Thinking in terms of Tradeoffs: Back to Basics

Some of you have requested that I blog on the Healthcare discussions taking place in the U.S. That sounded like such an excellent idea that I wanted to delve into the topic with both feet. However, I changed my mind after speaking with a few U.S. citizens.

That is, I have come to the conclusion that we may 1st need a discussion on thinking in terms of tradeoffs, before we discuss a specific topic.

For those of you who are not familiar with this mode of thinking, here is the Rush guide to thinking in terms of tradeoffs:

All throughout our lives we are presented with a myriad of choices. In response to these choices, we are supposed to (1) weigh the pros and cons of each option, (2) select the option that yields the greatest benefit, and (3) act on our selection.

In step 1 is where thinking in terms of tradeoffs begins. Here is where we should realize that every time we make a decision to do something, we are simultaneously deciding not to do something else. (It is the later part of this statement that requires our concentration.)

To think that one can gain something without loosing something is asinine. Every time we are presented with an option (especially where the shifting of large sums of money are concerned) we need to ask ourselves, “What are we being asked to give up?”

Most of us are familiar with this mode of thinking when purchasing durable goods (appliances, vehicles, etc.), but we fail to extend this thinking to other areas of our lives (i.e., relationships, voting, procreation, etc.).

I am simply suggesting that we evaluate all of our options similarly; we should scrutinize those that market only the pros of an option!

Same-Sex Marriage: Making sense of the legal battle

Note: Before reading any further, please understand that this post dose not discuss weather Same-Sex Marriage is right or wrong. It, instead, explores the objectives of the legal battle(s) surrounding this issue.

Over the past 10 years I’ve been loosely following the battle over same-sex marriage in the U.S. Initially, it seemed that equal treatment under the law was at the center of the conflict. That is, same-sex couples wanted the same benefits, rights and protections afforded to opposite-sex couples.

Only recently, years after the Vermont legislature granted these rights, did I realize that the word “marriage” was really at the center of the controversy. Same-sex couples not only want the same remuneration, they want to redefine the term marriage. They want the term marriage to include same-sex couples. (Having marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil unions for same-sex couples produces a type of segregation; same-sex couples want the segregation to end.) In opposition to this proposed change stand religious conservatives. The religious conservatives say that marriage is a religious term that defines a union between a man and a woman.

It is at this point (as I understand it) the battle appears to be at a standstill. And, it is at this point I lost understanding of what was going on! (I don’t understand why the lawyers representing same-sex couples want to continue to battle over the word marriage.)

I am not a lawyer, but it seems like it’s a good time to change ones strategy. Instead of taking on the religious conservatives, they should consider turning their sights back to the courts.

Why not side with the religious community and admit that “marriage” is a religious construct? Then (focusing on the separation between church and state) fight to have all unions recognized as civil unions in the eyes of the law. That is, every time a couple (opposite or same-sex) wants to unite legally they would have to apply for civil union certificates. That way, the segregation will end (everyone will use the same terminology), everyone would be treated equally under the law, and religious conservatives can feel vindicated. (Marriages can be performed separately from the state).

Internet, Love, and the Catholic Church

About a week ago, Richard (my friend in the U.K.) told me that he had fallen in love with a young lady he met over the internet. He has never seen the lady in person, but he assured me that they were indeed kindred spirits.

No, he did not meet her at one of those shabby Asian bride websites. They were blog mates. She would comment on his postings at his U.K. blog and he would comment on her postings at her Thailand blog. They liked each others views so much, they started writing and calling each other every day.

Richard had some reservations about the relationship, however. So, he asked Bud and I what we thought about the situation. Quite naturally, I was apprehensive about the long distance, internet based love affair. How do you know it is not a scam? How do you know she’s not really a man? How do you know that they won’t have the gimp (a character from the movie Pulp Fiction) waiting for you when you visit her?

Although I had these questions in my mind, I encouraged Richard to continue talking to Elsa and give us a few days to evaluate the situation.

Bud and I decided to take a scientific approach in resolving Richard’s dilemma. So, we borrowed a few pointers from Dr. Ingrid Guerra-López’s book on Performance Evaluation. (She also discusses research methods in her book.)

1. Identify the question(s) that needs answering – how do you verify that the person is who he/she claims to be?
2. Identify what data needs to be collected – location, employment, education, relations, and associations.
3. Identify the tool(s) for collecting the data --?
4. Plan data collection process.
5. Collect the data.
6. Analyze and report the data to the stakeholder (Richard and Elsa).

Needless to say, we got stuck at the step 3. We needed to find an organization/institution that could perform such a task. The organization needs to be both international and impartial.

After mulling over the idea for almost a day, the only organization we could come up with was the Roman Catholic Church. The church is a colossal network where one priest could easily contact another, anywhere in the world.

Conceivably, Richard could attend his local church; Elsa could attend her local church; the priests from each church could contact one another and verify that both parties are who they purport to be.

If this idea was to work, couldn’t the Catholic Church help to stem some of the internet dating scams?

Michael Jackson (The Greatest Entertainer of All Time) is NOT dead

If Elvis is still alive, then Michael will live forever. Not only will he live forever, he is now a child; he is having the childhood he never got to enjoy.

Jesse Jackson: Shakedown Artist?

For one reason or another, I’ve been thinking about the comments that Reverend Jesse Jackson made about (then Senator) Barack Obama last year. Reverend Jackson said something to the effect that Obama was, “talking down to Black Folks,” during his 2008 father’s day speech.

Shortly after Reverend Jackson’s comments were televised, I received a flurry of emails and text messages from my African-American friends defaming the reverend. Some communications talked about his personal life and others contained links to web postings alleging that Reverend Jackson was a shakedown artist. The articles charge that Jesse Jackson extorts money from companies in the name of diversity. (Companies must work with his organization or endure boycotts.)

After I waded through all the e-mails and texts, I found myself musing the following question: Is Jesse Jackson really a shakedown artist? Before I could answer the question, I had to grapple with the words extort, diversity, and boycott being used in the same context.

Are the authors of these “articles” saying that Reverend Jackson visits various corporations and demand that they embrace diversity in their hiring practices (i.e., hire more people of color and women)? Then, he and the people he represents refuse to buy the company's product(s), if the company does not comply?

If this is what they are saying, does this not make Reverend Jackson the master of the economic concept known as dollar voting?

For those of you who do not understand dollar voting, here is the Rush abridged version from Economics 101:

In a marketing system, each individual is a sovereign. Each person has the ability to determine which businesses succeed or fail. That is, each time you purchase a company’s product and/or service, you tell that company you like/need its product, service (how they treat you), and/or operations. When you withhold your dollars, you let the organization know the opposite is true. You do not like/need its product, service, and/or operations

That being said, is it wrong to exercise your dollar voting rights collectively? Or, is it extortion?