that the media is only interested in demonizing the white race, when whites attack minorities.
I don't buy it. I disagree with the handling of the Duke case, but there are hundreds if not thousands of other cases that go the other direction. The Duke case has the added "pull factor" of sex and class to go along with race. The James Byrd murder was pure and simple racism. In this case as near as I can tell, it was neither of the above. These folks weren't attacked for their race, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Leonard Pitts, Jr. has written an excellent column on the subject here: http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/125806.html. While I don't always agree with him, his reasoning is pretty good on this one. The crime here is not the media's coverage, or lack thereof, but the torture and murder of these two young people. The perpetrators of that crime are awaiting trial, and I assume will be punished appropriately. I'm not the biggest fan of the media, but let's try to criticize them for things they have actually done wrong. There is enough of that to go around. There is no need to invent controversy at the expense of relations between races.
What is especially interesting about this crime is the reason that it was being discussed. The crime itself was really not important to the conversation. What was being pointed out was the mainstream media's reporting of this crime.
You see, it appears that a young couple who were out on a date were car-jacked, tortured and murdered by a group of five individuals. Really sad in and of itself. However, the catalyst for the discussion was the fact that the mainstream media didn't cover this story nationally. Outside of Knoxville, you probably didn't hear about it.
Do you feel like you are missing a piece of the story? If so, it is because you are. You see, the young couple was white, and their attackers were 5 African-Americans.
It seems that the white-folk are constantly being attacked, and subjugated by other races, and our news-media just don't report it enough. Or at least that's what some would have you to believe. They would point to all the coverage that the Duke Lacrosse story, or the James Byrd murder in Texas received, and compare that to this case and make the argument that the media is only interested in demonizing the white race, when whites attack minorities.
I don't buy it. I disagree with the handling of the Duke case, but there are hundreds if not thousands of other cases that go the other direction. The Duke case has the added "pull factor" of sex and class to go along with race. The James Byrd murder was pure and simple racism. In this case as near as I can tell, it was neither of the above. These folks weren't attacked for their race, they were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Leonard Pitts, Jr. has written an excellent column on the subject here: http://www.miamiherald.com/285/story/125806.html. While I don't always agree with him, his reasoning is pretty good on this one. The crime here is not the media's coverage, or lack thereof, but the torture and murder of these two young people. The perpetrators of that crime are awaiting trial, and I assume will be punished appropriately. I'm not the biggest fan of the media, but let's try to criticize them for things they have actually done wrong. There is enough of that to go around. There is no need to invent controversy at the expense of relations between races.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
Love and Action
Alexander Pruss has an excellent essay on the nature of love, and its relationship with our actions.
We have all been guilty in the past and present of "hurting those we love". Why, and/or how do we do this when we supposedly love the other. This is a question that mankind has contemplated since time began, through many mediums.
It is difficult to argue with his reasoning, and it comes back to a conclusion that I have made before in my personal life. Love is an action, and/or a decision with which we constantly interact. For those I love, it is more than an ethereal "feeling", but a conscious decision that I make, to love. By interacting with God's grace, I am able to display this love for others. If I reject this grace, it is much more difficult, if not impossible to do so.
Read the essay and see what you think.
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/06/is_love_dispose.html#more
We have all been guilty in the past and present of "hurting those we love". Why, and/or how do we do this when we supposedly love the other. This is a question that mankind has contemplated since time began, through many mediums.
It is difficult to argue with his reasoning, and it comes back to a conclusion that I have made before in my personal life. Love is an action, and/or a decision with which we constantly interact. For those I love, it is more than an ethereal "feeling", but a conscious decision that I make, to love. By interacting with God's grace, I am able to display this love for others. If I reject this grace, it is much more difficult, if not impossible to do so.
Read the essay and see what you think.
http://rightreason.ektopos.com/archives/2007/06/is_love_dispose.html#more
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Unfair Competition?
Unfair Competition? Boy, I'll say. . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18777393/
This is funny, but also sad. To think that some corporate lawyer somewhere is justifying his job by suing a drug dealer.
Tell me again why our court dockets are so jam-packed?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18777393/
This is funny, but also sad. To think that some corporate lawyer somewhere is justifying his job by suing a drug dealer.
Tell me again why our court dockets are so jam-packed?
Monday, May 28, 2007
This just makes me sick.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18910561/
This just makes me sick to my stomach. This is just rotten to the core. I don't care what your political views are, these flags were left in remembrance of family members. Real People.
I can't even begin to understand what would cause someone to do such a thing.
This just makes me sick to my stomach. This is just rotten to the core. I don't care what your political views are, these flags were left in remembrance of family members. Real People.
I can't even begin to understand what would cause someone to do such a thing.
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Memorial Weekend Sports?
I couldn't be more dissappointed in the sports-world this weekend.
The NBA playoffs are lousy. I can't stay awake long enough to get into any of the series, and just when I think I may be pulling for a particular team, the refs blow the whistle (or don't) and ruin it for me.
