Wade's Two Cents

Sacrifice Should be Shared

2011-07-11T12:45:00.002-04:00

The big news in Washington these days is all about raising the debt ceiling. Naturally, this leads to discussions of the federal deficit. How did we get into this mess?

When President Clinton left office we had a thriving economy and a federal budget surplus. We were actually reducing the deficit. But under the Bush administration we had two wars that were kept off the budget. This kept the cost from the focus of the American people. But that was not all. About half the run up in the deficit was brought about by the Bush era tax cuts. Most of us enjoyed this lighter burden to some extent. But, if not for these matters, the United States would not be in the financial mess we are in today.

Recognizing the deficit chickens were coming home to roost, President Obama insisted on including the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the budget. He wanted this financial cost to be laid out in black and white as clearly as the life cost was already laid out in blood. The President should be commended for this openness even if it has not led to a cost savings.

Outside of the defense industry, none of us has enjoyed any particular benefit from war. However, most Americans with an income have enjoyed the benefits of the Bush era tax cuts. Obviously, some have benefitted more than others. The more taxes we saved, the more benefit we personally enjoyed even while the deficit grew ever higher.

Because most all of us enjoyed some benefit, it is reasonable to expect that we will all need to share some sacrifice in bringing the deficit back down. But that sacrifice should be proportionate.

In the present discussions taking place in Washington, one of the groups being singled out for a particularly disproportionate sacrifice is that of federal employees.

As a group, federal employees do NOT enjoy the highest incomes in the nation. Therefore, they were not the ones to enjoy the greatest benefit from the Bush tax cuts. Yet they are being singled out to make some of the greatest sacrifices.

Currently, federal employees are under a mandated two year pay freeze. Inflation erodes their incomes, but this two year pay freeze could be considered a reasonable sacrifice. We all should expect to endure some pain.

However, some in Congress are pushing to extend this federal employee pay freeze to five years regardless of what happens to inflation in the meantime.

But that is not all. Some in Congress are pushing hard to require federal employees pay a greater proportion of their retirement contributions out of pocket with no increase in retirement benefits. This would amount to about a six percent pay cut on top of the pay freeze they are already experiencing.

The most recent twist to come out of this distorted burdening of federal employees is to change the calculation of the retirement benefit. Currently, it is based on the average income of the last three years of earnings prior to retirement. Generally those will be the years of highest earnings. To lower the retirement benefit, some are pushing to change this to an average of the last five years of earnings.

In summary, many in Congress are wanting to mandate that federal employees endure a five year pay freeze, a six percent pay cut, and a lower retirement benefit while still allowing those persons whose tax breaks contributed the most to the federal deficit to continue to enjoy them.

This is not right! Our public servants don't deserve this kind of abuse. If everyone were being asked to endure a 6% higher tax rate, then it could be considered a shared sacrifice. This piling on attack on people who serve the American people is seriously distorted and should not be tolerated.

That's Wade's two cents!

Wade Houston
July 11, 2011

What Does the Mid-Term Election Mean?

2010-11-07T14:49:00.006-05:00

It never fails. After every election the pundits sit around wringing their hands agonizing over the results and what it all means. In part, it is because they need something to talk about. In part, their livelihood depends on adding their input.

It also always happens that the winners try to read as much as possible into the election results. They want to convince themselves and the public at large that they have a mandate to push their agenda. The losers try to downplay the outcome and find as little reason to change direction as they can. Wherever possible the losers will blame other factors rather than admit a repudiation of their policies.

It falls to the electorate at large to separate the truth from the spin. Sadly, the electorate is generally so fed up with campaigning they don't want to think about it any more. They would much rather move on to their holiday shopping.

What do I think the Republican gains and Democrat loses in the most recent election means? Several things:

Obviously, it will be harder for Democrats to push reform and investment in our nation's future. It will require substantially greater effort to find common ground with the Republicans for anything to be accomplished legislatively. Progress will have to take smaller steps.
Since the number of political moderates in office is being reduced, compromise will be more difficult than before. Immigration policy reform is probably dead.
The United States was not exempted from the current global phenomenon. The general result of this election was predictable even a year ago as one by one western democracies suffered loses for whichever group was in power. The global economic recession took a toll on the leadership in power in country after country no matter who was in charge when the downturn began.
The predictability of this outcome vindicates the significant push the Obama administration made for major reform in the most difficult areas in the first few months of the term. The best (perhaps only) window of opportunity was in the first two years.

As a final comment on the predictability of the election outcome, I actually had the majority of this blog entry written in my head months ago. I even considered posting it well ahead of election day. But, I held out for the chance that I could be wrong.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 7, 2010

Thank You for Health Care Reform

2010-04-18T11:57:00.001-04:00

Health care reform is now law. Thank you! Thank you to all those who had a part in making that happen. Thank you to Presidents Truman, Nixon, Ford, Carter and Clinton and others who urged health reform they never got passed during their administrations, but they kept the discussion going.

Thank you to the Congressional Representatives and Senators who voted for the passage. Thank you to President Obama for his exhaustive support. Thank you to all who lobbied, blogged and campaigned for its passage. Thank you to all the citizens who called or wrote their Senators and Representatives in favor of its passage. Thank you to those who gave money to get the message out.

The week the bill was signed into law I paid a visit to my Congressman's local office to thank him for his vote.

The Gospel of Luke reports an account of Jesus healing ten men of leprosy, but only one of them bothered to come back and thank him. I don't want to be one of those who fail to express gratitude.

So, this entry is dedicated to thanking all of you.

That's Wade's Two Cents.

Wade Houston
April 18, 2010

Health Care Battle Not Over

2010-03-20T09:54:00.003-04:00

The battle for health care reform is not over -- far from it. Like many others in this country, I feel the current bill before the House of Representatives does not go far enough in reforming our health care system. At the top of my list of dissatisfactions is the fact that some of its most important provisions don't even take effect before 2014. Even so, I think it helps to draw an analogy from the sport of mountain climbing.

If ever there was a task that could be compared with scaling a monstrous mountain, health care reform has got to be that task. Even expert climbers scale difficult mountains in stages. At certain points along they way, they may even drive a piton into the side of the mountain to fasten a safety rope to protect themselves from falling back below that point. In recent years, there has been an emphasis on "clean climbing" which uses no pitons, but even the clean climbing devotees acknowledge that the most difficult mountains still require piton use.

Passing the current health care reform bill represents driving a piton into the health care reform mountain. It is not the summit, but it preserves the progress to this point. There is still much more to be done, but it is dangerous to continue without a safety rope. Clearly, we have come as far as we dare without locking in the progress to this point. The current health care reform legislation needs to pass.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
March 20, 2010

The Furor Over a Government Run Public Health Insurance Option

2009-06-19T09:45:00.003-04:00

Health care reform is being pushed like never before. Nearly all sectors of our society are clamoring for it. The medical profession wants it. The insurance industry wants it. The business community as a whole wants it. The President wants it. Most important of all, I want it.

Even the people who have health insurance coverage are seeing their costs are higher than they would be otherwise if it were not for the burden of all the uninsured individuals who drive up prices for everyone else. Surely, this is the year health care reform will be passed.

