Protected Speech
I sit in the middle on this page with an objective to raise points of interest to anyone, regardless of political view. Writing on this page brings scrutiny to my opinions and exposes myself to debate and argument. I have learned it takes courage to stand in front of the crowd for what I believe, and I always work to ensure there are no personal attacks in my writing, but often I see columnists and bloggers using personal attacks in an effort to drive home their point. Fueling these attacks is the veil of anonymity; no longer signing a letter or a blog response with your name and address creating an inflammatory environment. Furthermore, I do not believe the First Amendment was intended to protect anonymous speech, but the Supreme Court has taken a different view.
I absolutely believe our democracy thrives on protected speech; it differentiates us from the oppression found around the world when ideas and opinions are given. Appropriately, libel and slander laws are also in place to prevent abuse of protected speech.
A few recent examples of my concern over whether anonymous speech is protected are important as I feel the cowardice of anonymity fuels defamatory personal attacks. For example, Tiger Woods is fighting in the Court of public opinion. Legitimate writers are identifiable and must “source” their comments. Sadly though, I have read news articles on various web sites where anonymous bloggers attack Tiger’s character and make crude comments about him personally. These anonymous people don’t know him and have no basis for those comments, but behind the veil of anonymity these people weakly assert defamatory opinions.
Similarly, people either love or hate Sarah Palin. As a country we are as divided on feelings about her as we are on college football in Florida. We all know the story of Palin and her rise to the highest position of leadership in Alaska, but yet people attack her personally. Opinions focus not on Palin’s accomplishments as a politician, but instead follow David Letterman’s method of crude, personal attacks. A quick look at the Huffington Post article regarding the Newsweek cover featuring Palin’s “legs” showed over 1,000 commentators and I must wonder how the tone of those comments would change had real names and addresses been used.
Personally, I feel the problem with the protection of anonymous speech is it allows for cowardice and unfounded statements. But, the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled anonymous speech is protected. The much cited 1995 Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre vs. Ohio Elections Commission reads: “Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.”
Although protected, sadly anonymous speech typically leaves the door open to defamation and the burden to prove otherwise is on the victim. Thus, this empowers questionable publications and writings and can sway public opinion on unfounded claims. I will continue to sign my name and always write with the understanding that I stand by my opinions and am not ashamed to hide behind anonymity. I encourage you to consider what you want to say and whether it is anonymity or your beliefs that give you the strength to share your opinion.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Merry Christmas from Congress
As the Christmas holiday comes upon us this week I feel compelled to take a look at our government and what has happened in the past year. Driving this is speculation over whether Senator Harry Reid will force a vote on healthcare Christmas Eve. Personally, I hope the vote is squashed, not because of my feelings on government run health care, but because of the actions and methods of this new Democratic Party run government.
I am concerned by the cloak of secrecy and selling votes to force healthcare to fruition. In contrast to Congress’ actions right now, I have had the opportunity to sit on several government boards in Florida and the “Sunshine Laws” have been drilled into me. On one hand they are frustrating as these laws regarding open, transparent government make it difficult to negotiate contracts, bid on projects, and protect the tax payer in some instances. But, this smaller issue is far outweighed by eliminating secrecy in government. Florida is renowned for putting a high priority on the public's right of access to governmental meetings and records. In fact, the principles of open government are not only embodied in Florida statutes, but also are guaranteed in the state Constitution.
Similar to the Sunshine Laws, President Obama proposed “Sunlight Before Signing” stating “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” However, this has been done far less than 50% of the time since taking office. Additionally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared on September 24th she would make the healthcare bills available for review at least 72-hours prior to any votes, but as we know that was not the case. The American people learned how this new majority party government would work when the stimulus bill passed last spring was voted on without accommodation for members of Congress to read it, rushed through for signature, and even President Obama did not follow his own directive for “Sunlight Before Signing”.
Open government protects us, the citizens from potential tyranny by our elected officials. I am dismayed at closed-door meetings in Washington, the President calling members of a single party to the Whitehouse, or caucus meetings to promise hundreds of millions of dollars to a single congressional district or state. Sadly, at the national level straw polls are taken, potential votes counted, and strategies are determined to allow some members of congress to even vote “Nay” in an effort to protect them from political backlash over certain legislation. Thus, a bill may pass by the slimmest majority, but a majority nonetheless when a single party controls Congress; all in sharp contrast to Florida’s open government laws.
This week much political maneuvering regarding procedures will take place while most of us are distracted with holiday events. One must wonder why if the proposed healthcare bill is critical to one-sixth of our economy, our well-being, and best for the country then why must negotiation be done secretly. Like Santa Claus, the Senate will come together Christmas Eve to deliver the “gift” of healthcare over the objection of the majority of Americans.
As the Christmas holiday comes upon us this week I feel compelled to take a look at our government and what has happened in the past year. Driving this is speculation over whether Senator Harry Reid will force a vote on healthcare Christmas Eve. Personally, I hope the vote is squashed, not because of my feelings on government run health care, but because of the actions and methods of this new Democratic Party run government.
I am concerned by the cloak of secrecy and selling votes to force healthcare to fruition. In contrast to Congress’ actions right now, I have had the opportunity to sit on several government boards in Florida and the “Sunshine Laws” have been drilled into me. On one hand they are frustrating as these laws regarding open, transparent government make it difficult to negotiate contracts, bid on projects, and protect the tax payer in some instances. But, this smaller issue is far outweighed by eliminating secrecy in government. Florida is renowned for putting a high priority on the public's right of access to governmental meetings and records. In fact, the principles of open government are not only embodied in Florida statutes, but also are guaranteed in the state Constitution.
Similar to the Sunshine Laws, President Obama proposed “Sunlight Before Signing” stating “Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, I will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.” However, this has been done far less than 50% of the time since taking office. Additionally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously declared on September 24th she would make the healthcare bills available for review at least 72-hours prior to any votes, but as we know that was not the case. The American people learned how this new majority party government would work when the stimulus bill passed last spring was voted on without accommodation for members of Congress to read it, rushed through for signature, and even President Obama did not follow his own directive for “Sunlight Before Signing”.
Open government protects us, the citizens from potential tyranny by our elected officials. I am dismayed at closed-door meetings in Washington, the President calling members of a single party to the Whitehouse, or caucus meetings to promise hundreds of millions of dollars to a single congressional district or state. Sadly, at the national level straw polls are taken, potential votes counted, and strategies are determined to allow some members of congress to even vote “Nay” in an effort to protect them from political backlash over certain legislation. Thus, a bill may pass by the slimmest majority, but a majority nonetheless when a single party controls Congress; all in sharp contrast to Florida’s open government laws.
This week much political maneuvering regarding procedures will take place while most of us are distracted with holiday events. One must wonder why if the proposed healthcare bill is critical to one-sixth of our economy, our well-being, and best for the country then why must negotiation be done secretly. Like Santa Claus, the Senate will come together Christmas Eve to deliver the “gift” of healthcare over the objection of the majority of Americans.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Civil Rights
Civil rights are a class of rights and freedoms protecting individuals from unwarranted government action and ensuring one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. I believe most of us take these rights for granted and have no appreciation for these freedoms conveyed upon us. Furthermore, we turn a blind eye to the litigation by brave citizens taking place everyday across the country, as there generally is no publicity, but yet these court cases effect all of us in ways we cannot imagine.
Protection of civil rights is not an issue of political values, whether you are on the Right or the Left. These are rights neutral to politics, but often the court cases surrounding an issue become the source of political argument instead of the issue at hand. For example, my wife and I recently watched the movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt” covering the landmark Supreme Court Case about first amendment rights and protection of speech. When the arguments were made the Moral Majority dominated public opinion and the Right was blind to the larger concern of speech versus Larry Flynt’s association with the porn industry. Ironically, this case provides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with the freedom they need to criticize and satirize the current president.
In Georgia a current case is before the Federal Court of Appeals regarding gun rights and carrying guns on MARTA (the public transit system) when properly licensed with a firearm’s permit. Anti-gun groups from the Left argue these rights should not persist in the name of safety or terrorist concerns. From a civil rights standpoint though, the interesting fact in this case is the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Georgia Carry Organization (GCO) has argues stopping a citizen, who is committing no crime, to check ID and firearms licensure is the same as the Supreme Court’s previously affirmed position that police cannot stop a motorist, who is committing no crime, just to check for a valid driver’s license. A loss in a case like this will permit law enforcement to stop anyone regardless of circumstances.
Similar to the case above, every American has willfully given up civil rights since the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001. To cross the borders between states every traveler is subject to verification of identity and search including scanning, pat-down, and removal of shoes. Of course, this takes place at airports and applies to millions of daily passengers. With no clear directive, TSA has taken wide sweeping liberties to extend authority to include screening for crimes which may or may not be in progress. For instance, in 2008 an aide, Steve Bierfeldt, to Congressman Ron Paul was detained by TSA at St. Louis-Lambert International Airport and questioned although no crime was committed. In this case, he refused to answer questions regarding why he was carrying $4,700 in cash and had no reason to comply because no crime was in process and it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Fortunately for all travelers, he prevailed and TSA is slowly issuing new policies limiting screenings to searches for “terrorist related” items.
It is easy to criticize Larry Flynt if you are offended by pornography. It is easy to criticize the actions of the GCO if you do not support gun rights. It is easy to defend the actions of TSA in the name of protection. However, it is hard to stand up to the government, fight battles in court, and protect civil rights. These are the unsung heroes of the Left and the Right, fighting battles for all of us each day.
Copyright (C) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Civil rights are a class of rights and freedoms protecting individuals from unwarranted government action and ensuring one's ability to participate in the civil and political life of the state without discrimination or repression. I believe most of us take these rights for granted and have no appreciation for these freedoms conveyed upon us. Furthermore, we turn a blind eye to the litigation by brave citizens taking place everyday across the country, as there generally is no publicity, but yet these court cases effect all of us in ways we cannot imagine.
Protection of civil rights is not an issue of political values, whether you are on the Right or the Left. These are rights neutral to politics, but often the court cases surrounding an issue become the source of political argument instead of the issue at hand. For example, my wife and I recently watched the movie, “The People vs. Larry Flynt” covering the landmark Supreme Court Case about first amendment rights and protection of speech. When the arguments were made the Moral Majority dominated public opinion and the Right was blind to the larger concern of speech versus Larry Flynt’s association with the porn industry. Ironically, this case provides Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck with the freedom they need to criticize and satirize the current president.
In Georgia a current case is before the Federal Court of Appeals regarding gun rights and carrying guns on MARTA (the public transit system) when properly licensed with a firearm’s permit. Anti-gun groups from the Left argue these rights should not persist in the name of safety or terrorist concerns. From a civil rights standpoint though, the interesting fact in this case is the 4th Amendment protection from unreasonable search and seizure. The Georgia Carry Organization (GCO) has argues stopping a citizen, who is committing no crime, to check ID and firearms licensure is the same as the Supreme Court’s previously affirmed position that police cannot stop a motorist, who is committing no crime, just to check for a valid driver’s license. A loss in a case like this will permit law enforcement to stop anyone regardless of circumstances.
Similar to the case above, every American has willfully given up civil rights since the terrorist acts of September 11th, 2001. To cross the borders between states every traveler is subject to verification of identity and search including scanning, pat-down, and removal of shoes. Of course, this takes place at airports and applies to millions of daily passengers. With no clear directive, TSA has taken wide sweeping liberties to extend authority to include screening for crimes which may or may not be in progress. For instance, in 2008 an aide, Steve Bierfeldt, to Congressman Ron Paul was detained by TSA at St. Louis-Lambert International Airport and questioned although no crime was committed. In this case, he refused to answer questions regarding why he was carrying $4,700 in cash and had no reason to comply because no crime was in process and it was a violation of his 4th Amendment rights. Fortunately for all travelers, he prevailed and TSA is slowly issuing new policies limiting screenings to searches for “terrorist related” items.
