More from Big Brother
Published 4/21/2010
On April 8th an article appeared in USA Today about a court case involving the release of aircraft tail numbers through a Freedom of Information Act filing. In summary, the FAA tracks tail numbers of aircraft flight plans, this data is fed to a computer system and is available on public web sites like FlightAware.com. The FAA stores this information for a period of 90 days and ultimately purges it from their systems. Commercial, corporate and private flights are all tracked. As web sites and internet usage became more prevalent over the last 15 years, so did concerns over privacy; prompting the National Business Aircraft Association (NBAA) to work with the FAA to provide a mechanism to block tail numbers from public view. Without reason, a person or company could request this protection. Why, you might wonder? Prior to the protection, the most obvious examinations of the data were businesses spying on competitors, and stalking of high-profile individuals.
My concern in this court case is the misuse of information and the right to privacy. The successful argument to obtain data was made under the argument the air traffic control system is public and therefore no justification exists for a public entity to protect, or block the elements of this data. With the current populist movement taking place in America though one must wonder how many liberties citizens are willing to give up in the name of public information. It is easy to argue this data should be public when promoting anger at rich executives over the use of their expensive aircraft. However, the stockholders elect the Board of Directors who protects the use of assets within a company, and therefore makes companies more profitable, funding pension plans and retirement for millions. For whatever purpose: stalking, tracking competition, or as a hobby though one must wonder where the line is between privacy and public interest.
Similar to tail number tracking, several months ago I wrote about municipalities purchasing camera systems to scan and collect license plate information. In this case the municipalities argue the data will be purged within 30-60 days and the purpose of collection is for the public interest of tracking criminal activity. In my opinion it is easy to leap to the same conclusion as the FAA data, information collected by a public entity, for whatever purpose and regardless of whether it is purged, shall be made public. In our capitalistic society it won’t take long for a savvy web programmer to build a database, real-time feed, and search engine to make license plate data available. Like Flightaware, linking this to the owner of record, again a public DOT database, and make, model, and color of car will be effortless. Of course, with a date and time stamp of location from traffic cameras, using these data collection sites to know a person’s whereabouts at any time will be effortless. Thus, an employer can monitor whether a work from home employee is out and about during the day, or a divorce case could use such data to focus on the whereabouts of a spouse, or the paparazzi would know where an individual frequents.
I have previously quoted Ben Franklin regarding trading liberty for safety and my concerns remain the same. I see a trend, one where we willingly allow ourselves to be tracked, whether for credit bureaus, healthcare databases, aircraft travel or driving a car. We are now a society under constant monitoring and surveillance, and we willingly participated. In this case it is not law enforcement, but angry, jealous citizens watching each other.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Race Horses and Jackasses
Published 4/14/2010
A race horse is a beautiful animal, treated with care and coveted by its owner and caretaker. In return for all of the positive attention this animal will run hard and fast, win races, and in some cases bring home millions of dollars in winnings. By contrast, a jackass is not as beautiful, he’s stubborn, and typically abused to get work done. My friend Barry once shared with me a saying his attorney told him about divorce court, “ex-wives should treat their ex-husbands like race horses and they will bring home the winnings. Instead, too many ex-wives take them for granted, don’t appreciate them, and make their lives hard, treating them like jackasses so they act like jackasses.” In my opinion, any relationship could be described the same way: employer and employee, husband and wife, parents and teenager. I would also say the same holds true in politics and the current members of Congress seem to have started treating constituents like mules to do work. Ironically it seems to be the party that uses a donkey to represent itself that has taken this approach.
I must offer, the poster child for audacity and egotism in the Democrat party is local Congressman Alan Grayson. Orlando television station WFTV reported his outburst at a Perkins Family restaurant where a small group of his republican constituents were meeting. There are two sides to every story, but Grayson continues to build a reputation built on insults, outlandish statements, and ignorance of his constituents. In the video he states he knows exactly what his constituents are worth when he says, “There are 308 million people that pay my salary ($174,000/yr). Do you know what that breaks down to per person?” A little quick math shows Grayson knows it is $0.0006 per person. To me, it sounds like Grayson considers his constituents valueless mules, not successful race horses.