Not so fast! Lots of people want something done, but they don't all agree on what is to be done. Most agree that the ideal would be some form of health care coverage for everyone. The one's who don't support this are the people who would rather exclude anyone who might get in line for medical services ahead of them if they have the opportunity. Instead of admitting their selfishness, they find more socially acceptable reasons to oppose the idea.

A major focus of opposition for many of these people seems to be around a government provided public health insurance option. There are several points they make which on the surface seem reasonable.

* They say a government venture into health insurance would be an unfair competitor to the private insurance industry. The very size of the government insurance would put that program in a position to command price concessions for health care services that private industry could not rival.

* They say the government is attrociously inefficient and a bureaucratic nightmare. They point to the typically long lines of people applying for drivers licenses or car registrations at the Department of Motor Vehicles in most states.

* Some people are simply philosophically opposed to anything that expands the role of government. They are fond of saying that a government big enough to give you whatever you want is also capable of taking everything you've got.

As I said, on the surface, many of these arguments seem reasonable. But look more closely.

First, the government's running of mail and package delivery service in the form of the postal service did not stop other companies like Federal Express, United Parcel Service and other couriers from getting a foothold and thriving. What was once a virtual monopoly in the hands of government lost considerable marketshare to private industry. It could certainly be argued that those private companies are actually all the better for having to compete against the government.

Second, comparing a possible government run public health insurance program to most states' Department of Motor Vehicles is a false analogy. Every vehicle owner or driver is required to go through their department of motor vehicles and only there to obtain appropriate licenses and registrations. There is no private option. When it comes to health insurers, there are lots of options. The DMV analogy resonates with a lot of people because we all hate those long waits. But it is a smokescreen because it does not really apply.

Third, people who embrace the philosophy that the government that governs least governs best are not thinking things through. One example: only government can really look after the nations highway system. It would be a sad state of affairs if it did not. We all benefit because government does take care of our roads. Yet the government does not tell us where to drive or ration how much we can drive. We are at liberty to traverse any open public road available. It is still a personal choice. There are other examples that come to mind, but I won't mention them here.

I am not married to the idea of a government administered health insurance program. If the objectives of having such a program can be fully met in some other reasonsable way, I am fine with that. But that other way needs to be put on the table and discussed. Meanwhile, lets steer clear of scare tactics and false analogies to demonize the public option.

Unfortunately, it seems most Republicans and some Democrats are more interested in opposing any health care reform that contains a government administered health insurance program instead of offering a viable alternative. That is dead end thinking.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
June 19, 2009

Why Require Every Adult to Carrry Health Insurance

2009-06-18T11:16:00.004-04:00

Before I begin, in the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that I spent four years of my life working in the insurance industry. Initially, I was an insurance agent and later became the agency coordinator for the Quaker Life Insurance Company in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Jim Inhofe, a current Republican senator from that state was the company president. But in those days, he was the mayor of Tulsa and had not yet gone to Washington.

One of the items that was an integral component of the health care proposals made by both John Edwards and Hillary Clinton was a mandate that all individuals have and maintain health insurance. This would be similar to the requirement for vehicle insurance that exists in most states. Naturally, the insurance industry supports such a mandate.

At first glance, one might think the insurance industry's support for requiring everyone to have health insurance would be motivated by the lure of big profits. Actually, that potential cannot be entirely ruled out. However, there is another, more important reason.

Insurance companies operate by collecting money from all their customers and paying claims to those who need them. The company decides what to charge their customers based on how much they expect to need to pay the claims. They spend a lot of time and effort on statistical analysis to balance keeping their respective company's policies competitive while still reaping a profit for their investors. This actuarial science is what separates insurance plans from fraudulent ponzi schemes.

Most of the health care reform proposals call for eliminating the right of insurers to exclude people or to charge them higher premiums because of their existing health insurance problems. This is desirable for everyone except the insurers. As has been mentioned, insurance companies make their money by collecting money from all their insured while paying out as little as possible. Those people who have health conditions that cost more to treat than they pay in for health insurance premiums actually cost the insurance company money. Currently, the only way to control this loss is for insurance companies to be able to exclude offering coverage to those people or to charge them much higher rates. This also provides provides something of an incentive for healthy people to lock in their health insurance before something adverse happens.

If you eliminate the right of insurance companies to exclude the unhealthy, then many healthy people will wait until their expected medical expenses are greater than than the insurance premiums before getting coverage. It makes perfect sense from a personal financial management perspective. But, it will bankrupt the insurance companies!

Only requiring everyone to have insurance as a matter of law whether they are healthy or not will enable insurance companies to remain in business even if they accept people with health conditions at the sames rates as everyone else. That will guarantee the insurance companies have the money to pay the claims for those who need it. You can argue the politics, but some things are what they are regardless of how you feel about it. You cannot make health insurance available to everyone without requiring it for everyone.

That's Wade's two cents!

Wade Houston
June 18, 2009

Stimulating Lies

2009-02-13T18:29:00.003-05:00

I support a healthy debate. I believe in honest dialogue. But Republicans in the United States Senate and House are in many cases telling outright lies about the stimulus bill. Some keep repeating those falsehoods over and over with ever louder voices as though doing so would turn a lie into the truth. Chief among the lies they seem to be telling is that this bill will not keep or create jobs. Why?

I think they know that if you repeat a lie often enough some people begin to believe it. Since the American people gave control of both the legislative and executive branches of our government to the Democrats, the Republicans are shouting all the louder to make up for what they lack in numbers. They seem to be counting on the recession lasting well into 2010 regardless of what the government does. In that case, they expect the fickle voter will turn against those in power and reward the vocal opposition at the polls.

On the surface, this seems to be quite a gamble. If the stimulus should have a significant positive impact on the economy by mid 2010, the Republicans will have been definitively on record as having been on the wrong side of the issue. However, the American people are notoriously forgiving when everything turns out alright in the end. Perhaps that is what the GOP is counting on. I am cynical enough to believe they put their collective heads together and decided they have nothing to gain from bipartisanship. Partisan bickering may not cost them much in the end and holds the possibility of greater political reward.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 13, 2009

Why I Chose Not to Vote Early

2008-11-08T18:37:00.004-05:00

The 2008 election is now over (except for a few runoffs). My state had one of the longest early voting periods in the nation. There was a lot of encouragement to vote early. I thought about it, but I held out. I did not vote until the final election day, November 4th.

Why did I wait? Well, it was not because of any indecision on my part. I knew I was going to vote for the candidates who came closest to my own position on health care. I knew those were all Democrats. I knew how I was going to vote a few months before the election. So indecision had nothing to do with my delay.

No, my issue was that I had little confidence in the early voting system in my state. Historically, there have been many instances of problems with counting absentee ballots. I was not convinced those difficulties had been resolved. Furthermore, for the non-absentee touch screen early voting, there was no paper trail. I wanted my vote to count and felt safest placing it in the mainstream of votes on election day. There was still no paper trail, but I had greater confidence the system would work smoothly that day. I was amused to see that the presidential candidates themselves waited until that final day to cast their own votes.