It is easy to criticize Larry Flynt if you are offended by pornography. It is easy to criticize the actions of the GCO if you do not support gun rights. It is easy to defend the actions of TSA in the name of protection. However, it is hard to stand up to the government, fight battles in court, and protect civil rights. These are the unsung heroes of the Left and the Right, fighting battles for all of us each day.
Copyright (C) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Big Brother IS Watching
The next time you enter Wal-Mart look up and smile while walking into the store. It is stunning, but you will see a dozen cameras scanning the parking lot. Do the same at a major intersection while waiting for the light to change; note the cameras at the top of the traffic lights and count cameras watching the intersection. Willfully, the public has submitted to the pervasiveness of closed circuit television in the name of perceived safety. Ben Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For years we have not been able to go in a store without “Theft TV” watching our actions in the name of crime prevention. Municipalities are adding cameras throughout their cities to prevent crimes. Currently, no one has more than the British; in 2001 the country had over one million cameras, by 2005 that number had quadrupled. One measure used is the number of cameras per thousand people. In England, the borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.
The web site, “patrolcctv.com” advertises the latest camera proposals, are vehicles equipped with CCTV. The site advertizes it “stabilizes images, reads license plates at 250FT.” These always on systems analyze license plate numbers to search for a relationship between vehicles, names, and criminals. Furthermore, the date, time, and GPS location of the vehicle may be stored for future reference in a database. Just like software scanning state databases of driver’s license photos for “probable hits” the same will be done for vehicles. Ultimately, all of us now stand in a police line-up every day by virtue of having a driver’s license and are under constant stake-out by driving vehicles.
The saturation of cameras in Britain and the United States has soared due to successes when major crimes are caught on film. Of course, the camera makes police work much easier and the public tends to feel a sense of safety. I on the other hand am bothered by the pervasiveness of CCTV and the potential for misuse by authorities or private agencies. I believe government, when given the opportunity, will ultimately use data-mining, facial recognition software, and other surveillance means to identify potential criminals. At the same time, I believe such use suffers from a high probability of potential error. Sadly, the burden of proof will shift from one of guilt made by prosecutors to one of innocence argued by citizens.
On one side the claim for cameras is obvious: increased public safety and crime prevention. On the other hand, there appears to be no conclusive evidence cameras are a crime deterrent. We believe George Orwell’s “1984” would never happen, but we are now living with Big Brother watching everything we do. Willfully, we submitted in the belief of safety and instead, like Franklin warned, have lost our liberties. Look up and smile the next time you think you are alone.
The next time you enter Wal-Mart look up and smile while walking into the store. It is stunning, but you will see a dozen cameras scanning the parking lot. Do the same at a major intersection while waiting for the light to change; note the cameras at the top of the traffic lights and count cameras watching the intersection. Willfully, the public has submitted to the pervasiveness of closed circuit television in the name of perceived safety. Ben Franklin wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
For years we have not been able to go in a store without “Theft TV” watching our actions in the name of crime prevention. Municipalities are adding cameras throughout their cities to prevent crimes. Currently, no one has more than the British; in 2001 the country had over one million cameras, by 2005 that number had quadrupled. One measure used is the number of cameras per thousand people. In England, the borough of Wandsworth has the highest number of CCTV cameras in London, with just under four cameras per 1,000 people. Its total number of cameras - 1,113 - is more than the police departments of Boston, Johannesburg and Dublin City Council combined.
The web site, “patrolcctv.com” advertises the latest camera proposals, are vehicles equipped with CCTV. The site advertizes it “stabilizes images, reads license plates at 250FT.” These always on systems analyze license plate numbers to search for a relationship between vehicles, names, and criminals. Furthermore, the date, time, and GPS location of the vehicle may be stored for future reference in a database. Just like software scanning state databases of driver’s license photos for “probable hits” the same will be done for vehicles. Ultimately, all of us now stand in a police line-up every day by virtue of having a driver’s license and are under constant stake-out by driving vehicles.
The saturation of cameras in Britain and the United States has soared due to successes when major crimes are caught on film. Of course, the camera makes police work much easier and the public tends to feel a sense of safety. I on the other hand am bothered by the pervasiveness of CCTV and the potential for misuse by authorities or private agencies. I believe government, when given the opportunity, will ultimately use data-mining, facial recognition software, and other surveillance means to identify potential criminals. At the same time, I believe such use suffers from a high probability of potential error. Sadly, the burden of proof will shift from one of guilt made by prosecutors to one of innocence argued by citizens.
On one side the claim for cameras is obvious: increased public safety and crime prevention. On the other hand, there appears to be no conclusive evidence cameras are a crime deterrent. We believe George Orwell’s “1984” would never happen, but we are now living with Big Brother watching everything we do. Willfully, we submitted in the belief of safety and instead, like Franklin warned, have lost our liberties. Look up and smile the next time you think you are alone.
Thursday, November 26, 2009
Monitoring the Judiciary
Government in the United States creates three distinct branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative and Executive branches are scrutinized, questioned, and monitored for performance daily. In November of each year we return to the polls to keep incumbents or vote them out of office; an easy decision to make based on their public actions in office. I argue we do not hold our judicial branch to the same level of accountability, but yet the decisions made by judges have more irreparable individual and societal impact than the other two branches of government.
In many states, judges are appointed to the bench by elected political leaders. This is true for example of the Supreme Court. When a Supreme Court vacancy comes about the media scrutinizes a President’s appointment as the Supreme Court Justice will sit for life and have much influence over the future of the country. Significant cases such as Roe v. Wade and Miranda are familiar to all of us. At the same time, lesser known cases such as Kelo v. City of New London can impact any private property owner.
At the state and county level the method of putting a judge on the bench may either be by appointment or vote. Although preferred, voting brings risks as many voters lack education about judicial candidates, and another conflict is created because who wants to see a judge campaigning for election? I can just imagine a platform like, “I’ll let you off every time if you elect me!” More important than election though is an adequate recall or confirmation process. In Volusia County this exists, but there is a bigger problem; we have no way to gauge the performance of the judiciary.
In sharp contrast to the local judicial branch, the legislative and executive branches of government are easy to monitor as voting on legislation is tracked, collated, and reported. When judges make bad decisions the only course of action is a complaint to the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JCQ) or filing an Appeal. The JCQ is a one-sided process allowing little opportunity for fairness to the complainant, and the appellate process is quite expensive. Recent Supreme Court appointee Justice Sotomayor is an excellent example of the failure of a proper judicial monitoring process. In her case Appeals were filed and her rulings were overturned 60% of the time. She may be a nice woman with sensitivities to certain groups, but her abuse of judicial discretion cost those who had to appeal to overturn her failed rulings. In other words, good people had to spend time and money to recover what was correct but had to argue against her errors in her position. An average person making bad decisions more than 5-10% of the time would be fired from their job, she averaged 60%.
I propose the establishment of a monitoring system to educate the public regarding judicial rulings and trends. I have heard speculation from friends about judges that tend to favor one group over another regardless of circumstances. An example of monitoring would be a Family Court system to track rulings by judge and by parent. The same could be done regarding fines in traffic court, sentencing by race and sex in criminal court, and whether favoritism is given to corporations or individuals in civil court.
Many of us believe justice is blind and pride ourselves in the belief judicial prejudice does not exist in the judiciary as we believe it does in other countries. However, with no quantifiable monitoring system I argue good people and families are harmed irreparably by the unaccountable Judiciary every day.
Government in the United States creates three distinct branches: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. The Legislative and Executive branches are scrutinized, questioned, and monitored for performance daily. In November of each year we return to the polls to keep incumbents or vote them out of office; an easy decision to make based on their public actions in office. I argue we do not hold our judicial branch to the same level of accountability, but yet the decisions made by judges have more irreparable individual and societal impact than the other two branches of government.
In many states, judges are appointed to the bench by elected political leaders. This is true for example of the Supreme Court. When a Supreme Court vacancy comes about the media scrutinizes a President’s appointment as the Supreme Court Justice will sit for life and have much influence over the future of the country. Significant cases such as Roe v. Wade and Miranda are familiar to all of us. At the same time, lesser known cases such as Kelo v. City of New London can impact any private property owner.
At the state and county level the method of putting a judge on the bench may either be by appointment or vote. Although preferred, voting brings risks as many voters lack education about judicial candidates, and another conflict is created because who wants to see a judge campaigning for election? I can just imagine a platform like, “I’ll let you off every time if you elect me!” More important than election though is an adequate recall or confirmation process. In Volusia County this exists, but there is a bigger problem; we have no way to gauge the performance of the judiciary.
In sharp contrast to the local judicial branch, the legislative and executive branches of government are easy to monitor as voting on legislation is tracked, collated, and reported. When judges make bad decisions the only course of action is a complaint to the Judicial Qualifications Commission (JCQ) or filing an Appeal. The JCQ is a one-sided process allowing little opportunity for fairness to the complainant, and the appellate process is quite expensive. Recent Supreme Court appointee Justice Sotomayor is an excellent example of the failure of a proper judicial monitoring process. In her case Appeals were filed and her rulings were overturned 60% of the time. She may be a nice woman with sensitivities to certain groups, but her abuse of judicial discretion cost those who had to appeal to overturn her failed rulings. In other words, good people had to spend time and money to recover what was correct but had to argue against her errors in her position. An average person making bad decisions more than 5-10% of the time would be fired from their job, she averaged 60%.
I propose the establishment of a monitoring system to educate the public regarding judicial rulings and trends. I have heard speculation from friends about judges that tend to favor one group over another regardless of circumstances. An example of monitoring would be a Family Court system to track rulings by judge and by parent. The same could be done regarding fines in traffic court, sentencing by race and sex in criminal court, and whether favoritism is given to corporations or individuals in civil court.
Many of us believe justice is blind and pride ourselves in the belief judicial prejudice does not exist in the judiciary as we believe it does in other countries. However, with no quantifiable monitoring system I argue good people and families are harmed irreparably by the unaccountable Judiciary every day.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Constitutional Charity
I received feedback on the column I wrote, “Death and Taxes,” in September. Overall the reader agreed with my position, but found herself bothered by my lack of compassion for needy people. In the column I argued we do everything we can to avoid death, but not to avoid taxes. I accept we need to pay taxes to the extent we need to support a civilized society, but I take issue with tax collection for other purposes that are non-essential.
She said we have a duty to “take care of those in need” and this position was prompted by her values. I certainly agree with the desire and need to take care of others, and personally I have given time and money to charitable causes. This issue has always seemed to be a bone of contention between people with one side appearing to lack any compassion and the other giving away everything with no concern for consequences. However, I know I am not without compassion and through my actions I know I help those in need. But, I believe this should be done through charity and is not a role of government.
Fortunately, I believe I found the clarity to express my thoughts better; several weeks ago I read a weekly column by writer Frank Miele of the “Daily Inter Lake” in Kalispell, Montana. In his column, he used the historical example of Davey Crockett, the three-term Congressman from Tennessee in the 1820s who found himself confronted by an angry constituent, Horatio Bunce, about Crockett’s recent vote for a bill to provide $20,000 of federal funds fire victims ravaged and left homeless in nearby Georgetown. Crockett was asked, “Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?” Like most of us, Crockett gave a list of reasons about helping others and doing the right thing, giving charity.