The Democrats faced supposed name calling and threats as a result of passing healthcare. In the aftermath of disregarding the legislative process for the sake of unilaterally passing an agenda disliked by the majority of American people they have reacted with surprise to the dislike for their actions, both as a party and personally. But, hell bent on passage they treated the American people with disrespect and total disregard. Thus, not listening and treating constituents like jackasses instead of race horses that bring home winnings has come back to haunt them. In the days after healthcare passage the media reported how horrible treatment had been including threats and racial slurs against Congressmen. With thousands of people on hand, from both sides, that afternoon it is amazing not a single video or recording has been forthcoming offering proof.
From the Republican side the best example of failing to treat others like race horses would come down to the floor debates regarding healthcare. At the same time though, no personal attacks were made in that venue, but there are those on the blogging and reporting side that offered up more questionable statements.
As children we are all taught the Golden Rule. However, researching this column and having watched the recent political process I would assert the disregard for the constituency comes not from personal hatred but understanding how little we are valued when compared to the lobbyists offering millions of dollars. Even if every citizen of Volusia County pulled together against our own Congresswoman Kozmas, by Congressman Grayson’s math the influence on her would only be about $300. I guess Grayson, Kozmas, and every other Congressman can afford to treat constituents like jackasses.
Published 4/14/2010
A race horse is a beautiful animal, treated with care and coveted by its owner and caretaker. In return for all of the positive attention this animal will run hard and fast, win races, and in some cases bring home millions of dollars in winnings. By contrast, a jackass is not as beautiful, he’s stubborn, and typically abused to get work done. My friend Barry once shared with me a saying his attorney told him about divorce court, “ex-wives should treat their ex-husbands like race horses and they will bring home the winnings. Instead, too many ex-wives take them for granted, don’t appreciate them, and make their lives hard, treating them like jackasses so they act like jackasses.” In my opinion, any relationship could be described the same way: employer and employee, husband and wife, parents and teenager. I would also say the same holds true in politics and the current members of Congress seem to have started treating constituents like mules to do work. Ironically it seems to be the party that uses a donkey to represent itself that has taken this approach.
I must offer, the poster child for audacity and egotism in the Democrat party is local Congressman Alan Grayson. Orlando television station WFTV reported his outburst at a Perkins Family restaurant where a small group of his republican constituents were meeting. There are two sides to every story, but Grayson continues to build a reputation built on insults, outlandish statements, and ignorance of his constituents. In the video he states he knows exactly what his constituents are worth when he says, “There are 308 million people that pay my salary ($174,000/yr). Do you know what that breaks down to per person?” A little quick math shows Grayson knows it is $0.0006 per person. To me, it sounds like Grayson considers his constituents valueless mules, not successful race horses.
The Democrats faced supposed name calling and threats as a result of passing healthcare. In the aftermath of disregarding the legislative process for the sake of unilaterally passing an agenda disliked by the majority of American people they have reacted with surprise to the dislike for their actions, both as a party and personally. But, hell bent on passage they treated the American people with disrespect and total disregard. Thus, not listening and treating constituents like jackasses instead of race horses that bring home winnings has come back to haunt them. In the days after healthcare passage the media reported how horrible treatment had been including threats and racial slurs against Congressmen. With thousands of people on hand, from both sides, that afternoon it is amazing not a single video or recording has been forthcoming offering proof.
From the Republican side the best example of failing to treat others like race horses would come down to the floor debates regarding healthcare. At the same time though, no personal attacks were made in that venue, but there are those on the blogging and reporting side that offered up more questionable statements.
