Home manage Las Vegas Review-Journal
  Jobs Cars Homes Shopping Travel Weddings Golf Best of Las Vegas Photo   Search:

RECENT EDITIONS
Thu Fri Sat Sun Mon Tue Wed

Opinion


VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: 'Proudly Engineered in America'

For her birthday I bought the brunette a cat door.

I realize that on the list of great romantic gifts -- the one with "surprise getaway to Tahiti" and "romantic cruise down the Seine" near the top -- this entry ranks somewhere down near "cordless electric drill."


Most Popular Stories
  • J.C. WATTS: Bad dog food for the Democrats
  • EDITORIAL: Leaving Las Vegas -- alone
  • VIN SUPRYNOWICZ: Exposing the 'secure our borders' lie
  • LETTERS: President delivers another blow to Las Vegas
  • LETTERS: Mayor doesn't deserve to be labeled a 'racist'
  • THOMAS MITCHELL: The audacity of hypocrisy
  • LETTERS: Death of Yucca Mountain not worth a news release?
  • EDITORIAL: Hiking permits
  • LETTERS: Suspend sports, reorganize district to save money
  • LETTERS: Yucca Mountain presents an opportunity




  • But if you'd spent months having to get up twice a night to let various feline companions in or out of the sliding glass door as they bugled their urgent need to go hunt moths in the moonlight, or whatever the heck it is they do out there, you might be a little less hasty to condemn.

    Not that the gift actually did any good. As it turns out, the Fur People -- both the normally intelligent female and the one generally referred to as "the dork" -- are clearly convinced this little swinging plastic door is some kind of demonic Kitty Guillotine. They draw away from it, hissing and cowering, and now insist on being let out the (conventional) door at the far end of the living room, instead. No good deed goes unpunished.

    But meantime, at the home improvement warehouse, I asked the saleskid if the panels above the actual cat port were opaque. He said they were. Once we got to looking at it, I realized they were transparent -- either glass or some kind of laminate. We'll get back to that.

    On the box was an American flag. I didn't pay much attention. I suppose it's nice to "buy American," but since American stockholders can buy interest in Asian factories just as easily as an Ohio tractor factory can be owned by someone in Osaka, I consider it a fairly fruitless pursuit.

    When I got the box home, I found the packagers had been more creative than that. What the box actually said, next to the waving stars and stripes, was "Proudly Engineered in America."

    Immediately below that, for the benefit of shoppers who were not themselves proudly engineered in America, it said "Disenado tecnicamente y con orgullo en los Estados Unidos." And, finally, over in the middle of the box, "made in Thailand."

    This is no longer shocking. We've exported most of our industrial jobs. The hardworking Thais probably manufactured this thing on computer-guided machine tools purchased at a recent American bankruptcy auction, carefully taken apart, and shipped to Bangkok. If they can figure out how to manufacture the thing so inexpensively that they can undersell any American competitor even after paying to ship it 10,000 miles, that's capitalism, that's division of labor, fine with me.

    Except we do have to realize one thing. The notion that the American saleskid who sold me the cat door -- the one who pretty clearly didn't understand the definition of the word "opaque" -- has a legitimate long-term expectation of making more than the hourly worker who ran the machine that milled that aluminum window frame, just because he's American, is doomed.

    Yes, the door was "engineered" in America. Because it has to fit our sliding glass doors (duh.) Engineered, I'm sure, by a graduate of a fine American graduate engineering school.

    Who, in all likelihood, was born in Asia.

    I'll bet the supervisor of the Thai factory where that door was made knows the definition of the word "opaque."

    Competition is real, and now worldwide. Are we ready?

    -- -- --

    I was perusing the Net while taking a few days off recently, when I encountered the following news dispatch, posted with an impressive color photo of the U.S. House of Representatives in session:

    "WASHINGTON -- After months of committee meetings and hundreds of hours of heated debate, the United States Congress remained deadlocked this week over the best possible way to deny Americans health care.

    " 'Both parties understand that the current system is broken,' House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporters Monday. 'But what we can't seem to agree upon is how to best keep it broken, while still ensuring that no elected official takes any political risk whatsoever. It's a very complicated issue.'

    " 'Ultimately, though, it's our responsibility as lawmakers to put these differences aside and focus on refusing Americans the health care they deserve,' Pelosi added.

    The story was a joke, originally posted at www.theonion.com.