Since I had made a donation to Barack Obama's political campaign, I was on their e-mailing list. I kept getting one message after another encouraging me to vote early and to get others to vote early as well. I was considering putting my concerns aside and doing exactly that when the news reports started coming in of long long lines at the early polling places. Some in my state had to wait as long as seven hours to cast their votes.

At first I thought it was just temporary. After a few days of people voting early surely the numbers would taper off to a trickle with maybe a slight rise on the last early voting day. I was wrong! It became something of a feedback loop. The reports of such long lines made some people fear they needed to go ahead and vote lest they find the lines impossibly long on election day. So more people voted early making the lines still longer.

I pondered requesting an absentee ballot which could be mailed in but really hesitated because of the history of these ballots. Sure enough, in a few days it was in the news that faulty absentee ballots had been mailed out. The problem with these ballots was that the ovals were the wrong size and shape for the optical scanners to read. In Hamlet's words, "Oh, my prophetic soul!" New ballots were mailed out, but all those that had been marked and already returned were going to have to be manually transcribed onto new ballots.

(Here we are days after the close of the election and my state, Georgia, is still counting absentee ballots. The outcome of a U.S. Senate race is hanging in the balance. Perhaps by Tuesday the Georgia Secretary of State will be able to certify the election results.)

There continued to be issues with voting machines not working properly. Some of the voting machines were not properly calibrated and were registering votes for the wrong candidates. There were computer voter verification delays, etc. until the early election period finally ended. My hope was that all the kinks in the system got worked out. Maybe with all the normal polling places open on the regular election day there would be enough facilities in operation that the wait to vote would not be hours upon hours. I took that gamble.

I considered getting up early so I could be at the polls and in line by 6 a.m. Ultimately, I decided against that. I understand that others in my precinct who did go early had a wait of about an hour and a half. A local church serves as the polling place for my precinct and the poll workers had people queue through the pews in the sanctuary. People who waited until just before the polls closed also had to wait for a while.

I went to vote just before noon. If it had not been for the signs pointing where to vote, I would have thought the polling place had been moved. I experienced absolutely no wait to get my voting machine key card. After that, I actually spent more time trying to get through all the elections and issues on the ballot than I did waiting for an available machine.

I thanked the poll workers who volunteer their time and energies to make the operation work. I did not realize until recently that most of that work was voluntary. I am grateful to all those who voted early. They got their votes out of the way so my own voting experience went much more smoothly. (Gratitude feels so much better than any sort of guilt for the painlessness of my own voting experience.)

More needs to be done to improve the integrity of the balloting process in this country. We must have confidence in the way the will of the people is tabulated to believe that we really have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."

We also need to do more to make voting less burdensome. My parents went to vote on one of the early days, but the line they encountered was about three hours long. With their health issues, that was not going to work. So, they went home.

Still, I am proud of our elections in this country. I am proud to be an American.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 8, 2008

Tricks or Treats for Voters

2008-10-31T15:40:00.003-04:00

The conclusion of this election season is just days away, and the political cynic in me is fully engaged. The closer we are to having it all be over, the more the negative campaigns of misleading statements and half truths fly. This seems to be true for all levels of office being sought. From the election of the next county sheriff all the way up to the President of the United States, opponents are pulling each other's statements and situations out of context to use as billy clubs.

Unfortunately, the public is eating it up. The media senses that and provides more of what the public seems to want. Many people complain about the negativity but can't resist listening for the latest mud to reinforce their beliefs about the person they have decided not to vote for. At this stage of the race, getting a new understanding of the issues in depth has gone out the window.

There is an observable devolution in political campaigns. Typically they start with elevated discussions of goals and concepts. There will be a lot of civil discussions involving complex exchanges of ideas. Unfortunately, only the intellectual elite give them much notice. Over time, the complex ideas give way to simplifications. Then the simplifications give way to nice sound bites. At each stage the number of voters paying attention grows. By this point, the point of drastic over simplification, most of the voters will have made up their minds.

To go after the remaining voters, the campaign shifts from attracting voters to oneself to driving them away from one's opponent. This is the nasty Halloween part of the campaign. Unfortunately, this is the part the late deciders tune in for. The members of the electorate whose opinions are primarily shaped by negative ads are the same people who turn down Charlie Rose to tune into Jerry Springer. But, in a close election, their votes are vital.

While the candidates themselves are not blameless, the fault for all the mudslinging is not entirely theirs. They are doing what they must do to win. Even the most idealistic candidate can do nothing if not elected. If they have to crawl down into the mud in order to win, it's because that is where the votes they need reside. A mudslinging campaign is as much a reflection of the voters as it is of the ones running for election.

As the voters go looking for goodies, they should not be surprised to run into a few skeletons along the way. That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 31, 2008

Trusting As Far As I Can Spit

2008-09-24T16:51:00.002-04:00

It's an emergency! We're going into financial meltdown! Unless Congress immediately authorizes a 700 billion dollar expenditure by the Treasury Secretary, we're doomed! Or, so they would have us believe.

Fortunately, our elected representatives from both political parties are resisting being railroaded. Many remember what a disaster the Patriot Act turned out to be because it was acted upon in haste. Then, too, they know that the administration that is sounding this alarm is the same Bush administration that told us and told the world that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. There is an understandable credibility gap.

There are problems with the economy. But to blindly follow this administration's leadership to an attempted solution is not the answer. Thankfully, our congressional leadership has learned some lessons from the recent past and is being more methodical in developing a solution.

Tonight, President George W. Bush will address the nation in an attempt to scare the public into putting more pressure on our congressional leadership to pass a hasty spending bill. Will the public demonstrate the same capacity to learn from past mistakes as the Congress? We shall see.

I am definitely in favor of taking appropriate action. But it is my wish that we take whatever time is necessary to get the action right.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
September 24, 2008

Annie Oakley for Vice President?

2008-09-12T17:03:00.003-04:00

Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, recently said in an interview that she had no hesitation in accepting John McCain's offer of the number two spot on the presidential ticket. On the surface that would seem to suggest supreme confidence in herself and her abilities. It certainly reflects some degree of ambition.

Ambition is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, we want people to have high aspirations for our country which probably means they will have high aspirations for themselves as well. It would be sexist to say it is not appropriate for a woman.

However, in saying she accepted the VP offer with NO hesitation, Sarah Palin has indicated she does not appreciate the gravity of the position. If her ticket is elected, she would be the Vice President. If for any reason John McCain could not serve out his term (and at his advanced age that carries a higher than normal degree of probability), Sarah Palin would be the President. Surely, accepting the role deserves some thoughtful reflection. I expect that from my leaders.

Though Sarah Palin has been governor of the state with the largest land area in the U.S., it is also the state with the sparsest population. She may have experience in managing a state budget, but it is the budget of a state with such a surplus it actually pays its citizens rather than exacting an income tax. Even though Alaska has both Canada and Russia as neighbors, her foreign policy experience pales in comparison to a number of other choices McCain could have made.

Sarah Palin may seem like the perfect poster girl for the National Rifle Association, but even Annie Oakley was not qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's time to take a hard look at John McCain's selection. Could this be the first sign of dementia?