As children we are all taught the Golden Rule. However, researching this column and having watched the recent political process I would assert the disregard for the constituency comes not from personal hatred but understanding how little we are valued when compared to the lobbyists offering millions of dollars. Even if every citizen of Volusia County pulled together against our own Congresswoman Kozmas, by Congressman Grayson’s math the influence on her would only be about $300. I guess Grayson, Kozmas, and every other Congressman can afford to treat constituents like jackasses.
What’s Happening?
Published in the Observer 4/7/2010
The last two weeks since the passage of Obamacare have been rather odd if you follow the news closely. But it is not just Obamacare driving the craziness around us; other issues have made it to the forefront of the news which should pique interest. I did note Reid and Pelosi appear missing and the President has become the spokesman for reassuring the American people they will be cared for life now. Covered in the Washington Post Saturday was President Obama’s 17-minute rambling explanation about healthcare and taxes in Charlotte, North Carolina trying to once again explain the benefits of Obamacare and why taxes must increase. Instead of trying to justify the 2,000 page Obamacare bill, the President Obama should learn from Thomas Jefferson, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
As I write this article, I am watching a news report regarding the Catholic Church. The scandal rocking the church right now is nothing new though, it is the same pedophile acts that have made news headlines in the United States. I don’t understand how anyone can act surprised when it seems to be a disease of this religion, not just a new, isolated event. For example, movies have been made about past abuses and often the Priests are targets of jokes regarding children. This time, the scandal does not stop at a local Parish but appears to go to the highest ranks of the Vatican. Maybe change will come; for years it appears church members have struggled to speak out against these crimes and even now, the Church is working to stop media coverage under accusations of defamation. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent,” Thomas Jefferson.
In the world of crazy dictators both Chavez (Venezuela) and Ahmadinejad (Iran) made the news this past week. On one hand, it’s hard to take either dictator seriously, but yet they make headlines. President Chavez entertained Russia’s Prime Minister Putin, met with Russian troops and spoke to them through translators. Why would these two countries build a relationship? Because Russia has technology and Venezuela has oil monies. Last week the focus was a proposal for Russia to supply space and weapons technologies to Venezuela. This proposal is laughable as the country itself has energy problems, but should still be taken seriously. Chavez has increasingly built relationships with Iran, China, and Russia and worked to push himself away from the United States. Similarly, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad stated he is more determined than ever to make Iran’s nuclear program successful. Like a defiant child he is empowered by the threat to stop him and thus continues to aggressively pursue a nuclear weapons program. Although the United States publicly pokes fun at both countries, they continue to slowly work toward their goals and appear to achieve some success. “An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes,” Thomas Jefferson.
The commonality of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, the Catholic Church, and Obama is they all believe their demagoguery. Like Jim Jones, they want the people to follow them, and to question their actions is not seen as debate but as enemies of the state. I am hopeful people around the world, and here in the United States, have awakened to the rhetoric pontificated to us. “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day,” Thomas Jefferson.
Published in the Observer 4/7/2010
The last two weeks since the passage of Obamacare have been rather odd if you follow the news closely. But it is not just Obamacare driving the craziness around us; other issues have made it to the forefront of the news which should pique interest. I did note Reid and Pelosi appear missing and the President has become the spokesman for reassuring the American people they will be cared for life now. Covered in the Washington Post Saturday was President Obama’s 17-minute rambling explanation about healthcare and taxes in Charlotte, North Carolina trying to once again explain the benefits of Obamacare and why taxes must increase. Instead of trying to justify the 2,000 page Obamacare bill, the President Obama should learn from Thomas Jefferson, “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
As I write this article, I am watching a news report regarding the Catholic Church. The scandal rocking the church right now is nothing new though, it is the same pedophile acts that have made news headlines in the United States. I don’t understand how anyone can act surprised when it seems to be a disease of this religion, not just a new, isolated event. For example, movies have been made about past abuses and often the Priests are targets of jokes regarding children. This time, the scandal does not stop at a local Parish but appears to go to the highest ranks of the Vatican. Maybe change will come; for years it appears church members have struggled to speak out against these crimes and even now, the Church is working to stop media coverage under accusations of defamation. “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent,” Thomas Jefferson.