    But the real joke is that it's not far off the mark. If anyone really wanted to make health care more "affordable" (a more worthwhile goal might be to make it more lucrative and less of a bookkeeping headache for doctors, so the best ones would stay at it), the answer would almost certainly start with:

    1) Eliminating the 25 percent of medical tests that are unneeded but now performed just as "insurance" by installing a loser-pays tort system to limit frivolous "pain and suffering" lawsuits;

    2) Repeal Medicare and Medicaid entirely, getting the federal government out of the health care business, except that;

    3) A law or constitutional amendment may be required, barring the states from using their "licensing" monopoly to artificially limit entry into the profession (why shouldn't we have the same price competition between hospitals as we have between cell phone providers -- with the same expectation of ever-better service at ever-lower prices?) and further preventing the states from restricting the sale of real health insurance policies within their borders -- policies free to offer risk-pooling for medical catastrophes only, without jacking up costs by mandating specific coverages.

    The state of Massachusetts, for example, now mandates 52 separate coverages, including in-vitro fertilization, a service used by only a tiny percentage of Bay Staters, while this politically "mandated coverage" costs every one of their neighbors an extra $1,000 per year in insurance premiums.

    As Ann Coulter and others have correctly pointed out, what we have in this country today is not true "health insurance," but rather "pre-paid medical care." Your car insurance doesn't cover routine fill-ups and oil changes (if it did, we'd have a "car insurance affordability crisis"), so why should your "health insurance" have anything to do with paying part of your bill for visiting your doctor's office? "Insurance" with a $2,000 deductible, designed to kick in only in the event of a rare medical catastrophe, would be a very different thing -- and far more affordable.

    Congress doesn't want affordability -- with those who still refuse to buy insurance learning some very tough lessons about personal responsibility. What the congresscritters want is to continue buying votes by promising to hand people free stuff -- this time, medicines and medical services.

    When they're told they can't even print enough Monopoly money to make this work, they go to Plan B: order someone else to give the voters free stuff. If these "designated providers" object, point, scream and shout, "They're rich! They're rich!"

    This -- complete with thugs to beat up dissenters -- was tried in St. Petersburg in 1917. Anyone know how that's working out?

    Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Review-Journal and author of the books "Send in the Waco Killers" and "The Black Arrow." See www.vinsuprynowicz.com/, http://www.lvrj.com/blogs/vin/, and www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?sortby=0&vci=51238921.

    Newsvine Digg Fark Technorati reddit StumbleUpon del.icio.us Slashdot Propeller Mixx Furl Twitter MySpace Facebook Google Bookmarks Yahoo! Bookmarks Windows Live Favorites Ask MyStuff myAOL Favorites

    Leave Your Comment 22 Reader Comments
    Terms & Conditions
    The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The reviewjournal.com does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please notify the web editor.

    Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 48 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
    Current Word Count:

    Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.

    Bark Collar wrote on August 25, 2009 06:56 AM: Give your pet their own special cat door. Cat Doors provide your cat with the freedom to come and go as they please without requiring you to let them in and out every time. Selecting a quality Cat Door can help save energy during the hot and cold seasons. Choose a Cat Door large enough for your pet to enter and exit comfortably and safely. Cat Doors should have a closing panel for times when you want to secure your Cat Door. Cat Door or Cat Flap gives you and your cat the freedom they deserve.


    John F wrote on August 24, 2009 05:25 PM: Cuffs2Tight,

    Feel a little better now? Good. I'm glad I could give you the opportunity to vent your spleen.

    This is what you wrote: "John F thinks you are a bigot..."

    So when you say in your last post that you never said that, you were lying.

    It does not follow that only bigots make bigoted remarks. It's quite possible that Mr. Suprynowicz merely expressed himself badly, and no bigotry was intended. I'd like to give him the benefit of that doubt, even if you wouldn't.

    Let me see.......

    I'm going to ask the follwoing of Mr. Suprynowicz. Mind you, my remarks aren't directed at you. Don't be offended by them. This is simply a question for Mr. Suprynowicz.

    Mr. S.,

    You don't think that Cuffs2Tight might actually be six different kinds of idiot, do you? Do you think that perhaps I was correct when I said that it was actually his collar that is too tight and all oxygen has been cut off from his brain?

    Remember, I asked the question of Mr. Suprynowicz. Please don't take any offense.


    Dave Lincoln wrote on August 24, 2009 04:52 PM: 2 things for Vin:

    1) I think the problem of unknowledgeable and unhelpful sales people will slowly change due to the high unemployment rate (I know it is especially high in your state and Las Vegas.)

    There are plenty of Americans that will do good work here, contrary to what the commenter down below had to say. It's just that it's got to pay more than one can earn by lying on the couch watching 999 channels of satellite TV while waiting for the mailman to bring that government "safety net" check. But, I know you are all over this, so I am not telling you anything you don't know here.