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
September 12, 2008

Telecommuting Has Pros and Cons

2008-09-12T14:31:00.003-04:00

In this age of high transportation costs and increasing ease of telecommuting, more and more of us have taken to working from home. Working from home certainly has its perks. You don't have to fight the traffic. There is no time wasted on commuting, so more of your off time is really yours. You don't have to spend extra time preening for people at the office (unless you are doing a lot of work with a web cam). You can essentially go straight from your bedroom to your desk and never change from your pajamas.

Some people see telecommuting as the ideal solution for their child care issues. However, many employers are not so sure. Children, especially young children, frequently cannot appreciate the need to leave mommy or daddy alone to work. The constant interruptions prevent the type of sustained concentration many jobs require. On the other hand, this type of arrangement may be preferred by employers of nursing mothers.

During an interview, one friend of mine was asked by her future employer if she might be tempted to do housework while she should be focused on her job. Her reply was classic. "I've never been tempted by housework before. Why should doing my job from home make any difference?" They had a good laugh, and she was hired. But it does make an important point. There is a potential for distractions unique to a home environment.

If lots of face to face interaction with co-workers is vital for the performance of your job, then working from home is probably not for you. If you derive your energy and sense of satisfaction from the routine give and take between yourself and others on your work team, then working exclusively from home will leave you unfulfilled. Then again, if you hate your co-workers, working in isolation could improve your performance.

Some people need to get out of the house to experience a sense of separation between their professional lives and their personal lives. For them, working from home would be too much of an intrusion of one into the other. Many people complain that since they started working from home, they never seem to be able to get away from their jobs. They don't feel like their work day is done when they don't physically leave the workplace behind. One friend of mine addressed this problem by putting his office in his basement. When he went to the basement, he was "at work". His family came to understand and respect this arrangement. He stayed out of his basement office when he was done for the day.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston

Universal Health Care is a Win, Win

2008-07-09T13:15:00.004-04:00

The falling value of the dollar should be dramatically boosting our exports. This should increase domestic employment. Believe it or not, we're seeing some of that. Otherwise, our unemployment numbers would be even higher than they are. A major reason we are not seeing a greater benefit is because the American labor market is not structured for international competition.

A big hindrance to American labor's competitiveness around the world is the tying of health care to employment. We expect employers to provide health insurance for the employees. This one item adds significantly to labor costs. If we did not participate in a global marketplace, we could continue this practice indefinitely. Or, if the rest of the world followed this same model we could continue this approach to health care with no adverse consequences to our competitiveness. But, that is not what the other industrialized nations of the world are doing.

Nearly all the other major industrialized nations have some sort of government provided health care which leaves private businesses completely out of the picture. That means those businesses have no health care expenses associated with their labor costs. In comparison with American labor market, it is as if those foreign businesses were having a portion of their labor costs subsidized by their governments. That is a significant competitive advantage. It is so significant, in fact, that if it were a more direct subsidy, the United States would be suing those countries in the World Trade Court for unfair practices.

It would be extremely arrogant to expect the rest of the world to change to our system of health care. They happen to like their way. Many U.S. companies that have shifted parts of their operations abroad like their way also. Being able to operate without the costs of health care has been a driving factor in the export of jobs.

American labor can hardly be expected to suddenly give up employer provided health care with nothing to replace it. That would be a catastrophe. We can't fault American businesses for wanting to keep expenses down, either. Without some remedy, the steady export of jobs abroad will likely continue.

There have been a lot of proposals circulated to address the problem of Americans who either have no health care insurance or are woefully under insured. A significant number of these would place the burden for this insurance on the backs of the employers. In terms of world trade, this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.

To improve their global competitiveness, our businesses need for us to adopt a government provided system of universal health care. There are ways this can be done without putting the insurance companies out of business. In fact, depending upon how such a program is structured, it could even increase their business. This would be a win for businesses because their domestic costs would go down. This would be a win for labor because it would be easier for companies to add more jobs. That is why both business and labor should be leading the crusade for universal health care.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
July 9, 2008

Wake Up to the Abundance of Energy

2008-07-03T12:02:00.004-04:00

Energy finally seems to be getting the attention it deserves. People are recognizing the rising demand around our planet, and many are talking about energy shortages as developing nations start utilizing more energy themselves. But the reality is that we are surrounded by an abundance of energy. The earth is truly blessed.

The mindset of energy shortage comes from a tunnel vision focus on fossil fuels. That limited focus is drying up supplies and poisoning our planet. What is needed instead is for developers to take off their blinders and wake up to the enormous supply of untapped energy that surrounds us. I am not talking metaphysics here. I am talking about natural energy.

Here's one example. Long range forecasters are predicting some critical fresh water needs in the future that current delivery systems cannot accommodate. Many areas are already feeling the strain. Obviously, more needs to be done with water reclamation. But additionally, many are calling for much more to be done with the desalination of seawater. A major obstacle to that has been the high energy demand of such operations. Imagine, though, a desalination plant that harnesses the local power of the tides, the wind, and the waves to generate the electricity required to operate and pump the water. The output of the plant might be somewhat variable, but it would take no energy from the grid. Instead, the facility takes the energy from its environment.

We need to get away from the all or nothing approach to supplying our electrical energy needs. There is an enormous amount of energy lost in transmission from a central location. Envision, instead, a community in which every building has roof shingles that not only perform the usual protective functions but also convert sunlight into electricity for use in that building. In most locations, this would not be enough to substitute for the electrical grid, but it could certainly supplement. If the building is making use of a subterranean heating and cooling system, the power to provide the air circulation could all be generated on site. (Google "subterranean heating and cooling" for more information.)

This sort of decentralization of power supply can make an enormous difference in parts of the developing world where the infrastructure for power delivery has not been put into place. In many respects, it is similar to the way in which cell phone service has reached many areas were there are still no telephone land lines. These countries will be able to modernize more quickly and with less investment in infrastructure with this type of technology. As a bonus, it will have less negative impact on the environment.

What we need now and in the future is more creative energy. Sometimes, we need new technologies. Sometimes we just need new applications of very old technologies. Either way, we'll be drawing upon the abundance of energy that already surrounds us.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
July 3, 2008

Best Way for Hillary Clinton to Help Barack Obama

2008-07-02T11:17:00.003-04:00

The last of the 2008 presidential primaries are behind us. It is clear that Barack Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee. All of his opponents have endorsed him. That includes his most enduring competitor, Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to support the election of Barack Obama. She is committed to seeing a Democrat elected to the White House. That invites the question, "How can Hillary Clinton's services be put to the best use?"

Certainly, Senator Clinton can go a long way to persuade those who supported her in the nomination process that their best next option is to support the election of Barack Obama. This is probably the single most important task for Hillary Clinton. Her consistent enthusiastic message has to be that Barack Obama must become the next President of the United States.

But, what about outside her base of support? Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. There are some people in this country who were determined to vote for anyone who was running against her. Of course, the majority of those aren't going to vote for Senator Obama, either, but some will. Obama needs to use Hillary Clinton's support to the best advantage without stirring up energy for the opposition. That is the challenge.