"You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me," Bunce said. Upon review, it is obvious, the founding fathers made no accommodation for a constitutional authority of the government to transfer the wealth of one citizen to another through the process of taxation. Modern examples of this would be hurricanes and wildfires. Of course, other more questionable examples abound such as “Cash for Clunkers”, first-time home buyer subsidies, funding shortfalls to the New York unemployment fund, the health insurance reform proposals, and any other federal program providing direct payments and transfers of wealth from one group of citizens to another.
This past summer Tea Parties made headlines, unfortunately they were sensationalized for many wrong reasons. The idea for the Tea Parties was spurned by Rick Santelli on CNBC when he editorialized in outrage over the proposals for government stimulus programs. This outrage was not due to lack of compassion for those in need or lack of concern for America and the economy. It was outrage over the reach of government into individual wealth, no matter how big or small, and the desire to take it and transfer it to others.
Like Davey Crockett I struggle with my personal since of compassion versus constitutional intent. We have a strong document that was meant to create a sound democracy for centuries. Every time it is “interpreted”, ignored, and eroded for social purposes we take away our own liberties and freedoms.
Copyright (c)2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
I received feedback on the column I wrote, “Death and Taxes,” in September. Overall the reader agreed with my position, but found herself bothered by my lack of compassion for needy people. In the column I argued we do everything we can to avoid death, but not to avoid taxes. I accept we need to pay taxes to the extent we need to support a civilized society, but I take issue with tax collection for other purposes that are non-essential.
She said we have a duty to “take care of those in need” and this position was prompted by her values. I certainly agree with the desire and need to take care of others, and personally I have given time and money to charitable causes. This issue has always seemed to be a bone of contention between people with one side appearing to lack any compassion and the other giving away everything with no concern for consequences. However, I know I am not without compassion and through my actions I know I help those in need. But, I believe this should be done through charity and is not a role of government.
Fortunately, I believe I found the clarity to express my thoughts better; several weeks ago I read a weekly column by writer Frank Miele of the “Daily Inter Lake” in Kalispell, Montana. In his column, he used the historical example of Davey Crockett, the three-term Congressman from Tennessee in the 1820s who found himself confronted by an angry constituent, Horatio Bunce, about Crockett’s recent vote for a bill to provide $20,000 of federal funds fire victims ravaged and left homeless in nearby Georgetown. Crockett was asked, “Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?” Like most of us, Crockett gave a list of reasons about helping others and doing the right thing, giving charity.
"You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me," Bunce said. Upon review, it is obvious, the founding fathers made no accommodation for a constitutional authority of the government to transfer the wealth of one citizen to another through the process of taxation. Modern examples of this would be hurricanes and wildfires. Of course, other more questionable examples abound such as “Cash for Clunkers”, first-time home buyer subsidies, funding shortfalls to the New York unemployment fund, the health insurance reform proposals, and any other federal program providing direct payments and transfers of wealth from one group of citizens to another.
This past summer Tea Parties made headlines, unfortunately they were sensationalized for many wrong reasons. The idea for the Tea Parties was spurned by Rick Santelli on CNBC when he editorialized in outrage over the proposals for government stimulus programs. This outrage was not due to lack of compassion for those in need or lack of concern for America and the economy. It was outrage over the reach of government into individual wealth, no matter how big or small, and the desire to take it and transfer it to others.
Like Davey Crockett I struggle with my personal since of compassion versus constitutional intent. We have a strong document that was meant to create a sound democracy for centuries. Every time it is “interpreted”, ignored, and eroded for social purposes we take away our own liberties and freedoms.
Copyright (c)2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Dying in the Ukraine..
Yeah, I am way out there, but..... the first time I ever heard about the Ebola Virus was on that crazy late night AM radio show ("Coast to Coast with Art Bell"). Sounded like sci-fi, but was real. For nearly two weeks I have been reading and watching the early signs of outbreak in the Ukraine - it started at 100,000 and is over 2,000,000 cases now. Tonight was the first time I saw a MSM article about it. The first link will prompt your interest, it has a picture of a dying man. this is the same way flu victims were described in 1918 (read the book this summer). The second link is from the web site I check everyday. The third is from Drudgereport.com. About 4 days ago I told Lee I was struggling with fact or fiction, what is real. NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this issue. But, it continues to grow. It will be interesting to see if it continues and actually makes the news.
Dying Man
Report on Ukraine
From Drudge (UK paper)
Yeah, I am way out there, but..... the first time I ever heard about the Ebola Virus was on that crazy late night AM radio show ("Coast to Coast with Art Bell"). Sounded like sci-fi, but was real. For nearly two weeks I have been reading and watching the early signs of outbreak in the Ukraine - it started at 100,000 and is over 2,000,000 cases now. Tonight was the first time I saw a MSM article about it. The first link will prompt your interest, it has a picture of a dying man. this is the same way flu victims were described in 1918 (read the book this summer). The second link is from the web site I check everyday. The third is from Drudgereport.com. About 4 days ago I told Lee I was struggling with fact or fiction, what is real. NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this issue. But, it continues to grow. It will be interesting to see if it continues and actually makes the news.
Dying Man
Report on Ukraine
From Drudge (UK paper)
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Cable, Cellular, and Lawyers
It is amazing how certain industries seem to survive, regardless of the quality of service they deliver. As a consumer I am pretty easy going, but I do believe in accountability. Basically, I am just old-fashioned, deliver on your word and do what you promise. There are three industries though where this does not to be the case: cable television, cellular telephones, and law.
My experiences with cable and cellular companies began about 20 years ago. This is when I discovered the cable company could promise you an installation arrival time, but that was unrelated to the reality of when they might arrive. Throughout the last 25 years I have planned a day around “getting cable” and found myself at the mercy of the cable company regarding my time. If promised 9:00 am -noon, I have patiently waited and realized at 1:15p no one was coming. What do I do next? Leave? Call? And of course, once cable is installed if it fails or you need upgraded services one will be trapped in automated voice mail systems, in long lines at their offices, or without television.
Cellular telephones were supposed to make my life easier. I bought my first phone in 1988, a Panasonic Transportable, about the size of a dictionary and weighing a couple of pounds. The idea was I would not have to stop at a pay phone to call ahead, reschedule, or stay in touch with my family. As much as it was a novelty at that time, with my $1.50/minute charges, it was a business tool to serve the purpose of making phone calls. However, the phone dropped calls. Every two to three years for the last 20 years I have bought a new phone, always hoping that the latest model would not drop a call. But, the same problems continue today, dropped calls and lousy connections. I learned and never make critical calls on a cellular phone while moving. I have paid thousands of dollars to various companies, after considering all of the mergers, and yet the most basic service piece, making a call, has not been satisfactorily delivered.
Furthermore, the cellular companies have continued to miss the mark as buying a phone is not about telephone service, but cameras, MP3 players, and texting. I just want to make a call. At the same time each of us is personally robbed everyday we use our phone. We are forced to listen to voice mail system prompts that run up our charges. The next time you make a call to a cellular phone, pay attention to how long it takes to wait for the voice mail announcement to complete and leave a message. Or, call your voice mail to retrieve messages. Why can’t I skip the message? After years I know the routine and what to do. But, I am convinced this system is designed to collect a few minutes more from each of us, resulting in millions of profits for the cellular companies.
Attorneys are often the target of jokes and attacks. Most likely this stems from the perception of the lack of quality in the service they deliver. Unlike any other industry I know, this is a professional industry where a non-refundable payment is required before service is rendered. Regardless of the quality of service delivered, your non-refundable retainer has been captured. You have no mechanism to question the quality of service or the process that was used. I am convinced that attorney’s know they deliver the shoddiest services because of this payment process.
Are these rants? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe we are all entitled to a respectful relationship with the vendors and service providers whom we engage. However, when monopolies begin to exist, there is no competition, or there is no process for client satisfaction the quality of service degrades rapidly.
It is amazing how certain industries seem to survive, regardless of the quality of service they deliver. As a consumer I am pretty easy going, but I do believe in accountability. Basically, I am just old-fashioned, deliver on your word and do what you promise. There are three industries though where this does not to be the case: cable television, cellular telephones, and law.
My experiences with cable and cellular companies began about 20 years ago. This is when I discovered the cable company could promise you an installation arrival time, but that was unrelated to the reality of when they might arrive. Throughout the last 25 years I have planned a day around “getting cable” and found myself at the mercy of the cable company regarding my time. If promised 9:00 am -noon, I have patiently waited and realized at 1:15p no one was coming. What do I do next? Leave? Call? And of course, once cable is installed if it fails or you need upgraded services one will be trapped in automated voice mail systems, in long lines at their offices, or without television.
Cellular telephones were supposed to make my life easier. I bought my first phone in 1988, a Panasonic Transportable, about the size of a dictionary and weighing a couple of pounds. The idea was I would not have to stop at a pay phone to call ahead, reschedule, or stay in touch with my family. As much as it was a novelty at that time, with my $1.50/minute charges, it was a business tool to serve the purpose of making phone calls. However, the phone dropped calls. Every two to three years for the last 20 years I have bought a new phone, always hoping that the latest model would not drop a call. But, the same problems continue today, dropped calls and lousy connections. I learned and never make critical calls on a cellular phone while moving. I have paid thousands of dollars to various companies, after considering all of the mergers, and yet the most basic service piece, making a call, has not been satisfactorily delivered.
Furthermore, the cellular companies have continued to miss the mark as buying a phone is not about telephone service, but cameras, MP3 players, and texting. I just want to make a call. At the same time each of us is personally robbed everyday we use our phone. We are forced to listen to voice mail system prompts that run up our charges. The next time you make a call to a cellular phone, pay attention to how long it takes to wait for the voice mail announcement to complete and leave a message. Or, call your voice mail to retrieve messages. Why can’t I skip the message? After years I know the routine and what to do. But, I am convinced this system is designed to collect a few minutes more from each of us, resulting in millions of profits for the cellular companies.
Attorneys are often the target of jokes and attacks. Most likely this stems from the perception of the lack of quality in the service they deliver. Unlike any other industry I know, this is a professional industry where a non-refundable payment is required before service is rendered. Regardless of the quality of service delivered, your non-refundable retainer has been captured. You have no mechanism to question the quality of service or the process that was used. I am convinced that attorney’s know they deliver the shoddiest services because of this payment process.
Are these rants? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe we are all entitled to a respectful relationship with the vendors and service providers whom we engage. However, when monopolies begin to exist, there is no competition, or there is no process for client satisfaction the quality of service degrades rapidly.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
When Should Citizens Fear Their Government?
I recently bought a bumper sticker, “I love my country, but fear my government”. With shocking reality I realized I have more in common with the granola-eating, hemp-wearing, Volvo-driving hippies of the 1960’s counterculture than I do with the citizen conformists I thought I was like. The First Amendment guarantees our right to associate and assemble freely. However, I believe our government is now taking steps to significantly erode this freedom, among other civil liberties, at all levels, federal, state, and local.
Naomi Wolfe, author of “The End of America,” makes a compelling case for fascist America as she compares the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” actions and passing of various legislative pieces to the dictatorships in 1930’s Europe. Personally, I have always been bothered by “The Department of Homeland Security”, domestic wiretapping and surveillance laws, and the overreaching methods of TSA at airports. I had a letter published in another newspaper about the “SS” like methods in use following 9/11 and thereafter found myself on TSA’s watch list. This seemed like more than a coincidence to me. Vigilance is important, but giving up liberties for the perception of safety is the biggest mistake anyone society can make.