    2) Get 1 or 2 computer mouse pads and see if you can staple, tack, or nail them across a suitable opening in your door. (This is for the cats, BTW) You must arrange them so that they can flop away from the opening; I prefer to the inside of the house. The cats will get used to them - they are opaque, but also, they are more insulating than the store-bought door (unless the wind can blow directly at it). American ingenuity - it's not gone, just highly surpressed by governments all over. Yes, my spelling sucks today. No, I don't care.


    Cuffs2Tight wrote on August 24, 2009 02:04 PM: Jon F, the "F" must be for "Fool." First, I clearly said you suggested Vin made a bigoted REMARK. Any sentient being could read, and understand the difference. That would exclude you Fool.

    Second, I was asking Vin HIS thoughts on your REMARKS about HIM. I know this is difficult to understand, especially for someone who spends his every waking minute laboring away at his keyboard posting on message boards. Fashion yourself as some sort of a Professor, I bet.

    And finally FOOL, or Mr. F, if you prefer, even assuming arguendo that you simply noted that Vin made a bigoted REMARK, it necessarily follows that only bigots make bigoted REMARKS, likewise with RACISTS. Now, I suppose I should provide a definiton of the word NECESSARLY for you, Mr. Fool.

    Rant away Jon Fool. It gives you something to do. What an idiot you are. Jerk.


    Titus wrote on August 24, 2009 10:53 AM: Forcing everyone into an expensive pre-paid medical care HMO plan (as HR3200 tries to) is at best a windfall profit generator for the insurance industry and at worst at road to single-payer serfdom.

    For my part, I have a portfolio of insurance policies to provide for my family should I die, become disabled or require thousand of dollars of medical care. What I *don't* need is to spend $12K/year for a superfluous HMO because Big Brother tells me to.


    Bill Smith wrote on August 24, 2009 07:51 AM: I see Patrick is right about one thing. The market is rigged and it is rigged by government.


    Bill Smith wrote on August 24, 2009 07:44 AM: I see John F is very ignorant when it comes to health insurance at least. I have a $2000 deductible. The only doctor I see fairly regularly is a chiropractor, which does not count towards the deductible. The only things that I pay until it is met for seeing a specialist. I also pay a low monthly payment since I don’t run to the doctor when I have a cold. Same for my family.


    Paolo wrote on August 23, 2009 05:50 PM: John F,

    In a free society, the vast majority of people could and would protect themselves against medical catastrophe, and at very low rates, because these events are, by nature, rare and easy to insure against.

    There is a very small and marginal minority of citizens in any society who are unable to care for themselves. In a free society, they are cared for either by pro bono work on the part of doctors, or by private charities. And private charities tend to try and teach those citizens how to care for themselves, unlike government welfare systems, which oddly seem to enjoy keeping them dependent, generation after generation.


    John F wrote on August 23, 2009 05:33 PM: Paolo,

    I don't see it as a non-issue as long as taxpayers end up bearing the expense of treating those who the insurance industry no longer finds profitable.

    Or do you suggest that a free society is one in which those without the means to provide for their own medical insurance are free to die?


    John F wrote on August 23, 2009 05:06 PM: Cuffs2Tight,

    I'd say it's your collar that's too tight, not your cuffs.

    Before you start beating up on people who speak Spanish, learn English.

    bigot. n. One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

    How does Mr. Suprynowicz's remark not qualify on that count? Where does he get off assuming that someone whose primary language is Spanish wouldn't be proud to be an American?

    I didn't call Mr. Supreynowicz a bigot, I said he made a bigoted remark. There's a difference. If and when I ever make such a remark I invite you or anyone else to call me to task for it.

    Jonah Goldberg's tactic is typical of people who have no argument. Its' schoolyard stuff and it amounts to, "No I'm not! You are!" Have I ever said anything on these pages to lead anyone to believe that I would hold certain groups to different standards than others? No. But you hurl that slur at me in order to divert attention from the original offensive remark. It won't work.

    Jon H.,

    Excellent points, as always.

    1. There already is justification for general welfare programs; it's the general welfare clause in Article 1, section 8.

    2. Amen to that, brother. I've been a proponent of a flat tax on income for just that reason.

    3. I could go for that if there were protections written in that would ensure that insurance providers couldn't drop people who are current on their premiums.

    4. Again, I agree in principle. I like the idea that any plan offered could have a lower limit, but not an upper one. In other words, insurance companies wouldn't have to cover anything below a certain amount, but would have to cover everything above it.


    Read All Comments