My recommendation would be that Senator Clinton hit the campaign trail stumping for other Democrats running for office. At every stop she can encourage people to support Barack Obama for President by voting for him and also sending to Washington people who will support his policies. This would need to be done carefully to see that she only appears with candidates in areas where her support is a net benefit, but it could help the Democrats enormously.

This approach is a win for Hillary Clinton as well. Much of politics is based on trading favors. By campaigning for other Democrats seeking office, Clinton builds political capital she can use to push policies in the Senate later.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
July 2, 2008

Choose Your Pain Wisely

2008-06-27T18:04:00.003-04:00

We are in an economic slowdown at the same time we're experiencing rising prices of essentials such as food and transportation. Of course, non-essentials are going up, too. But it's easier to adjust to those price increases by cutting back.

As we tighten our belts and adjust to making what we have left go further, it is natural to expect our government agencies to do the same. It is politically popular to talk about "eliminating waste and unnecessary spending." Unfortunately, in the real world those cuts rarely get applied to extravagant toilets, etc. Instead they translate into job losses and reduction of services to the public.

When we insist our government agencies reduce spending, we don't really want people to lose their jobs. We just want lower taxes. Sadly, we cannot eat our cake and have it still.

When any organization or agency cuts jobs, there are going to be more people competing for the jobs that remain. Unemployment rises. Even if you believe your job is secure, the prevailing job market has a dampening effect on wages. This can lead to a downward economic spiral as people cut back on spending to adjust.

In the United States the federal government is the largest single employer. When you add to those federal jobs all the jobs of the various states and municipalities, you can see that governmental cuts have a big impact on overall unemployment rates. Those taxes you pay may hurt, but lower wages and even unemployment hurt still more. Keep that in mind the next time you look at your paycheck stub.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
June 27, 2008

The Blessings Of High Oil Prices

2008-06-18T10:59:00.003-04:00

There is a lot of moaning and groaning about high oil and gasoline prices. It's understandable. No one likes paying for anything more than he has to. But with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth, there are a lot of people who are completely ignoring the numerous blessings this situation brings us. This filthy-dark, high price oil cloud has an amazingly bright silver lining.

Some of us have been saying for some time now that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. One of the obstacles has been that oil was too cheap an option for energy independence advocates to gather the support and public will needed to make that happen. As the price of oil rises, the energy independence movement is gaining strength. Indeed, the reality of that fact has Saudi Arabia currently leading the way in trying to get the world price of oil under control. The pusher never wants to lose the junkie.

Environmentalists have been calling for higher mileage standards on our vehicles, but the legislative will has not been there in sufficient force. With high gasoline prices, the market forces are doing what the law makers failed to do. Gas guzzling monsters are losing sales. The public is demanding higher fuel efficiency. Car manufacturers are revamping their production lines accordingly. They previously denied being able to adjust to any new mandatory standards so rapidly. But, with their very survival on the line, we're hearing a different song.

Safety advocates have long urged people to slow down while driving, to stay within the speed limit. Now, many people are slowing down. They aren't doing it because it decreases the chances they will be in an accident. They are driving closer to the limit because of the certainty it will improve their gas mileage. Some are even allowing more distance between their own cars and the vehicle in front so as to avoid breaking as often.

Those who concern themselves with traffic congestion have to be pleased that people are making fewer unnecessary trips. Drivers are combining errands and planning routes more efficiently. Carpoolers are growing in number. Those with short commutes are even getting more exercise by walking or riding bicycles.

In many cities, public transportation has been woefully underfunded. There just was not the demand to justify the investment. Thanks to higher gasoline prices that situation is changing. More and more people are leaving their cars at home and taking the bus, subway or train. Under current circumstances, cities find the support for expanding transportation services to be greater than ever. As public transportation is improved, it becomes a viable option for more and more people.

Investment in alternative energy technologies has lagged far behind what has been needed. But, necessity is the mother of invention. With oil prices so high, alternative energy applications become more viable economically. As demand for these applications grows, so will the investment to make them more efficient and economical.

I am amazed to see so many changes happening at once! I had feared we would adjust to gradually increasing oil prices the way tobacco addicts accepted the rising price of cigarettes. It is my belief that only the suddenness of the steep rise in the price of oil has created this shift. Wisdom has long been crying for these changes. The present pain could have been avoided, a crises averted. Instead, we have waited until our shocked wallets demand something different. So be it.

I'm still going to look for the lowest priced gasoline to fill my tank, but I can appreciate the benefits high fuel prices are bringing us. I don't like the pain, but bring on the blessings!

That's Wades 2 cents.

Wade Houston
June 18, 2008

California Gay Marriage Ruling Energizes GOP

2008-05-17T16:14:00.004-04:00

This week, California's supreme court struck down the state's law defining marriage as being exclusively between persons of differing genders. Gay rights activists cheered the state constitutional ruling. Ellen DeGeneres lost little time in announcing her upcoming nuptials. Yes, there has been dancing in the streets.

However, some conservative Republicans are almost as gleeful. They see this as a clear opportunity to rally their electoral base to get them to the polls in November. They plan to hold the specter of same gender couples being able to marry, adopt children, and file joint tax returns up as a nightmarish abomination that only their votes for the Republican party candidates can prevent.

Right wing Republicans have been less than enthusiastic about their apparent presidential nominee, John McCain. There has been considerable concern that they might just stay home in November. As a consequence, the Republicans face a real possibility of substantial losses at all political levels. However, being able to stir up anti-gay feelings may be just the catalyst they need to get their people to the polls. The California ruling makes it more likely that will happen.

I don't think the GOP necessarily likes being the haven of bigots. But in an election year like this one, they'll take their votes wherever they can get them. When opportunity knocks, they don't care if it's the devil on the other side of the door.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 17, 2008

Why Not Lift the Gasoline Tax?

2008-05-14T06:53:00.003-04:00

Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton have both been advocating for a summer suspension of the federal gas tax. Senator Barack Obama says the whole idea is a useless gimmick designed to buy votes. Who is right?

The idea that lifting the taxes on gasoline would reduce its price at the pump has appeal. Everyone would like to pay less. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the consumer would ever see that savings.

* The gasoline retailers might simply use the savings to increase their profit margins leaving the prices where they are.

* The oil companies might increase their prices to the stations to increase their profit margins.

* If neither of those happened, a temporary drop in retail prices would probably spur increased usage of gasoline pushing up demand. This would result in more rising prices.

So, why even propose suspending the gasoline tax? Because it gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the situation. It gives voters the impression that their politicians care and are trying to help. Unfortunately, the most likely beneficiaries would be the oil companies.

It takes courage to tell voters what they don't want to hear. It takes integrity to admit an idea that sounds great on the surface simply won't work. I commend Senator Obama for doing just that. I also wonder what happened to John McCain's straight talk.

That's Wade's 2 cents.

Wade Houston
May 14, 2008

If I Had a Do Over

2008-05-12T19:48:00.002-04:00

As I mentioned in my post regarding my super Tuesday vote, I cast my vote in the primary for Hillary Clinton. After a lot of internal debate, I made my decision based entirely upon her position on health care. All of my immediate family has some sort of health condition which makes individual health insurance either impossible to obtain or prohibitively expensive. So, this issue carries enormous weight with me personally.