In October 2008, for the first time ever, the United States Army stationed troops domestically. The guise of this deployment is to provide a federal response to assist with disasters, terrorism, and crowd control. During Katrina, the private security force “Blackwater” was enlisted to police and enforce martial law. Blackwater has forces stationed at the headwaters to the Great Lakes and on the California border. Each state allows the Governor to call on the National Guard to assist with disasters, or more importantly enforce martial law. In all of these instances our citizenry is allowing civil rights to erode in the name of perceived safety. Do you trust Blackwater?
When the G20 met in Pittsburgh my concern was raised again. Local police in battle regalia carried military assault weapons to use against American citizens. Of more concern Pittsburgh police used an audio cannon manufactured by American Technology Corporation, a San Diego-based company, to disperse protesters outside the G-20 Summit , the first time its LRAD series device has been used on civilians in the U.S. This weapon is funded to local police departments nationwide by grants from the Department of Homeland Security; thus there is no record of which police departments are in possession of this weapon, what training they have undergone, or ability to monitor their plans to deploy these weapons.
With the H1N1 virus creating an atmosphere of unknown possible outbreaks states have seized the opportunity to modify legislation to create quarantines, martial law, take property, and criminalize failure to follow department of health orders; Massachusetts’ Senate approved bill S.2028 (Pandemic Response Bill) is the most appalling example. Nationally, police and military have trained for roadside checkpoints, and the city of Boston has tested an RDIF tracking system for vaccinations. In October police chiefs endorsed spying on neighbors and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI issued circulars to business owners alerting them to watch for possible purchases of certain chemicals and report these purchases as possible terrorism.
Regardless of political view, the erosion of our civil liberties from both sides of the aisle and all levels of government is obvious. Slowly, we are becoming like the countries of Eastern Europe. Am I the only one that sees this resemblance? Sadly, we appear to be willingly giving up our civil liberties in the name of safety.
I recently bought a bumper sticker, “I love my country, but fear my government”. With shocking reality I realized I have more in common with the granola-eating, hemp-wearing, Volvo-driving hippies of the 1960’s counterculture than I do with the citizen conformists I thought I was like. The First Amendment guarantees our right to associate and assemble freely. However, I believe our government is now taking steps to significantly erode this freedom, among other civil liberties, at all levels, federal, state, and local.
Naomi Wolfe, author of “The End of America,” makes a compelling case for fascist America as she compares the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” actions and passing of various legislative pieces to the dictatorships in 1930’s Europe. Personally, I have always been bothered by “The Department of Homeland Security”, domestic wiretapping and surveillance laws, and the overreaching methods of TSA at airports. I had a letter published in another newspaper about the “SS” like methods in use following 9/11 and thereafter found myself on TSA’s watch list. This seemed like more than a coincidence to me. Vigilance is important, but giving up liberties for the perception of safety is the biggest mistake anyone society can make.
In October 2008, for the first time ever, the United States Army stationed troops domestically. The guise of this deployment is to provide a federal response to assist with disasters, terrorism, and crowd control. During Katrina, the private security force “Blackwater” was enlisted to police and enforce martial law. Blackwater has forces stationed at the headwaters to the Great Lakes and on the California border. Each state allows the Governor to call on the National Guard to assist with disasters, or more importantly enforce martial law. In all of these instances our citizenry is allowing civil rights to erode in the name of perceived safety. Do you trust Blackwater?
When the G20 met in Pittsburgh my concern was raised again. Local police in battle regalia carried military assault weapons to use against American citizens. Of more concern Pittsburgh police used an audio cannon manufactured by American Technology Corporation, a San Diego-based company, to disperse protesters outside the G-20 Summit , the first time its LRAD series device has been used on civilians in the U.S. This weapon is funded to local police departments nationwide by grants from the Department of Homeland Security; thus there is no record of which police departments are in possession of this weapon, what training they have undergone, or ability to monitor their plans to deploy these weapons.
With the H1N1 virus creating an atmosphere of unknown possible outbreaks states have seized the opportunity to modify legislation to create quarantines, martial law, take property, and criminalize failure to follow department of health orders; Massachusetts’ Senate approved bill S.2028 (Pandemic Response Bill) is the most appalling example. Nationally, police and military have trained for roadside checkpoints, and the city of Boston has tested an RDIF tracking system for vaccinations. In October police chiefs endorsed spying on neighbors and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI issued circulars to business owners alerting them to watch for possible purchases of certain chemicals and report these purchases as possible terrorism.
Regardless of political view, the erosion of our civil liberties from both sides of the aisle and all levels of government is obvious. Slowly, we are becoming like the countries of Eastern Europe. Am I the only one that sees this resemblance? Sadly, we appear to be willingly giving up our civil liberties in the name of safety.
Sunday, November 01, 2009
Taking a Break
One thing about living in Florida is how easy it is to fall victim to the sensationalism of hurricane reporting by local television stations. We crave wanting to know where Anna, Bill, Claudette and any of our other alphabetical list of storms is headed. It is nearly impossible to escape this invasion of news as the ticker or radar picture instantly showing location, intensity, and projected path of destruction is always on once the storm has been announced. This information invades our lives through print, computers, radio, television, and even local conversation.
I would argue that our lives in general have become much the same way regarding all news. In ancient times (before the 1980s), there were three networks, a public TV station, and changing channels necessitated getting off the couch so our exposure to the news was much more limited. Sure, an AM radio station typically played hourly updates, but our news was only available in the morning, at noon, or on the major networks in the evening. Paul Harvey was the extent of opinion and we recognized him as an entertainer. At night, Johnny Carson poked fun at events of the day, but the monologue was respectful and limited. Now, even local television stations now run two hours of “news” in the evening. Ironically, most of the news is not news though, but polling data reports, conjecture, and opinions.
You’re reading this paper, this page of the paper, and this article. Most likely, like me you enjoy the news and keeping up with information. Recently I realized though, like hurricane news, the political and economic information I enjoy is changing at a slower pace than I desire. I found myself wanting more, craving more and starving for the latest news tidbit to radically change the political landscape. Each day I regularly visit web sites to read newspapers and review news sources. Fortunately, I cancelled cable television over a year ago and am no longer bombarded by the pontificates on different networks sharing their opinions, not reporting news.
Recently, I realized I was feeling a level of anxiety. Nothing bad, nothing in particular caused me anxiety. But instead, like the ongoing threat of a hurricane offshore that will more than likely miss central Florida, I felt the same anxiety watching the news and waiting, anticipating, and starving for the next story detailing some miniscule change in the health care debate or the current economic environment. Thus, I decided to take a break.
This past Sunday I told my wife that my goal for the week was to avoid the “news”. No web sites, no talk radio, no seeking of information that I had no control over and could not impact. However, out of fairness, if I encountered news I would absorb it. So far my experience has been refreshing, like a vacation. I realized I could break my addiction and habit to seeking and looking for news. The next time a hurricane is coming I suggest you try it. A once a day check of conditions is more than adequate. The same holds true for most your exposure to talk radio, cable news, or evening network news. Once a day, read the paper or watch the news. Minute by minute; remember you are subjecting yourself to opinion and conjecture. It’s not worth your time.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
One thing about living in Florida is how easy it is to fall victim to the sensationalism of hurricane reporting by local television stations. We crave wanting to know where Anna, Bill, Claudette and any of our other alphabetical list of storms is headed. It is nearly impossible to escape this invasion of news as the ticker or radar picture instantly showing location, intensity, and projected path of destruction is always on once the storm has been announced. This information invades our lives through print, computers, radio, television, and even local conversation.
I would argue that our lives in general have become much the same way regarding all news. In ancient times (before the 1980s), there were three networks, a public TV station, and changing channels necessitated getting off the couch so our exposure to the news was much more limited. Sure, an AM radio station typically played hourly updates, but our news was only available in the morning, at noon, or on the major networks in the evening. Paul Harvey was the extent of opinion and we recognized him as an entertainer. At night, Johnny Carson poked fun at events of the day, but the monologue was respectful and limited. Now, even local television stations now run two hours of “news” in the evening. Ironically, most of the news is not news though, but polling data reports, conjecture, and opinions.
You’re reading this paper, this page of the paper, and this article. Most likely, like me you enjoy the news and keeping up with information. Recently I realized though, like hurricane news, the political and economic information I enjoy is changing at a slower pace than I desire. I found myself wanting more, craving more and starving for the latest news tidbit to radically change the political landscape. Each day I regularly visit web sites to read newspapers and review news sources. Fortunately, I cancelled cable television over a year ago and am no longer bombarded by the pontificates on different networks sharing their opinions, not reporting news.
Recently, I realized I was feeling a level of anxiety. Nothing bad, nothing in particular caused me anxiety. But instead, like the ongoing threat of a hurricane offshore that will more than likely miss central Florida, I felt the same anxiety watching the news and waiting, anticipating, and starving for the next story detailing some miniscule change in the health care debate or the current economic environment. Thus, I decided to take a break.
This past Sunday I told my wife that my goal for the week was to avoid the “news”. No web sites, no talk radio, no seeking of information that I had no control over and could not impact. However, out of fairness, if I encountered news I would absorb it. So far my experience has been refreshing, like a vacation. I realized I could break my addiction and habit to seeking and looking for news. The next time a hurricane is coming I suggest you try it. A once a day check of conditions is more than adequate. The same holds true for most your exposure to talk radio, cable news, or evening network news. Once a day, read the paper or watch the news. Minute by minute; remember you are subjecting yourself to opinion and conjecture. It’s not worth your time.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Cruise Ships
One of the highlights of a cruise ship trip to the Bahamas is a visit to the local market. Some bargaining will take place; you will feel good about your purchase, getting a great price, and the vendor will have sold one of his wares. This system works and has stood the test of time because there are no price floors or ceilings.
For example if I want to buy a handmade blanket for $20 in the above example with a little negotiating I can buy the blanket for $16. Still not comfortable with the price, I can walk away and the vendor will make a finally offer of $14. Because I know there are three other vendors selling similar, not necessarily the same, blankets nearby I can refuse the offer. Both of us are free to negotiate, up or down, in this scenario. I can pay $14, the vendor can lower his price to $13, or the deal can come to an end.
What would happen if the cruise ship company decided to check each vendor to ensure they were worthy, provide them perks, and guarantee a certain number of customers each day or pay him for any lost business? Furthermore, the cruise ship company agrees they will take $5 from each vendor to guarantee these benefits. In this case, the vendor will be reluctant to freely negotiate; he knows there are additional costs involved in the transaction. And, he also knows the cruise ship will pay him for any lost customers. Suddenly, his willingness to negotiate has been eroded by the establishment of a floor (guaranteed minimum) of business by the cruise ship company.
We can further complicate this scenario by supposing the cruise ship company requires the vendor to charge no more than$15 per blanket for anyone over 62 years old. Of course, people over 62 have much more free time and travel much more because they are large consumers of the cruise ship company’s services and this perk helps the company attract more clients. However, the unintended consequence of this idea is the vendor loses revenue because his costs have not changed but yet he cannot charge more than $15 per blanket to those over 62. Thus, when I approach him, at age 42, his willingness to negotiate with me has been eroded further and I am forced to pay $20 or $21 for the blanket. Throughout the bazaar this is the case because all of the vendors are forced by the cruise ship company to charge less for blankets to older people, and pay the $5 fee (tax) for benefits and perks.