In the world of crazy dictators both Chavez (Venezuela) and Ahmadinejad (Iran) made the news this past week. On one hand, it’s hard to take either dictator seriously, but yet they make headlines. President Chavez entertained Russia’s Prime Minister Putin, met with Russian troops and spoke to them through translators. Why would these two countries build a relationship? Because Russia has technology and Venezuela has oil monies. Last week the focus was a proposal for Russia to supply space and weapons technologies to Venezuela. This proposal is laughable as the country itself has energy problems, but should still be taken seriously. Chavez has increasingly built relationships with Iran, China, and Russia and worked to push himself away from the United States. Similarly, Iran’s President Ahmadinejad stated he is more determined than ever to make Iran’s nuclear program successful. Like a defiant child he is empowered by the threat to stop him and thus continues to aggressively pursue a nuclear weapons program. Although the United States publicly pokes fun at both countries, they continue to slowly work toward their goals and appear to achieve some success. “An enemy generally says and believes what he wishes,” Thomas Jefferson.
The commonality of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, the Catholic Church, and Obama is they all believe their demagoguery. Like Jim Jones, they want the people to follow them, and to question their actions is not seen as debate but as enemies of the state. I am hopeful people around the world, and here in the United States, have awakened to the rhetoric pontificated to us. “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day,” Thomas Jefferson.
Third Party Politics
Published in the Observer 3/31/2010
My wife and I watched a movie this weekend about a recent third party presidential candidate. Although we have had third party candidates for many decades, and throughout American politics, since the 1830’s the establishment of the two party system has dominated the American political process. Often the third party candidate has no more effect than “spoiler” for one of the major parties, such as Perot hurting the Republicans or Nader hurting the Democrats. Over time I would assert the public’s view of third party candidates has become one of ridicule. Sadly, if citizens would take time to listen these “spoilers” typically have more wisdom and validity to their point than their mainstream opponents.
A commonality between third party candidates is their claim that the two major parties are more alike than different. Glenn Beck regularly makes these claims, pointing to both parties giving their allegiance to major corporations and political benefactors, not the American people. Ralph Nader made similar claims in his campaign as a Green Party candidate in 2000. Democrats demonize Nader as a spoiler who should have supported Al Gore and hurt the party with his insistence that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum"--they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get. Republicans similarly cried foul when Ross Perot took his campaign to the American people in his famous infomercials. Ultimately, he won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992; the most for a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, but not a single electoral vote was awarded to him.
Revolution is sewn in the seeds of discontent and it would appear those seeds are currently strewn across America as the “Tea Party” movement may be the next major opportunity for a successful third party candidate to be born into the American forefront. However, three major obstacles face this opportunity. I believe the first will be the hardest to overcome, the media. As our newspapers and televisions have suffered over the last two decades they have slowly been swallowed by a handful of major corporations that now dictate the news we see. Thus, news is no longer news, but a carefully controlled message. We know the New York Times singlehandedly contributed to the successfully election of Barak Obama by not running stories about his association with ACORN. Similarly, Ralph Nader’s campaign was pushed to the back pages of the NY Times in 2000, and no mention was made on the major networks unless it was to discuss his role as spoiler. Second, the balloting rules of individual states and the Electoral College are inherently designed to prevent a third party candidate from succeeding. In America, our vote for President does not matter and is only recorded for discussion; the Electoral College elects the President. Third, the Commission on Presidential Debates will determine who participates in the debate process. Nader learned the hard way in 2000, as he could not debate the other candidates.
Ironically, one of the most admired Presidents in American history was the last third party candidate to win election; Abraham Lincoln won in 1860 on the ticket of the 8 year old Republican Party. I must wonder how many opportunities for great leaders have been missed in the last 140 years due to our system we call “democracy”. As Congress and the President continue to move against the wishes of the American people I believe voters will take a stronger look at candidates that look less like the established political parties.