Since that time, there have been new developments in the course of the campaign which have greatly increased my respect for Barack Obama. The exposure of the outlandish statements by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was a significant challenge. However, instead of immediately disowning Rev. Wright (as would have been politically expedient), Senator Obama acknowledged the differences between them but affirmed the relationship. This was admirable.

Later, when Jeremiah Wright made additional statements before the National Press Club in which he accused Senator Obama of saying whatever was needed for political reasons, Barack Obama adjusted to this new development with measured, but appropriate, distancing action. This demonstrates the ability to change course when necessary and to face reality. Both times I felt Barack Obama showed enormous strength and depth of character.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton told the blatantly untrue tale of running for cover to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia. She told this story not just once, but several times. It is difficult to believe that someone so normally in command of the facts would have made such a gaff unintentionally. This does not speak well of her character.

Senator John McCain suggested suspending the federal gasoline tax for the summer. Senator Clinton jumped on that bandwagon as well. Either they are both so ignorant they can't see what a useless gesture that would be, or they are political opportunists just looking to buy votes from a gullible electorate. To his credit, Senator Obama is calling this what it is, "a gimmick".

In spite of these developments, if we were having our primary today, instead of back in Feburary, I would still have let the health care issue decide my vote. Universal health care is that important to me. I would mark my ballot for Hillary Clinton, but I might have to hold my nose to do it.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 12, 2008

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Wrong

2008-05-11T12:44:00.004-04:00

While there has been a lot of furor over the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, few of his statements slapped me across the face so much as an assertion he made before the National Press Club. When Wright suggested that an attack against him and his positions was really an attack against the black church, I was astounded.

First, I could not believe the arrogance of such a statement! Jeremiah Wright may be a very public person. He may be a prominent person. But he is NOT the summation of Christendom among blacks in America. The idea is outlandish! No one person can lay claim to that role.

Second, there is more than one predominantly black denomination in America. National Baptist churches, African Methodist Episcopal churches, Church of God in Christ churches, and numerous others all make up different Christian denominations with predominantly black memberships. So, there is not even one denomination that speaks for all Christians who are black in this country.

Third, the denomination of which Jeremiah Wright is a part is not even predominantly black. It is true that the congregation he pastored is made up almost entirely of black members. However, the United Church of Christ denomination at large has far more non-black members than black members.

Fourth, I would assert there is no Black Church (with a capital "C") in America or anywhere in the world. Yes, there are black churches (with a lowercase "c"). But, it is a precept of mainstream Christian theology that there is but one universal Church, and it encompasses people who are from all races and nationalities.

Fifth, while I know many Christians who are black, I don't personally know any who would join Jeremiah Wright in saying, "God damn America." Jeremiah Wright did not consult with them. Rev. Wright does not speak for them.

Rev. Wright is wrong! An attack against Jeremiah Wright and his positions is an attack against him individually. He should stop trying to drag other people into his battles.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 11, 2008

A Feeble Explanation

2008-05-10T09:28:00.003-04:00

There is no good excuse for my not posting to this blog in the past several weeks. There is, however, a feeble explanation. This is it.

While I was trying to make a habit of posting to this blog at least once a week and commonly more often, I got derailed by a bout with the flu. It was one of those strains that the current vaccine did not prevent. The reason I can tell even though I did not get the vaccine, is that I managed to pass it along to someone else who had received the shot a couple of months before.

Anyway, I was in bed with the flu for about a week. Even though I went back to my job, I still felt really tired and coughed quite a bit. In fact, the coughing persisted for a number of weeks afterward. Others who had this influenza have told me similar stories. For the sake of my ability to function at work, I felt obliged to rest as much as possible when I came home. So, instead of blogging, I lay in bed. Instead of studying Spanish, I lay in bed. Instead of doing a number of household chores, I lay in bed.

Once all this laying around was no longer necessary, I had a lot of catching up to do with other things. Blogging took a seat in the far back of the bus. Now, regular posting is no longer a habit.

By the way, we really really really need universal health care.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
May 10, 2008

My Super Tuesday Decision

2008-02-06T21:07:00.000-05:00

Super Tuesday has come and gone. My state, Georgia, was one of those participating. Up until the actual day of the vote, I did not know exactly which candidate I would vote for. Until the last few days, I was not even certain which primary I would vote in. Since Georgia is an open primary state, you can actually make that decision when you get to the verification table. Even though I expect to be voting with the Democrats this November, I entertained the possibility of voting in the Republican primary. However, ultimately, I did not.

Among Democrats, at one point I most favored Joe Biden. However, he dropped out weeks ago. After him, I preferred John Edwards. But Edwards suspended his campaigning just days ago. I could have still voted for either candidate since their names were actually on the ballot, but that would have been a waste. Instead, I decided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama based on one and only one issue. That issue was health care. Of all the health care proposals advanced by any of the candidates, I favored John Edwards' plan the most. Of the remaining candidates, the one with the health care plan most like John Edwards was Hillary Clinton. In fact, at one point, Edwards accused Clinton of copying his own plan almost verbatim. So, when I got out of bed Tuesday morning, I decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.

Does that mean I am going to be upset if Barack Obama ends up winning the Democratic nomination? Hardly! However, it does point up my deep concern that Obama's health plan leaves out too many people and ultimately becomes actuarially unfeasible. Barack Obama is an intelligent man. Surely he will realize this problem if he ever really makes health care a truly high priority. I would sleep easier if Barack Obama adopted John Edwards' health plan also. That way, whoever gets the Democratic nomination would have a health plan I could believe in.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 6, 2008

Kennedy Endorses Obama - How Important Is It?

2008-02-01T12:52:00.000-05:00

This week, the final State of the Union address by the current U.S. President, George W. Bush, was completely overshadowed by the announcement that Senator Edward Kennedy was endorsing Barack Obama in his quest for the Democratic nomination. It almost made the State of the Union address a non-event. Post speech commentators found it hard not to mention that Senators Kennedy and Obama were sitting together.

Both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns made sure the public was aware of which members and how many of the Kennedy family were supporting each candidate. This was somewhat ironic in that the Obama camp has made much of the fact that two families, the Bush and Clinton families, have had such a dominate role in our political scene. We were directed to believe that another prominent political family was jumping on the "change" theme.

How important is an endorsement from a member of the Kennedy family? Apparently, it is quite important if only for the publicity. Frankly, I feel it is overrated. We need to remember that the Kennedy family is made up of individuals each of whom have varying talents and skills. Certainly none of them are worthy of an unquestioned following.

Barack Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy. People who put forward this comparison are being quite selective in their memories. JFK has been almost deified in the minds of some. This is largely because of his tragic assassination. The Kennedy family has artfully kept this in the forefront of American consciousness along with his boldness in standing up to the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. Keeping these events prominent in the memories of that period has been advantageous in shoring up the Kennedy clan powerbase.

However, Barack Obama would be well advised to stay clear of pointing out too many similarities between himself and JFK. Many of today's voters have little memory of that time. An objective review of the history of the Kennedy administration would reveal that the Bay of Pigs fiasco came on John F. Kennedy's watch. It was JFK who put the U.S. military in the midst of the Vietnam conflict. If John F. Kennedy had lived, it would have been he, not Johnson, who suffered the eventual political fallout. Also, there is still much uncertainty regarding the personal moral conduct of both John and Robert Kennedy. Obama will do well to avoid inferring too many similarities.