Free markets will work without a problem when left alone as they have for thousands of years. Buyers will always get the lowest price and sellers will maximize profits. Unfortunately, intervention by a single entity can have huge impacts within the market. The same is true in the current health care insurance debate or any other part of our economy where the government injects monies. Anytime this happens one group of individuals will benefit while the rest of the population pays more and subsidizes false market forces. The most recent example was the catastrophic failure and unintended consequences of “cash for clunkers”. As reported, dealers did not come down on prices because the consumer was subsidized by tax payers to take home a car, not to negotiate. Ironically, the biggest beneficiary of this program was foreign labeled dealers, thus monies were artificially transferred via the program to foreign corporations that benefited from the spike in sales.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
One of the highlights of a cruise ship trip to the Bahamas is a visit to the local market. Some bargaining will take place; you will feel good about your purchase, getting a great price, and the vendor will have sold one of his wares. This system works and has stood the test of time because there are no price floors or ceilings.
For example if I want to buy a handmade blanket for $20 in the above example with a little negotiating I can buy the blanket for $16. Still not comfortable with the price, I can walk away and the vendor will make a finally offer of $14. Because I know there are three other vendors selling similar, not necessarily the same, blankets nearby I can refuse the offer. Both of us are free to negotiate, up or down, in this scenario. I can pay $14, the vendor can lower his price to $13, or the deal can come to an end.
What would happen if the cruise ship company decided to check each vendor to ensure they were worthy, provide them perks, and guarantee a certain number of customers each day or pay him for any lost business? Furthermore, the cruise ship company agrees they will take $5 from each vendor to guarantee these benefits. In this case, the vendor will be reluctant to freely negotiate; he knows there are additional costs involved in the transaction. And, he also knows the cruise ship will pay him for any lost customers. Suddenly, his willingness to negotiate has been eroded by the establishment of a floor (guaranteed minimum) of business by the cruise ship company.
We can further complicate this scenario by supposing the cruise ship company requires the vendor to charge no more than$15 per blanket for anyone over 62 years old. Of course, people over 62 have much more free time and travel much more because they are large consumers of the cruise ship company’s services and this perk helps the company attract more clients. However, the unintended consequence of this idea is the vendor loses revenue because his costs have not changed but yet he cannot charge more than $15 per blanket to those over 62. Thus, when I approach him, at age 42, his willingness to negotiate with me has been eroded further and I am forced to pay $20 or $21 for the blanket. Throughout the bazaar this is the case because all of the vendors are forced by the cruise ship company to charge less for blankets to older people, and pay the $5 fee (tax) for benefits and perks.
Free markets will work without a problem when left alone as they have for thousands of years. Buyers will always get the lowest price and sellers will maximize profits. Unfortunately, intervention by a single entity can have huge impacts within the market. The same is true in the current health care insurance debate or any other part of our economy where the government injects monies. Anytime this happens one group of individuals will benefit while the rest of the population pays more and subsidizes false market forces. The most recent example was the catastrophic failure and unintended consequences of “cash for clunkers”. As reported, dealers did not come down on prices because the consumer was subsidized by tax payers to take home a car, not to negotiate. Ironically, the biggest beneficiary of this program was foreign labeled dealers, thus monies were artificially transferred via the program to foreign corporations that benefited from the spike in sales.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Crisis Preparation
I have read a lot about preparation for TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) lately. However, I think there are other issues of greater concern than that which one must consider. I am repeating, changing, and re-writing some of what I have read. But, I go back to the root of what I have always known; preparation is about facing a threat. A threat can be measured three: probability of occurrence, intensity of destruction, and duration. A matrix should be made to consider the likelihood of a threat, where you might be during the occurrence, and what preparations should be made.
Supplies need consideration next. Preparation for supplies can be broken into several categories. Once the categories are identified a second stage of analysis must be completed – do you require mobility or will this preparation be to hunker down and stay in one location?
I feel most people fail to make any preparations in their lives because it is overwhelming to analyze “what-if” scenarios and planning around them. At the same time, ridicule of preparations is easy due to the old stereotypes of bomb-shelter fanatics, in the woods survivalists, and hippies living in communes off the grid. Ironically, these are the people that the unprepared will flee to.
Living in New Smyrna Beach, Florida I constantly faced a hurricane threat, but yet, like many friends and neighbors, brushed off this threat. I felt I could go to Wal-Mart, Lowes, or Home Depot and retrieve what I needed on demand. Although not as destructive as a ground-zero events like Katrina I faced three hurricanes in six weeks time. We faced a long duration of inconvenience – no credit card machines, gasoline shortages, lack of groceries, building materials shortages, and no ice. I had friends without electricity for 10 days. I could not locate a chainsaw chain to remove and cut trees. There was no ice available to keep food safe because there was no electricity. Gas stations were closed due to lack of electricity, the pumps would not work and they had no credit card machines. All of the foods spoiled in the grocery store meat and frozen sections. Thus, they were forced to close to clean up their stores and no groceries were available. This was a modern crisis of long duration.
Events like Katrina, 9/11, the Northridge earthquake, and spring floods make headlines. However, watching a crisis on the evening news is entirely different than living through it. One side of 9/11 often forgotten was the travelers stranded away from home – if you had boarded a plane on 9/10/2001 and traveled across the country for business you suddenly found yourself stranded without a way to return home. There was a sense of suspicion in the country and finding yourself stuck as an outsider with only business clothes to wear could create problems. Fortunately, the banking system stayed intact and credit card machines were not shut off. Had the financial industry been questioned, cash would have been required just to eat, pay hotel bills, and get new clothing. In this case it was not a significant event for those away from New York but an event of extreme inconvenience. Again, even telecommunications worked, but it is not hard to imagine the government shutting telecom to prevent communications among terrorists. In this case contacting family would not have been feasible, lending to panic among those stranded away from home.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
I have read a lot about preparation for TEOTWAWKI (The End Of The World As We Know It) lately. However, I think there are other issues of greater concern than that which one must consider. I am repeating, changing, and re-writing some of what I have read. But, I go back to the root of what I have always known; preparation is about facing a threat. A threat can be measured three: probability of occurrence, intensity of destruction, and duration. A matrix should be made to consider the likelihood of a threat, where you might be during the occurrence, and what preparations should be made.
Supplies need consideration next. Preparation for supplies can be broken into several categories. Once the categories are identified a second stage of analysis must be completed – do you require mobility or will this preparation be to hunker down and stay in one location?
I feel most people fail to make any preparations in their lives because it is overwhelming to analyze “what-if” scenarios and planning around them. At the same time, ridicule of preparations is easy due to the old stereotypes of bomb-shelter fanatics, in the woods survivalists, and hippies living in communes off the grid. Ironically, these are the people that the unprepared will flee to.
Living in New Smyrna Beach, Florida I constantly faced a hurricane threat, but yet, like many friends and neighbors, brushed off this threat. I felt I could go to Wal-Mart, Lowes, or Home Depot and retrieve what I needed on demand. Although not as destructive as a ground-zero events like Katrina I faced three hurricanes in six weeks time. We faced a long duration of inconvenience – no credit card machines, gasoline shortages, lack of groceries, building materials shortages, and no ice. I had friends without electricity for 10 days. I could not locate a chainsaw chain to remove and cut trees. There was no ice available to keep food safe because there was no electricity. Gas stations were closed due to lack of electricity, the pumps would not work and they had no credit card machines. All of the foods spoiled in the grocery store meat and frozen sections. Thus, they were forced to close to clean up their stores and no groceries were available. This was a modern crisis of long duration.
Events like Katrina, 9/11, the Northridge earthquake, and spring floods make headlines. However, watching a crisis on the evening news is entirely different than living through it. One side of 9/11 often forgotten was the travelers stranded away from home – if you had boarded a plane on 9/10/2001 and traveled across the country for business you suddenly found yourself stranded without a way to return home. There was a sense of suspicion in the country and finding yourself stuck as an outsider with only business clothes to wear could create problems. Fortunately, the banking system stayed intact and credit card machines were not shut off. Had the financial industry been questioned, cash would have been required just to eat, pay hotel bills, and get new clothing. In this case it was not a significant event for those away from New York but an event of extreme inconvenience. Again, even telecommunications worked, but it is not hard to imagine the government shutting telecom to prevent communications among terrorists. In this case contacting family would not have been feasible, lending to panic among those stranded away from home.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Democracy or Republic?
One of my pet peeves is lexicon misuse. This was recently reinforced by an email link I received from a friend that offered to explain our form of government and make comparisons to other common forms such as oligarchy, monarchy and anarchy. Most of us believe the United States is a democracy. However, the video I received focused on the view that our founding fathers intended the United States to be a republic. My question, of course, was what’s the difference? More important, if there is a difference does it really matter?
A quick trip to the dictionary, or in this case the online version of Merriam-Webster, would most surely shed some light on the distinctions between the two words. I found a “democracy” is “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b) : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
Fair enough I thought, and it sounds like the United States. So how is a republic defined? A republic is a “government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (b) a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” Again similar to the United States in definition and at least not significantly different to help me distinguish the subtleties of the two words. Now, I felt thoroughly confused and I wondered if it mattered to the founding fathers whether our nation was to be a democracy or a republic. As a democracy our society would be subject to majority rule and the will of the people on all decisions. As a republic, it appeared that elected representation by the people would take precedence.
In today’s time with Congress typically having the lowest approval ratings of all of the branches of government, couldn’t we, as a democracy eliminate the House of Representatives and the Senate? With technology today this seems feasible. Anytime an issue arises we could put it to a vote of the people using the internet, our cable television remotes, or a telephone dial-in system. Arguably, the establishment of the Electoral College, our Congress, and even the inauguration dates of the President appear based on the lack of communication technology existing in 1776 as much as they do with the intent of the founding fathers. Maybe our government is more an outdated concept tied obstacles of the time.
However, a careful review of the Constitution confirms our founding fathers intended a republic. The Pledge of Allegiance, "and to the Republic for which it stands", instantly reminds us if we have any doubt. Article IV section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.
You may wonder why I am focused on the importance of what appears to be an argument in semantics. I believe our founding fathers carefully worded the Constitution to ensure its legacy would stand the test of time. Furthermore, they had personally shed blood to flee tyranny and knew that mobs and simple majority rule were not effective means of government. In a democracy, any group of individuals comprising the minority has no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. Thus, as we watch our elected representatives’ debate critical issues affecting future generations, trust in our founding fathers that our republic will facilitate the best possible outcome regardless of the intensity of the debate.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
One of my pet peeves is lexicon misuse. This was recently reinforced by an email link I received from a friend that offered to explain our form of government and make comparisons to other common forms such as oligarchy, monarchy and anarchy. Most of us believe the United States is a democracy. However, the video I received focused on the view that our founding fathers intended the United States to be a republic. My question, of course, was what’s the difference? More important, if there is a difference does it really matter?
A quick trip to the dictionary, or in this case the online version of Merriam-Webster, would most surely shed some light on the distinctions between the two words. I found a “democracy” is “government by the people; especially : rule of the majority (b) : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections.”
Fair enough I thought, and it sounds like the United States. So how is a republic defined? A republic is a “government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (b) a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law.” Again similar to the United States in definition and at least not significantly different to help me distinguish the subtleties of the two words. Now, I felt thoroughly confused and I wondered if it mattered to the founding fathers whether our nation was to be a democracy or a republic. As a democracy our society would be subject to majority rule and the will of the people on all decisions. As a republic, it appeared that elected representation by the people would take precedence.
In today’s time with Congress typically having the lowest approval ratings of all of the branches of government, couldn’t we, as a democracy eliminate the House of Representatives and the Senate? With technology today this seems feasible. Anytime an issue arises we could put it to a vote of the people using the internet, our cable television remotes, or a telephone dial-in system. Arguably, the establishment of the Electoral College, our Congress, and even the inauguration dates of the President appear based on the lack of communication technology existing in 1776 as much as they do with the intent of the founding fathers. Maybe our government is more an outdated concept tied obstacles of the time.