I don't know what game those guys are playing, but it is nothing like the game of basketball that I grew up with. There does not seem to be any cohesive rules. It's become a free-for-all out there. I can't wait for College ball to start back up.
Then the Indy 500 was on today. Rain, and accidents. That about sums it up. If the race wasn't under caution, it was red-flagged for rain. Not much excitement there either.
The most exciting news in the sports world this weekend appears to be Mike Vick's involvement in dog fighting. "Outside the Lines" on ESPN, went way outside this morning showing actual footage of dog fights. I about lost my frosted flakes. It's not pretty.
All I can say is that Vick better have an option C available. No more football, and no more dog fighting will leave him wanting some excitement. . . .Maybe he can go to Vegas with PacMan Jones.
The NBA playoffs are lousy. I can't stay awake long enough to get into any of the series, and just when I think I may be pulling for a particular team, the refs blow the whistle (or don't) and ruin it for me.
I don't know what game those guys are playing, but it is nothing like the game of basketball that I grew up with. There does not seem to be any cohesive rules. It's become a free-for-all out there. I can't wait for College ball to start back up.
Then the Indy 500 was on today. Rain, and accidents. That about sums it up. If the race wasn't under caution, it was red-flagged for rain. Not much excitement there either.
The most exciting news in the sports world this weekend appears to be Mike Vick's involvement in dog fighting. "Outside the Lines" on ESPN, went way outside this morning showing actual footage of dog fights. I about lost my frosted flakes. It's not pretty.
All I can say is that Vick better have an option C available. No more football, and no more dog fighting will leave him wanting some excitement. . . .Maybe he can go to Vegas with PacMan Jones.
Friday, May 25, 2007
Gas Prices and Logic
I had an interesting conversation/debate today regarding Gas prices (which are currently quite painful). I am baffled by our society's inability to apply logic to this situation. I understand peoples anger regarding the price at the pump, but I don't understand the blind rage that leads good-natured folks to vilify oil companies.
These oil companies have invested countless billions in exploration and production, and deserve a return on this investment. Not only do they deserve an return, but they owe it to their share-holders. The money invested is not from their own piggy-bank, but is that of investors the world over, including most anyone that has a mutual fund, or is involved with a pension plan.
The discussion I found myself in seemed to center around the notion of "price gouging". This is truly a great topic, but one I feel must be defined. It is simply too easy to lob the "gouging grenade" into the argument without any true support of it.
I held the position that we must first define what gouging is. Is it an absolute dollar amount? Or is it a particular profit margin that becomes too outrageous?
Really, for consistency's sake it has to be a profit margin, or some similar measure of "profit" vs. "expense" expressed in a ratio.
What was interesting to me was that I couldn't get an answer pinned down. The conversation kept being pulled in the direction of blind anger toward these "robber barons". The truth of the matter is that when you compare the profit margins of the oil companies to other businesses their margins are actually lower than many other Fortune 500 companies.
Sadly, it really doesn't matter. Everyone seems to complain, but no-one is adjusting their behavior very much. The only way to truly affect prices would be to reduce demand, and the only way that is happening is for us to make a dramatic reduction in the amount of gasoline we use as a society. We vote with our vehicles on this every day, and the vote is continuously in favor of high prices.
These oil companies have invested countless billions in exploration and production, and deserve a return on this investment. Not only do they deserve an return, but they owe it to their share-holders. The money invested is not from their own piggy-bank, but is that of investors the world over, including most anyone that has a mutual fund, or is involved with a pension plan.
The discussion I found myself in seemed to center around the notion of "price gouging". This is truly a great topic, but one I feel must be defined. It is simply too easy to lob the "gouging grenade" into the argument without any true support of it.
I held the position that we must first define what gouging is. Is it an absolute dollar amount? Or is it a particular profit margin that becomes too outrageous?
Really, for consistency's sake it has to be a profit margin, or some similar measure of "profit" vs. "expense" expressed in a ratio.
What was interesting to me was that I couldn't get an answer pinned down. The conversation kept being pulled in the direction of blind anger toward these "robber barons". The truth of the matter is that when you compare the profit margins of the oil companies to other businesses their margins are actually lower than many other Fortune 500 companies.
Sadly, it really doesn't matter. Everyone seems to complain, but no-one is adjusting their behavior very much. The only way to truly affect prices would be to reduce demand, and the only way that is happening is for us to make a dramatic reduction in the amount of gasoline we use as a society. We vote with our vehicles on this every day, and the vote is continuously in favor of high prices.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
I guess I'll dip my toes into the blogosphere and see how well this works. This will be a work in progess for some time as I figure out how to construct a good blog.
I have some very diverse interests ranging from Insurance, to Poker, to Denver Broncos Football, to Religion. From time to time I will post about any and all of these, and other topics in-between.
I have some very diverse interests ranging from Insurance, to Poker, to Denver Broncos Football, to Religion. From time to time I will post about any and all of these, and other topics in-between.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