Published in the Observer 3/31/2010
My wife and I watched a movie this weekend about a recent third party presidential candidate. Although we have had third party candidates for many decades, and throughout American politics, since the 1830’s the establishment of the two party system has dominated the American political process. Often the third party candidate has no more effect than “spoiler” for one of the major parties, such as Perot hurting the Republicans or Nader hurting the Democrats. Over time I would assert the public’s view of third party candidates has become one of ridicule. Sadly, if citizens would take time to listen these “spoilers” typically have more wisdom and validity to their point than their mainstream opponents.
A commonality between third party candidates is their claim that the two major parties are more alike than different. Glenn Beck regularly makes these claims, pointing to both parties giving their allegiance to major corporations and political benefactors, not the American people. Ralph Nader made similar claims in his campaign as a Green Party candidate in 2000. Democrats demonize Nader as a spoiler who should have supported Al Gore and hurt the party with his insistence that Al Gore and George W. Bush were "Tweedledee and Tweedledum"--they look and act the same, so it doesn't matter which you get. Republicans similarly cried foul when Ross Perot took his campaign to the American people in his famous infomercials. Ultimately, he won 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992; the most for a third party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, but not a single electoral vote was awarded to him.
Revolution is sewn in the seeds of discontent and it would appear those seeds are currently strewn across America as the “Tea Party” movement may be the next major opportunity for a successful third party candidate to be born into the American forefront. However, three major obstacles face this opportunity. I believe the first will be the hardest to overcome, the media. As our newspapers and televisions have suffered over the last two decades they have slowly been swallowed by a handful of major corporations that now dictate the news we see. Thus, news is no longer news, but a carefully controlled message. We know the New York Times singlehandedly contributed to the successfully election of Barak Obama by not running stories about his association with ACORN. Similarly, Ralph Nader’s campaign was pushed to the back pages of the NY Times in 2000, and no mention was made on the major networks unless it was to discuss his role as spoiler. Second, the balloting rules of individual states and the Electoral College are inherently designed to prevent a third party candidate from succeeding. In America, our vote for President does not matter and is only recorded for discussion; the Electoral College elects the President. Third, the Commission on Presidential Debates will determine who participates in the debate process. Nader learned the hard way in 2000, as he could not debate the other candidates.
Ironically, one of the most admired Presidents in American history was the last third party candidate to win election; Abraham Lincoln won in 1860 on the ticket of the 8 year old Republican Party. I must wonder how many opportunities for great leaders have been missed in the last 140 years due to our system we call “democracy”. As Congress and the President continue to move against the wishes of the American people I believe voters will take a stronger look at candidates that look less like the established political parties.
Politics and Science
Published in the Observer 3/24/2010
Throughout history major corporations, governments, and philanthropists have played a role in funding scientific research. Funding is required to pay salaries, buy materials, and ultimately sustain research; therefore it is reasonable to expect the funding of research to be driven by self-interest. My favorite example would be the story of Archimedes discovering the concept of density to confirm King Hiero had been swindled in making his gold crown. The outcome of his research confirmed King Hiero’s concerns, and history benefitted from the discovery of the principle of density. We should be concerned when subjectivity in science overrules objectivity. The scientific method clearly outlines the objective process for creating a hypothesis, testing, analyzing data, and making valid conclusions.
I worked as an engineer, have a minor in mathematics, and am an expert in statistics, thus I believe I am well qualified to look at a set of data and make conclusions using experience and knowledge. However, I am not an expert in every field, nor is anyone. Therefore, I trust scientists to objectively examine data and come to valid conclusions. Under review, publishing, a peer process exists to monitor the scientific community. However, concern arises when this process is called into question and therefore raises doubts about conclusions and recommendations. If the conclusions are used to effect public policy the method and authorities providing the information must be trustworthy and verifiable. This past winter two issues have made the headlines illustrating my concern over politics and science.