However, a careful review of the Constitution confirms our founding fathers intended a republic. The Pledge of Allegiance, "and to the Republic for which it stands", instantly reminds us if we have any doubt. Article IV section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear, “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government”.
You may wonder why I am focused on the importance of what appears to be an argument in semantics. I believe our founding fathers carefully worded the Constitution to ensure its legacy would stand the test of time. Furthermore, they had personally shed blood to flee tyranny and knew that mobs and simple majority rule were not effective means of government. In a democracy, any group of individuals comprising the minority has no protection against the unlimited power of the majority. Thus, as we watch our elected representatives’ debate critical issues affecting future generations, trust in our founding fathers that our republic will facilitate the best possible outcome regardless of the intensity of the debate.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
No Insurance Mandate
As the debate regarding health care insurance rages around me I have found myself frustrated by comments and concerns made by friends and family and the threat of insurance mandates. Currently, I have no health insurance. Arguably, this may not be the best decision in my case, but it is my current situation. I understand I am now “self-insured” and if something happens I have to pay for it.
Crazily, I have friends and family who cannot imagine a life without health insurance. The government is also contemplating an insurance mandate; if you fail to buy insurance you will be fined. Since the IRS is the enforcer of this, I see it as a tax increase, especially considering the amount is approximately $3,800/year. What really bothers me is the idea of an insurance mandate when insurance, by definition, is coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract. Mandating a contract erodes the market forces that should lower prices.
This summer I was vacationing with my family and found myself in need of emergency care. I mentally debated for several hours my options: do not seek care, self-medicate, visit an urgent care, or head to the ER. Ultimately I spent seven hours in the emergency room, received outstanding service and a plethora of intravenous medicines. The doctors clearly discussed with me options of spending the night, further analysis, and how to proceed. Market forces were at work – no unnecessary tests were made, and I full participated in the decision making process. Upon returning from vacation the bill was waiting in the mailbox. At first glance the amount concerned me, but I quickly analyzed the numbers and realized the amount due was equal to two months of former family health care premiums. Since I had not made premium payments in prior five months I knew I was better off., and more than likely, I will not have any significant events before the end of the year.
I was disgusted when one family member recommended we not pay the bill. She said that she just ignores them and the hospital will ultimately write it off as indigent or uncollectable. Of course, they will just have to pass these costs onto others. Another friend was appalled that we do not have insurance and wondered what we would do if we had to go to the doctor. I made the economic argument above, it is cheaper to have high deductible insurance and pay as you go, but it fell on deaf ears. Of course, she depends on doctors for everything, has significant monthly prescription requirements, and does not have savings of her own to pay.
People make life choices and I believe too many consumers choose to live for the moment: buying a boat, car, cable television, or even a cellular phone. Losing material possessions due to an illness is sad, but not catastrophic, it’s just stuff. Failing to take personal responsibility should not result in mandated insurance programs and erosion of personal freedoms. My reforms and solutions are much simpler: require people to pay for the services they use and hold them accountable, and yes they may go broke in the process, reign in the cost of malpractice through tort reform, and modify regulations to allow interstate purchase of insurance thus equalizing premiums across the states. No one will be denied quality health care and the market will adjust prices appropriately.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
As the debate regarding health care insurance rages around me I have found myself frustrated by comments and concerns made by friends and family and the threat of insurance mandates. Currently, I have no health insurance. Arguably, this may not be the best decision in my case, but it is my current situation. I understand I am now “self-insured” and if something happens I have to pay for it.
Crazily, I have friends and family who cannot imagine a life without health insurance. The government is also contemplating an insurance mandate; if you fail to buy insurance you will be fined. Since the IRS is the enforcer of this, I see it as a tax increase, especially considering the amount is approximately $3,800/year. What really bothers me is the idea of an insurance mandate when insurance, by definition, is coverage by contract in which one party agrees to indemnify or reimburse another for loss that occurs under the terms of the contract. Mandating a contract erodes the market forces that should lower prices.
This summer I was vacationing with my family and found myself in need of emergency care. I mentally debated for several hours my options: do not seek care, self-medicate, visit an urgent care, or head to the ER. Ultimately I spent seven hours in the emergency room, received outstanding service and a plethora of intravenous medicines. The doctors clearly discussed with me options of spending the night, further analysis, and how to proceed. Market forces were at work – no unnecessary tests were made, and I full participated in the decision making process. Upon returning from vacation the bill was waiting in the mailbox. At first glance the amount concerned me, but I quickly analyzed the numbers and realized the amount due was equal to two months of former family health care premiums. Since I had not made premium payments in prior five months I knew I was better off., and more than likely, I will not have any significant events before the end of the year.
I was disgusted when one family member recommended we not pay the bill. She said that she just ignores them and the hospital will ultimately write it off as indigent or uncollectable. Of course, they will just have to pass these costs onto others. Another friend was appalled that we do not have insurance and wondered what we would do if we had to go to the doctor. I made the economic argument above, it is cheaper to have high deductible insurance and pay as you go, but it fell on deaf ears. Of course, she depends on doctors for everything, has significant monthly prescription requirements, and does not have savings of her own to pay.
People make life choices and I believe too many consumers choose to live for the moment: buying a boat, car, cable television, or even a cellular phone. Losing material possessions due to an illness is sad, but not catastrophic, it’s just stuff. Failing to take personal responsibility should not result in mandated insurance programs and erosion of personal freedoms. My reforms and solutions are much simpler: require people to pay for the services they use and hold them accountable, and yes they may go broke in the process, reign in the cost of malpractice through tort reform, and modify regulations to allow interstate purchase of insurance thus equalizing premiums across the states. No one will be denied quality health care and the market will adjust prices appropriately.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
What is Government’s Role?
Recently I engaged in an email discussion with a close friend regarding the health care debate. The more interesting aspect was the redirect from her attacking a position I had taken regarding privacy rights, unrelated to health care, to an attack stating that I did not think seniors deserved end of life counseling.
I have to be honest with you, before August I had never considered phrases like “death panels” or “end of life counseling”. But, as we all know, these terms hit the airwaves and became dinner talk for many of us. I personally felt Sarah Palin did a great service to everyone by bringing attention to just one of the many possible issues open for debate within healthcare reform legislation. At the same time though, Ms. Palin’s methodology of exaggeration damages her credibility and makes it tougher to engage in genuine conversation regarding a sensitive issue.
After several readings of my email reply to my friend I could not find anywhere I said seniors did not deserve end of life counseling. Carefully I crafted a reply to my friend, one that I want to share with you:
“First, I never said seniors should not have end of life counseling, how could you infer that from my note? But, let’s presume they should. The first question to answer would be who should provide it? I certainly would not want a government staff employee to provide this service. What would we base their performance appraisal on, the number of seniors that refuse future health care benefits or the number of seniors they counsel that argue they want to live longer? Furthermore, if the government is going to provide end of life counseling, shouldn’t there be benefits for marriage counseling, divorce counseling, parenting counseling and middle-age counseling to ensure you are on the right track? It is obvious any hazardous activity would have to be counseled.”
I do not think the founding fathers intended for the State to provide this level of counseling or care to its citizens. In 1776 I believe the focus of the founding fathers was on the concepts of liberty and freedom due to the recent tyranny and oppression which they had just escaped and shed blood to have independence. The founding fathers stood firm and fought for our freedoms. Unfortunately, I believe time has caused descendants of these men to forget why we are the best country on earth and why other countries want to be like us.
We must look at history to get perspective and context. The founding fathers wanted a limited government because they knew what happened when a dependency (junkie/dealer) relationship is created. Over time other statesmen have endeavored to remind us how to avoid becoming a victim of our own success and desires. Gerald Ford said it succinctly, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
I do not believe government health care reform should involve end of life counseling. My belief is not due to lack of sympathy or compassion, but because I believe it is not the role of the State to provide, fund, or facilitate that counseling. The role of government my friend is what we should debate.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Recently I engaged in an email discussion with a close friend regarding the health care debate. The more interesting aspect was the redirect from her attacking a position I had taken regarding privacy rights, unrelated to health care, to an attack stating that I did not think seniors deserved end of life counseling.
I have to be honest with you, before August I had never considered phrases like “death panels” or “end of life counseling”. But, as we all know, these terms hit the airwaves and became dinner talk for many of us. I personally felt Sarah Palin did a great service to everyone by bringing attention to just one of the many possible issues open for debate within healthcare reform legislation. At the same time though, Ms. Palin’s methodology of exaggeration damages her credibility and makes it tougher to engage in genuine conversation regarding a sensitive issue.
After several readings of my email reply to my friend I could not find anywhere I said seniors did not deserve end of life counseling. Carefully I crafted a reply to my friend, one that I want to share with you:
“First, I never said seniors should not have end of life counseling, how could you infer that from my note? But, let’s presume they should. The first question to answer would be who should provide it? I certainly would not want a government staff employee to provide this service. What would we base their performance appraisal on, the number of seniors that refuse future health care benefits or the number of seniors they counsel that argue they want to live longer? Furthermore, if the government is going to provide end of life counseling, shouldn’t there be benefits for marriage counseling, divorce counseling, parenting counseling and middle-age counseling to ensure you are on the right track? It is obvious any hazardous activity would have to be counseled.”
I do not think the founding fathers intended for the State to provide this level of counseling or care to its citizens. In 1776 I believe the focus of the founding fathers was on the concepts of liberty and freedom due to the recent tyranny and oppression which they had just escaped and shed blood to have independence. The founding fathers stood firm and fought for our freedoms. Unfortunately, I believe time has caused descendants of these men to forget why we are the best country on earth and why other countries want to be like us.
We must look at history to get perspective and context. The founding fathers wanted a limited government because they knew what happened when a dependency (junkie/dealer) relationship is created. Over time other statesmen have endeavored to remind us how to avoid becoming a victim of our own success and desires. Gerald Ford said it succinctly, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
I do not believe government health care reform should involve end of life counseling. My belief is not due to lack of sympathy or compassion, but because I believe it is not the role of the State to provide, fund, or facilitate that counseling. The role of government my friend is what we should debate.
Copyright (c) 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Thursday, September 24, 2009
A short list of the last three weeks
It is almost hard to keep up with this whitehouse. Change is the right word. Change because they keep shifting, denying, and lying. What's sad is most people don't follow what is happening or the manipulation they are subjected to.
1) Van Jones resignation. Let's see - leading whitehouse "czar" calls Republicans "a--holes", and says big companies prey on poor neighbor. But, his involvement in a radical 9/11 group.
2) The Pimp and the Prostitute (aka ACORN). Now, the classic lie here is the president stating in a national television interview on Sunday that he did not follow this or have knowledge of what was going on with this issue. So, the guy worked for them, they raised money for him and he tossed them aside? Yeah, right.
3) While talking about ACORN - at least Congress acted with both the Senate and the House voting to cut funding. Lsat week it was the Census that cut ties and just today the IRS.
4) What about the NEA? Oh yeah, the teleconference call based on denial. Even the whitehouse jumped on this denial bandwagon but resignations are coming (and have occurred).
5) Talking to school children. I had a chance to read the original Department of Education post asking teachers to instruct their pupils to write essays about supporting the president before it was pulled. Of course, after the political backlash the whitehouse had a chance to change the speech to a "do good in school" speech. Wish we could see the original one.
6) Lockerbie Scotland Terrorists. Number 10 Downing Street took the heat for this and threw it back at America when Clinton and Obama denied knowledge of what the Brits were doing.
7) This week our president sold out Israel.