The endorsement from Senator Edward Kennedy does mean something. But, it should not be because it is from a Kennedy. Rather, it should be because it comes from a man who has a long history of public service and championing the causes Barack Obama also supports. This is the United States of America. We have no royal families here. Let's keep this endorsement in its right perspective.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
February 1, 2008

John Edwards and Rudolph Giuliani Bow Out

2008-01-30T13:04:00.000-05:00

The news is out, and so, apparently are both Giuliani and Edwards. Giuliani is a victim of a his own bad campaign strategy. Edwards is a victim of the historicity of running against a truly viable black candidate and a truly viable female candidate in the competition for the nation's highest office. Edward's exit virtually guarantees the Democrat party will have a significant historical first with the party nominee.

I am saddened by John Edwards exit. Of the remaining candidates, his was the proposed health care reform I believed in the most. Edwards voice on that issue was vital to setting the agenda for the Democrats.

Regarding Giuliani's exit, I am fairly ambivalent. I never bought into the idea that being the mayor of New York City and guiding that city through one great crises made him qualified for the day to day responsibilities of the President of the United States. So, I was not anticipating voting for him, anyway. However, as I have stated previously, I welcomed hearing from as many different voices as possible to have the most thorough airing of the issues.

John McCain stands the most to gain from Guiliani's withdrawal in the northeast Republican primaries. Whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination benefits from not running against Guiliani in the general election in those same states. Of course, there is no guarantee Guiliani won't end up in the second spot on the ticket.

Who benefits from John Edward's withdrawal is a more open question. In the storm of election politics, Edwards has been a voice of calm and reason. I am going to miss that voice.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 30, 2008

Dennis Kucinich Makes A Rare Bow To Pragmatism

2008-01-25T14:38:00.000-05:00

Dennis Kucinich is withdrawing from the presidential contest. This is hardly surprising since his candidacy has been little more than a footnote to the overall picture. Nevertheless, his voice has been refreshing in its idealogical consistency. It has never been difficult to determine where Kucinich stood on the issues. His was a clear voice of liberal politics that was strong on idealism that rarely deferred to pragmatism.

The lack of pragmatism was undoubtedly one of the things that doomed the Kucinich candidacy from the outset. American politics is strong on ideals at the extremes of the parties, but pragmatism is what draws most of the electorate to the center. Dennis Kucinich was never in the center.

Of course, competing against a viable black candidate, a viable woman candidate, and (in the beginning) a viable Hispanic candidate did not help. Each of those represented constituencies which have been subject to some measure of oppression historically. The liberal components Kucinich relied upon were conflicted between an intellectual support for Kucinich's ideas and positions and an emotional inclination toward some sort of affirmative action. So, Dennis Kucinich was never able to line up the support he otherwise might have counted on.

Because Kucinich ran a campaign based entirely on ideals, I thought he might actually stay in the race even when it was obvious he had no chance of winning. Just being out there with his message seemed to serve a purpose. However, since he has been excluded from the most recent debates, his voice was not being heard.

Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich is facing opposition in the race for his congressional seat from within his own party. Understandably, his challengers have complained that with all Kucinich's focus on the presidential race he has neglected his own district. (Of the remaining candidates, only John Edwards is immune from such charges.) While finding his voice greatly diminished in the presidential race, Kucinich is in danger of losing his congressional voice as well.

This predictable turn of circumstances has pushed Dennis Kucinich into making a very practical decision. To retain any significance, he must focus on his congressional re-election. Once again, pragmatism wins the day.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 25, 2008

Why Is The Kos Stirring the Republican Pot?

2008-01-16T14:18:00.000-05:00

The Michigan primary is over. Mitt Romney has his first state victory under his belt. There was nothing really surprising about that. Any other result would have been an upset.

However, I am surprised to learn that the media reported that a prominent liberal blog, Daily Kos, was calling for Democrats in that state to vote in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney. I really don't believe Romney's win was the result of that effort, but I question reasoning of Daily Kos as reported by the media. Supposedly, the Kos was advocating a win for Romney to help keep the Republicans off balance and up in the air regarding who their presidential nominee was going to be. Now, I agree that at the moment it does have that effect.

However, the more uncertainty there is in the selection process, the greater the degree of curiosity about it. The uncertainty invites more media attention thereby keeping the Republican candates' messages more in the minds of the public. Does Daily Kos really want the Republicans soaking up all the public attention?

One of my complaints about the compressed primary season has been that there is so much dead time between the apparent end of the primaries and the conventions. This invites public apathy and boredom. I can't see how that works in either party's favor. The spector of a brokered convention, however, is just the sort of thing a fickle gossip hungry public would feed upon. The attendant free publicity surrounding such an event would have value beyond our ability to measure. It would require the bitterest of party infighting for this to emerge as anything but a windfall for the eventual victor.

By contrast, the sooner one knows who one's opponent is going to be, the longer one has to prepare for the battle. So, why was Daily Kos calling for stirring up the Republican pot? It's a mystery.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston

How To Request Removal From a Mailing List

2008-01-14T14:57:00.000-05:00

In my posts on the spam wars, I seem to have talked more about the wrong ways to request removal from someone's e-mailing list than about the proper ways. This post is dedicated strictly to correcting this deficiency. These methods are presented in the order of most preferred to least preferred.

If the unwanted e-mail you received has a clickable link for removal, using this link is the FASTEST way to get off the list. Typically, these links process your removal without any human intervention on the other end. Your removal is in no way held up by the other demands on the time of a human being who would have to process your request otherwise. Also, you can be sure your correct e-mail address is submitted for removal and there is no misspelling. Even one keystroke in error would cause your removal request to fail. Using these links produces the most satisfactory and prompt results for all concerned.

If there is a removal link that seems to be a bad link, it does not necessarily mean the sender was trying to pull a fast one. Mail servers experience frequent problems and have to be taken down for service. You may have tried the link at just the wrong time. It is also possible that the sender has changed servers since the time the mailing went out. The older the e-mail you received, the more likely this is to be the case.

Removal links may be called different things. Some will say, "unsubscribe." Some will say, "opt out." Still others, may simply say, "good bye." There is no one way of phrasing that applies universally. Having a removal method is necessary for U.S. based mass e-mailers to remain in compliance with anti-spam laws. Unfortunately, many spam filters specifically search for removal link language and block any e-mails that contain it. This has the ironic result of rewarding those who break the law and exclude any removal methods. At the same time, it punishes those who are in compliance. There are no laws requiring spam filters to be compliant with regulation. So, legitimate mass e-mailers will sometimes use uncommon phraseology regarding removal seeking to avoid errant filtration.

If there is no removal link, or if the link does not work, send the entire e-mail back to the sender, but change the subject line to, "Remove from list," or "Unsubscribe," or something similar. Often the e-mail will tell you the exact words to put in the subject line to request your deletion. Whoever opens these e-mails for the sender will probably sort them by subject lines so all removal requests are grouped together to process them more efficiently. Since your objective is to get off the list as soon as possible, it is in your interest to make this as easy as possible. You might also include a message such as "Remove me from your list," at the TOP of the body of the e-mail.