In December there was much ado regarding the Copenhagen meetings on climate change. Although no agreement was reached, world leaders continue to create new policies to limit carbon emissions. “Global Warming” as promoted by Al Gore has always been called into question by big business. Personally, I am open to the subject of “Climate Change”, but feel man’s influence is insignificant when compared to Earth’s Eonic existence. The scandal surrounding the global warming science forces wonder whether in this case, science was created to promote a certain agenda, manipulate data, squash contradictory views, and intimidate critics. Many have argued to require more analysis of the climate change data because there are so many variables in play to tax an entire population for a normally occurring climate trend would make no sense.
In the second case, announcements were made to change the recommended mammogram screening guidelines for women. Initially these guidelines were established to ensure early detection of breast cancer. However, the recommendation came to wait longer before beginning screenings and to lessen the frequency of screenings. Many women were outraged and examples came forth where saved lives could only be attributed to early screenings under the former guidelines. The science behind the guideline recommendations may not have been scrutinized in such detail though if public debate over health care, threats of rationing, and cutbacks in services were not in the political forefront. Thus, regardless of the possible validity of the change in recommendations to eliminate unnecessary screenings, they are tainted by politics.
We have all joked regarding a medical recommendation made one year and then overturned several years later due to new findings. It is critical that we trust scientists to maintain the ethical line between politics and science, regardless of their desire to promote a personal agenda. The scientific process is the essential first step in maintaining trust between the public and policy based on science.
Published in the Observer 3/24/2010
Throughout history major corporations, governments, and philanthropists have played a role in funding scientific research. Funding is required to pay salaries, buy materials, and ultimately sustain research; therefore it is reasonable to expect the funding of research to be driven by self-interest. My favorite example would be the story of Archimedes discovering the concept of density to confirm King Hiero had been swindled in making his gold crown. The outcome of his research confirmed King Hiero’s concerns, and history benefitted from the discovery of the principle of density. We should be concerned when subjectivity in science overrules objectivity. The scientific method clearly outlines the objective process for creating a hypothesis, testing, analyzing data, and making valid conclusions.
I worked as an engineer, have a minor in mathematics, and am an expert in statistics, thus I believe I am well qualified to look at a set of data and make conclusions using experience and knowledge. However, I am not an expert in every field, nor is anyone. Therefore, I trust scientists to objectively examine data and come to valid conclusions. Under review, publishing, a peer process exists to monitor the scientific community. However, concern arises when this process is called into question and therefore raises doubts about conclusions and recommendations. If the conclusions are used to effect public policy the method and authorities providing the information must be trustworthy and verifiable. This past winter two issues have made the headlines illustrating my concern over politics and science.
In December there was much ado regarding the Copenhagen meetings on climate change. Although no agreement was reached, world leaders continue to create new policies to limit carbon emissions. “Global Warming” as promoted by Al Gore has always been called into question by big business. Personally, I am open to the subject of “Climate Change”, but feel man’s influence is insignificant when compared to Earth’s Eonic existence. The scandal surrounding the global warming science forces wonder whether in this case, science was created to promote a certain agenda, manipulate data, squash contradictory views, and intimidate critics. Many have argued to require more analysis of the climate change data because there are so many variables in play to tax an entire population for a normally occurring climate trend would make no sense.
In the second case, announcements were made to change the recommended mammogram screening guidelines for women. Initially these guidelines were established to ensure early detection of breast cancer. However, the recommendation came to wait longer before beginning screenings and to lessen the frequency of screenings. Many women were outraged and examples came forth where saved lives could only be attributed to early screenings under the former guidelines. The science behind the guideline recommendations may not have been scrutinized in such detail though if public debate over health care, threats of rationing, and cutbacks in services were not in the political forefront. Thus, regardless of the possible validity of the change in recommendations to eliminate unnecessary screenings, they are tainted by politics.
We have all joked regarding a medical recommendation made one year and then overturned several years later due to new findings. It is critical that we trust scientists to maintain the ethical line between politics and science, regardless of their desire to promote a personal agenda. The scientific process is the essential first step in maintaining trust between the public and policy based on science.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)