I will try to keep these lists up to date. Visit this web site for more: Obama Gaffes
It is almost hard to keep up with this whitehouse. Change is the right word. Change because they keep shifting, denying, and lying. What's sad is most people don't follow what is happening or the manipulation they are subjected to.
1) Van Jones resignation. Let's see - leading whitehouse "czar" calls Republicans "a--holes", and says big companies prey on poor neighbor. But, his involvement in a radical 9/11 group.
2) The Pimp and the Prostitute (aka ACORN). Now, the classic lie here is the president stating in a national television interview on Sunday that he did not follow this or have knowledge of what was going on with this issue. So, the guy worked for them, they raised money for him and he tossed them aside? Yeah, right.
3) While talking about ACORN - at least Congress acted with both the Senate and the House voting to cut funding. Lsat week it was the Census that cut ties and just today the IRS.
4) What about the NEA? Oh yeah, the teleconference call based on denial. Even the whitehouse jumped on this denial bandwagon but resignations are coming (and have occurred).
5) Talking to school children. I had a chance to read the original Department of Education post asking teachers to instruct their pupils to write essays about supporting the president before it was pulled. Of course, after the political backlash the whitehouse had a chance to change the speech to a "do good in school" speech. Wish we could see the original one.
6) Lockerbie Scotland Terrorists. Number 10 Downing Street took the heat for this and threw it back at America when Clinton and Obama denied knowledge of what the Brits were doing.
7) This week our president sold out Israel.
I will try to keep these lists up to date. Visit this web site for more: Obama Gaffes
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Mainstream Media
When I was a kid there were three commercial televisions networks, PBS, and an independent station or two. News came from a 30-minute local broadcast at 6:00pm and was followed immediately by a 30-minute network newscast. The daily paper was on our driveway every morning and was supplemented by “The Today Show”. Throughout the day AM radio would air news on the hour. That is the media with which I grew up, and not until Ted Turner’s Cable News Network did the idea of 24-hour news flowing into our living room become a possibility. This was quickly followed by the abbreviated version with “Headline News”. Ultimately, other entrepreneurs followed with “The Weather Channel”, “C-Span”, and areas of specific interest like financial news.
All of the above media suffer from their own problems, usually attributed to their delivery method. The 24-hour channels find themselves without enough information to fill the day so they turn to commentary. The daily newspaper is typically 24-48 hours behind events due to publishing and delivery methods. Lastly, the major networks conceive their stories in the morning and build a broadcast around a concept that is not reactive to change or daytime events.
Personally, I feel “news” means the presentation of information or events. Unfortunately, what many view as news is colored commentary or persuasive opinion. For example, “A man robbed a bank” would be objective news reporting. On the other hand, “A burly man from the low-income neighborhood robbed a bank” could paint an entirely different picture in your mind. The simple use of adjectives and commentary has flowed into the news and tainted the objectivity of reporting and the average person is historically ignorant to this manipulation by accepting formerly credible news outlets at face value.
I would assert all media is “mainstream.” With television, newspaper, radio, and the internet we can access any news source at anytime. Every day I read multiple international and domestic newspapers, wire services, watch network news broadcasts, and scour several newsfeeds. I see trends in news and who is, or is not, reporting events. At the same time I also filter the adjectives and objectively form my own opinions. The insinuation of a domestic conspiracy in reporting is obvious when reviewing live, objective newsfeeds from around the world. I am intrigued by the three major networks presenting the same stories, in the same order day after day. I also wonder how major papers like the “New York Times” and “Washington Post” can have nearly identical front pages and editorial comments.
I believe the “Legacy” media is failing to provide objective reporting to its audience. Worse, it is not necessarily what, or how, it is reported, but the failure to report. For example, the “New York Times” made a conscious decision to withhold a story during the presidential election of 2008 that most likely would have changed the outcome of candidate choices. Most recently, the legacy broadcasting networks, the “New York Times”, and the “Washington Post” failed to provide timely reporting of events leading up to the resignation of a government official. Once upon a time I believe these legacy information outlets prided themselves on getting “the scoop” but it appears that is no longer the case.
The term “Mainstream Media” implies an accusation or conspiracy to promote an agenda. Some object to this, but the pattern has emerged over decades. The new method of story absence, however, is a covert method to undermine the “mainstream” argument. Objectivity would allow me to form opinions and omission of news is more manipulative than colored commentary.
When I was a kid there were three commercial televisions networks, PBS, and an independent station or two. News came from a 30-minute local broadcast at 6:00pm and was followed immediately by a 30-minute network newscast. The daily paper was on our driveway every morning and was supplemented by “The Today Show”. Throughout the day AM radio would air news on the hour. That is the media with which I grew up, and not until Ted Turner’s Cable News Network did the idea of 24-hour news flowing into our living room become a possibility. This was quickly followed by the abbreviated version with “Headline News”. Ultimately, other entrepreneurs followed with “The Weather Channel”, “C-Span”, and areas of specific interest like financial news.
All of the above media suffer from their own problems, usually attributed to their delivery method. The 24-hour channels find themselves without enough information to fill the day so they turn to commentary. The daily newspaper is typically 24-48 hours behind events due to publishing and delivery methods. Lastly, the major networks conceive their stories in the morning and build a broadcast around a concept that is not reactive to change or daytime events.
Personally, I feel “news” means the presentation of information or events. Unfortunately, what many view as news is colored commentary or persuasive opinion. For example, “A man robbed a bank” would be objective news reporting. On the other hand, “A burly man from the low-income neighborhood robbed a bank” could paint an entirely different picture in your mind. The simple use of adjectives and commentary has flowed into the news and tainted the objectivity of reporting and the average person is historically ignorant to this manipulation by accepting formerly credible news outlets at face value.
I would assert all media is “mainstream.” With television, newspaper, radio, and the internet we can access any news source at anytime. Every day I read multiple international and domestic newspapers, wire services, watch network news broadcasts, and scour several newsfeeds. I see trends in news and who is, or is not, reporting events. At the same time I also filter the adjectives and objectively form my own opinions. The insinuation of a domestic conspiracy in reporting is obvious when reviewing live, objective newsfeeds from around the world. I am intrigued by the three major networks presenting the same stories, in the same order day after day. I also wonder how major papers like the “New York Times” and “Washington Post” can have nearly identical front pages and editorial comments.
I believe the “Legacy” media is failing to provide objective reporting to its audience. Worse, it is not necessarily what, or how, it is reported, but the failure to report. For example, the “New York Times” made a conscious decision to withhold a story during the presidential election of 2008 that most likely would have changed the outcome of candidate choices. Most recently, the legacy broadcasting networks, the “New York Times”, and the “Washington Post” failed to provide timely reporting of events leading up to the resignation of a government official. Once upon a time I believe these legacy information outlets prided themselves on getting “the scoop” but it appears that is no longer the case.
The term “Mainstream Media” implies an accusation or conspiracy to promote an agenda. Some object to this, but the pattern has emerged over decades. The new method of story absence, however, is a covert method to undermine the “mainstream” argument. Objectivity would allow me to form opinions and omission of news is more manipulative than colored commentary.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Death and Taxes
Each time I find myself attending a funeral I start to reflect. Death is not a bad thing as our bodies seem to wear out for one reason or another. But, as a culture and society we seem to deny our ultimate end. One statement that intrigues me is the saying, “Only two things are known; death and taxes.” That basic assumption though, bothers me and has encouraged me to further think how I cannot do anything about death.
I know with certainty I will die and everyone around me will die. Of course, the cause of death cannot be predicted but the risks associated with it can be minimized and each of us tries to live with a goal of prolonging life. We literally fight death with all of our might but we cannot stop its inevitability. Taxes, however, are not an absolute. At some point in our history it appears that we evolved to accept taxes part of our being, just like death. Instead of continually working toward ending this other ‘absolute’ in our lives our society seems willing to perpetuate this self-destructive mechanism upon ourselves.
Taking a step back, maybe a better word for tax would be “privilege payment”. We pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society, and this argument could be made throughout human history. Most of us are willing to contribute a nominal amount of our individual efforts to support the purported common good of the society in which we live. I accept there is a cost to civilization as I expect infrastructure for safe water, sewage disposal, defense, and transportation. In some instances, I do not object to contributing to a common indigent fund for those who are suffering. Arguably, there may be additional ‘common goods’ we may decide to support. For instance, we may agree on the need for a method to enforce rules and laws and thus pay the personnel needed to do those jobs. We may want workplace safety, trees planted along side boulevards, stripes down the middle of roads, and jails to house those that do not follow our rules. Some members of our society may decide to put money toward paying others not to plant crops, not to go to work, or to take care of doctor’s bills, to give some people meals, housing, and even access to the internet; all in the name of the common good of the society.
Regardless of the specifics of the individual line items that we agree to tax ourselves for, we should constantly examine their necessity. I choose to minimize the risks I take in my daily life, exercise, eat well and therefore am hopefully prolonging my life and cheating death. I argue that we no longer do the same regarding taxes and instead readily acquiesce to taxing our individual efforts and allowing the state to control and disburse them. I assert we have voluntarily enslaved ourselves to an entity that we may not be able to escape.
Death is inevitable; the process of self-destruction through taxation is not. Taxes are acceptable when presented with a true cost and benefit analysis, a clear exit strategy from the tax, and a method to provide for checks and balances against a tax. If you were taking an inventory of your personal health in an effort to ensure you were prolonging your life you would question every risk, every activity, and eliminate those that are harming you. This same analysis must be performed frequently and regularly regarding taxes. We must question every dollar that is spent and be willing to take tough measures to eliminate waste, just as you would do personally.
Each time I find myself attending a funeral I start to reflect. Death is not a bad thing as our bodies seem to wear out for one reason or another. But, as a culture and society we seem to deny our ultimate end. One statement that intrigues me is the saying, “Only two things are known; death and taxes.” That basic assumption though, bothers me and has encouraged me to further think how I cannot do anything about death.
I know with certainty I will die and everyone around me will die. Of course, the cause of death cannot be predicted but the risks associated with it can be minimized and each of us tries to live with a goal of prolonging life. We literally fight death with all of our might but we cannot stop its inevitability. Taxes, however, are not an absolute. At some point in our history it appears that we evolved to accept taxes part of our being, just like death. Instead of continually working toward ending this other ‘absolute’ in our lives our society seems willing to perpetuate this self-destructive mechanism upon ourselves.
Taking a step back, maybe a better word for tax would be “privilege payment”. We pay for the privilege of living in a civilized society, and this argument could be made throughout human history. Most of us are willing to contribute a nominal amount of our individual efforts to support the purported common good of the society in which we live. I accept there is a cost to civilization as I expect infrastructure for safe water, sewage disposal, defense, and transportation. In some instances, I do not object to contributing to a common indigent fund for those who are suffering. Arguably, there may be additional ‘common goods’ we may decide to support. For instance, we may agree on the need for a method to enforce rules and laws and thus pay the personnel needed to do those jobs. We may want workplace safety, trees planted along side boulevards, stripes down the middle of roads, and jails to house those that do not follow our rules. Some members of our society may decide to put money toward paying others not to plant crops, not to go to work, or to take care of doctor’s bills, to give some people meals, housing, and even access to the internet; all in the name of the common good of the society.
Regardless of the specifics of the individual line items that we agree to tax ourselves for, we should constantly examine their necessity. I choose to minimize the risks I take in my daily life, exercise, eat well and therefore am hopefully prolonging my life and cheating death. I argue that we no longer do the same regarding taxes and instead readily acquiesce to taxing our individual efforts and allowing the state to control and disburse them. I assert we have voluntarily enslaved ourselves to an entity that we may not be able to escape.
Death is inevitable; the process of self-destruction through taxation is not. Taxes are acceptable when presented with a true cost and benefit analysis, a clear exit strategy from the tax, and a method to provide for checks and balances against a tax. If you were taking an inventory of your personal health in an effort to ensure you were prolonging your life you would question every risk, every activity, and eliminate those that are harming you. This same analysis must be performed frequently and regularly regarding taxes. We must question every dollar that is spent and be willing to take tough measures to eliminate waste, just as you would do personally.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
The Wrong Debate
Health Insurance is not a right. It is not an entitlement, not a guarantee. I have searched the Constitution for insight into the current debate and noted that the founding fathers did not identify health insurance as an inalienable right. Stop and note, I did not say that health care is not a right. What is taking place in America today is the wrong debate and it is packaged under words like “health care reform”. But, no one is debating whether health care in America is adequate; in fact it is easily described as the best in the world with people seeking medical treatment in this country from around the world. The issue is cost, and who should pay for health care.
Unfortunately, when the wrong debate takes place too many people get trapped by the play on emotions. I always suggest taking a step back and asking “why”?
Why do we have health insurance? The health insurance debate began 100 years ago as medical technology improved and Progressives made calls for compulsory insurance. In 1920, these attempts failed as they were associated with the socialist policies of the Germans in WWI. By WWII though, more expensive hospital stays, successes by the “Blues”, and tax incentives made employee benefit programs such as insurance appealing. Ordinary citizens put a priority on access to health care, regardless of cost. Prior to that time, we paid our doctor when we needed treatment. Of course, sometimes a person did not have the resources to pay their doctor, but that did not mean they would not receive treatment. Unlike today, it was treatment first and pay later.
Why does health care in America cost so much? First, medical malpractice has increased the cost of basic overhead requiring doctors and hospitals to charge fees to offset this cost. Second, the government will only pay certain amounts on Medicare claims thus requiring all other payers to subsidize the costs of benefits to these recipients.
Why do doctors get paid so much? One of my concerns is this new debate in America over wages, basically class envy. In short, if being a brain surgeon were easy then we all would be doing it. I watched the anesthesiologist insert an epidural in my wife’s spine prior to the delivery of our son. I am a smart guy, an engineer that handled hazardous chemicals with explosive potential, but you could not pay me enough money to do what he did. These educated, skillful individuals deserve every amount of the wages they earn as they hold our lives in their hands. I want absolutely the best person doing that job. I do not see a doctor’s job as a “staff” position equivalent to a mid-level manager nor do I feel my plumber should earn more. Heck, Congressmen earn $176,000/year and doctors are more educated, more trained, and care about me.
I have not offered a solution, because now we can debate the issue. Let’s agree that everyone is entitled to health care, but not to health insurance. Let’s agree that we have a great medical system with the best doctors in the world. And, let’s agree that health insurance is a nice convenience to offset catastrophe, but as individuals we are accountable for the health services we use and need to pay our bills. A large, government run health care insurance program is not the solution to the problems at hand.
Copyright © 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Health Insurance is not a right. It is not an entitlement, not a guarantee. I have searched the Constitution for insight into the current debate and noted that the founding fathers did not identify health insurance as an inalienable right. Stop and note, I did not say that health care is not a right. What is taking place in America today is the wrong debate and it is packaged under words like “health care reform”. But, no one is debating whether health care in America is adequate; in fact it is easily described as the best in the world with people seeking medical treatment in this country from around the world. The issue is cost, and who should pay for health care.
Unfortunately, when the wrong debate takes place too many people get trapped by the play on emotions. I always suggest taking a step back and asking “why”?
Why do we have health insurance? The health insurance debate began 100 years ago as medical technology improved and Progressives made calls for compulsory insurance. In 1920, these attempts failed as they were associated with the socialist policies of the Germans in WWI. By WWII though, more expensive hospital stays, successes by the “Blues”, and tax incentives made employee benefit programs such as insurance appealing. Ordinary citizens put a priority on access to health care, regardless of cost. Prior to that time, we paid our doctor when we needed treatment. Of course, sometimes a person did not have the resources to pay their doctor, but that did not mean they would not receive treatment. Unlike today, it was treatment first and pay later.
Why does health care in America cost so much? First, medical malpractice has increased the cost of basic overhead requiring doctors and hospitals to charge fees to offset this cost. Second, the government will only pay certain amounts on Medicare claims thus requiring all other payers to subsidize the costs of benefits to these recipients.
Why do doctors get paid so much? One of my concerns is this new debate in America over wages, basically class envy. In short, if being a brain surgeon were easy then we all would be doing it. I watched the anesthesiologist insert an epidural in my wife’s spine prior to the delivery of our son. I am a smart guy, an engineer that handled hazardous chemicals with explosive potential, but you could not pay me enough money to do what he did. These educated, skillful individuals deserve every amount of the wages they earn as they hold our lives in their hands. I want absolutely the best person doing that job. I do not see a doctor’s job as a “staff” position equivalent to a mid-level manager nor do I feel my plumber should earn more. Heck, Congressmen earn $176,000/year and doctors are more educated, more trained, and care about me.
I have not offered a solution, because now we can debate the issue. Let’s agree that everyone is entitled to health care, but not to health insurance. Let’s agree that we have a great medical system with the best doctors in the world. And, let’s agree that health insurance is a nice convenience to offset catastrophe, but as individuals we are accountable for the health services we use and need to pay our bills. A large, government run health care insurance program is not the solution to the problems at hand.
Copyright © 2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Another Casualty Of The Recession: Child Support
Dad's like me need support. PLEASE listen.
This article is from April, but makes the point well. Let's remember:
- 3 of 4 people terminated in this recession are men. Women are set to become the majority in the workforce (NBC)
- Jobs available are now at 1999 levels, but yet the population has grown by 33.7 million since then.
- Official unemployment is currently 9.7%. (actually 16.2%)
Dad's like me need support. PLEASE listen.
This article is from April, but makes the point well. Let's remember:
- 3 of 4 people terminated in this recession are men. Women are set to become the majority in the workforce (NBC)
- Jobs available are now at 1999 levels, but yet the population has grown by 33.7 million since then.
- Official unemployment is currently 9.7%. (actually 16.2%)
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Duck! It’s a Flying Car!
I was born in 1967, at the height of the hippie counter culture during the summer of love. The war in Vietnam was escalating, but was not quite an evening presence in our living rooms. As a nation we were focused on getting to the moon and beating back the Soviets. A computer filled a room, but had less computing power than today’s digital watches. A color TV was an expensive marvel and “Made in Japan” was synonymous with “cheap”.
As a child in the early 1970’s, Evil Knevil was idolized, I saw television shows such as Star Trek and repeats of “Lost in Space”. I remember seeing the Bell Telephone book with pictures of people talking in the future on videophones and could not wait to go to Disney World to fill my head with more images of “Tomorrow land”. The year 2000 was so far away, but yet full of promises that we would be driving flying cars, watching TV on walls, and living on the moon. Doors would open and close with sounds as we approached them, lights would activate automatically, and we would talk to computers; living like George Jetston.
Some parts of that vision have come true as I do have flat panel televisions that hang like pictures, carry a communicator (cell-phone) in my pocket, not unlike “James T. Kirk”, and motion detectors open store doors and turn lights on and off. But the other technologic visions have escaped us. I traded my SUV two years ago, a vehicle which weighed as much as my Dad’s 1969 Ford Galaxy, and averaged the same gas mileage. In 35years we have accomplished little more in our ability to achieve a presence on the moon than where we were in 1973; having had no man step foot on our orbiting satellite since the last, Gene Cernan, left his mark.
On one hand, we have done so many things well: advances in medicine such as artificial hearts, efficiencies in agricultural, computers for the masses, and less costly access to education and travel. At the same time, our near God-like abilities have blinded us to changes taking place around us and created a near mass delusional acceptance of our abilities. The average American is more concerned with Britney Spears than the presidential election, last nights sports scores more than yesterday’s stock market, and planning a summer vacation than events in hostile world regions.
Natural disasters have struck several times in this country in the last decade demonstrating the average citizen cannot care for himself. Hurricane Katrina and its images of personal lollygagging without the wherewithal to save one’s self is an excellent example. I would asset the average person believes food comes from a can and has no understanding of how to care for himself. Other disasters such as flood, mass power failures, and California earthquakes have further driven home this problem that we are no longer the conquerors of technology and environment but have been conquered by our own success.
I want my flying car. I want the promises that were made to me as a kid by the generation that I am now paying social security to out of my paycheck. I want those advances to move forward and allow us to live on the moon and leave this planet. Instead, checks are being written that will further indebt out nation to others and ultimately force is back to a pre-industrialized agrarian society. Via increased energy costs, government bailouts, and trade deficits we are transferring our wealth to other nations and ultimately onto the backs of our children. In my opinion, it is more likely that we will be riding horses than driving flying cars in the future.
I was born in 1967, at the height of the hippie counter culture during the summer of love. The war in Vietnam was escalating, but was not quite an evening presence in our living rooms. As a nation we were focused on getting to the moon and beating back the Soviets. A computer filled a room, but had less computing power than today’s digital watches. A color TV was an expensive marvel and “Made in Japan” was synonymous with “cheap”.
As a child in the early 1970’s, Evil Knevil was idolized, I saw television shows such as Star Trek and repeats of “Lost in Space”. I remember seeing the Bell Telephone book with pictures of people talking in the future on videophones and could not wait to go to Disney World to fill my head with more images of “Tomorrow land”. The year 2000 was so far away, but yet full of promises that we would be driving flying cars, watching TV on walls, and living on the moon. Doors would open and close with sounds as we approached them, lights would activate automatically, and we would talk to computers; living like George Jetston.
Some parts of that vision have come true as I do have flat panel televisions that hang like pictures, carry a communicator (cell-phone) in my pocket, not unlike “James T. Kirk”, and motion detectors open store doors and turn lights on and off. But the other technologic visions have escaped us. I traded my SUV two years ago, a vehicle which weighed as much as my Dad’s 1969 Ford Galaxy, and averaged the same gas mileage. In 35years we have accomplished little more in our ability to achieve a presence on the moon than where we were in 1973; having had no man step foot on our orbiting satellite since the last, Gene Cernan, left his mark.
On one hand, we have done so many things well: advances in medicine such as artificial hearts, efficiencies in agricultural, computers for the masses, and less costly access to education and travel. At the same time, our near God-like abilities have blinded us to changes taking place around us and created a near mass delusional acceptance of our abilities. The average American is more concerned with Britney Spears than the presidential election, last nights sports scores more than yesterday’s stock market, and planning a summer vacation than events in hostile world regions.
Natural disasters have struck several times in this country in the last decade demonstrating the average citizen cannot care for himself. Hurricane Katrina and its images of personal lollygagging without the wherewithal to save one’s self is an excellent example. I would asset the average person believes food comes from a can and has no understanding of how to care for himself. Other disasters such as flood, mass power failures, and California earthquakes have further driven home this problem that we are no longer the conquerors of technology and environment but have been conquered by our own success.
I want my flying car. I want the promises that were made to me as a kid by the generation that I am now paying social security to out of my paycheck. I want those advances to move forward and allow us to live on the moon and leave this planet. Instead, checks are being written that will further indebt out nation to others and ultimately force is back to a pre-industrialized agrarian society. Via increased energy costs, government bailouts, and trade deficits we are transferring our wealth to other nations and ultimately onto the backs of our children. In my opinion, it is more likely that we will be riding horses than driving flying cars in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)