You do want to include the e-mail you received in the body of your removal request. This proves you are on the list. Frequently, the e-mail itself contains coding that the sender can use to process your removal more quickly. At the very least, it identifies which list you are on. Some mailers manage multiple lists. If you send only a removal request but do not include the message you received, the mailer may attempt to remove you from a list you are not on and never realize the effort failed.

Some e-mailers will state that if you wish to be removed from a list, simply hit REPLY and press SEND. That simply returns the e-mail to the sender without alteration. This method is fine IF the sender specifically suggests it. DO NOT ASSUME it will work for everyone. Most mass e-mailers simply assume the recepient had set up an out of office message on the e-mail and forgot to turn the feature off after deleting the out of office message. So, they ignore these types of replies. This is why it is important to change your subject line and to explicitly state your removal request.

If your mail server automatically puts the e-mail you received in an attachment instead of in the body, do not send the attachment. Mass mailers are frequently the target of hackers seeking to access their databases of e-mail addresses. For security reasons many mass mailers will refuse to open e-mails with attachments.

Delete the attachment and attempt to copy the body of the e-mail into the body of the message you are sending. This may not deliver all the information, but it is better than nothing. Place your clear removal request at the TOP of the body of the message to make sure it is seen.

It is important that your requests for removal be explicitly stated. You may think a message like, "I don't know you," communicates your desire for removal. But, actually, it doesn't. Use clear words to say you want to be taken off the mailing list.

Finally, some e-mails will actually contain a regular postal address for you to send your paper mail request for removal. This is the slowest method for getting off a list since it adds paper mail delivery time to the process. Use this method only if you are attempting to build a legal case against a spammer and are seeking to prove non-compliance.

Since these latter types of removal requests do require human intervention, you will generally have a longer delay before they are processed. The law allows up to ten days. Using the automatic removal links (if available) will get almost immediate results. That alone makes them preferable.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston

Anti-Spam - Retaking Your E-mail Inbox

2008-01-08T19:02:00.000-05:00

You have mail, lots of it filling your e-mail account. Some of it you want. Lots of it you don't. What do you do?

First, you need to admit you have a problem. You need to accept responsibility for putting yourself on so many mailing lists (even if you don't remember doing so or didn't realize you were doing that). This was covered in one of my previous postings.

Second, you need to unsubscribe to each list you don't want to be on. Once upon a time, e-mail providers were telling people to just delete the e-mails and not respond to them in any way. They put forward the idea that any sort of response would "confirm your address" and open you up to lots more unwanted e-mail. If that was ever true, that is not the way things are today. When your e-mail does not bounce back to the originator, the sender considers it confirmed as a real address. Furthermore, in the United States, senders of bulk and commercial e-mails must honor any removal requests within a reasonable period (ten days) to remain in compliance with anti-spam laws. Even if you personally and specifically requested to be added to the mailing list, your removal request must be honored.

Third, you need to change the behavior that got you on those lists in the first place. Either stop doing those things, or use a special mailbox just for that purpose as was suggested in another earlier post.

Fourth, set any filters you may have on your e-mail account to automatically file as junk all e-mails coming from anyone not in your address book. This does mean you will need to scan the contents of your junk folder periodically because friends and relatives change addresses. They don't always let you know. Even if they do, their notification may arrive by e-mail.

As I have spoken with friends who do a lot of bulk commercial e-mailing, I have gotten some interesting feedback concerning what people should NOT do to get off mailing lists.

1) Unless the removal instructions in the body of the e-mail specifically say to do this, do not just hit REPLY and press SEND. There are some people who do accept this as a means of communicating an opt out request. However, it is NOT UNIVERSAL. In fact, it is becoming less commonly accepted. This is because many people use automatic reply messages in their mailboxes when they are out. Then, when they return, they delete the message, but they don't always turn the feature off. This results in every e-mail they receive triggering an automatic response with no message. So, more and more bulk mailers are ignoring these.

2) Unless the opt out instructions in the body of the e-mail specifically say to do this, do not just send a blank e-mail. For some mailers this is the method to opt IN instead of OUT.

3) Do not take out your frustrations on the mailer. Some people refuse to accept responsibility for allowing themselves to be on the list. Instead of being adult about the matter, they will send vulgar and abusive messages to whomever is opening the mail. This is just plain foolish for two reasons. a) The senders already have your e-mail address. They probably know how to remove you from this particular list and add you to hundreds of others possibly outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Being abusive or threatening does not serve your purpose. It may make your situation worse if they respond in kind. b) The second reason this is foolish is because the most successful bulk e-mailers are employing others to open their mail and deal with the removal requests. The people who get the hateful messages are not necessarily the ones sending out the mail. They're just performing a clerical function and trying to feed their families.

Finally, if taking the right steps does not restore a level of control over your e-mail, you may need to consider changing your e-mail address. When you do that, start from the beginning to limit who has access to your new primary e-mail address. Give one of your junk e-mail addresses to everyone else.

Fighting the spam wars is never ending. In a future post, I'll talk discuss dealing with illegal senders of truly unsolicited bulk e-mail(UBE).

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 8, 2008

Free Dust Covers for Your Shoes

2008-01-06T17:10:00.000-05:00

Here's an epiphany for you. Do you subscribe to your local newspaper? If so, there is a good chance it is delivered to you inside plastic bags which are the ideal size for a single shoe. Simply slip the shoe into the bag and stuff the loose end of the bag into the shoe. It makes a perfect dust cover and keeps the plastic bag out of the landfill.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 6, 2008

Spam and Stock Fraud

2008-01-04T14:05:00.000-05:00

Today, Joanne Allen of Reuters is reporting the indictment of a man from Michigan for engaging in a stock fraud scheme in which obscure penny stocks were promoted through spam. Alan Ralsky is being described as the "spam king" and the mastermind behind the operation which involved ten others.

The way it worked was that the group would find an obscure stock trading at a really low price and make a large purchase. Then, they would send out spam mail to millions announcing the stock was about to rise. This was essentially a self-fulling prophecy because as people acted on this "tip" it did drive the stock price up. When that happened, Ralsky's group promptly dumped the stock to reap a nice profit. Since the rise was artificial the stock would soon fall back to its earlier level leaving lots of investors with a loss.

I, myself, had received any number of these stock promotions. I even tracked a few of the stocks to see what would happen. Usually, there was a bubble as the stock rose and then fell. My own observation was that it nearly always started the decline before reaching the level the e-mails suggested it would attain. That must have been when the stock was being dumped. I was never taken in by these schemers because I recognized it for the stock manipulation ploy that it was. However, many were seduced, and those who did not get out at the right time lost.

The indictment charges that Ralsky's group used illegal means to trick the recipients into opening the e-mails and to get past the spam filters. Though the techniques were not named in the report, typically those who knowingly operate illegally are using offshore mail servers and phony e-mail addresses which are difficult to trace. Unfortunately, the strategies I suggest for controlling your unwanted e-mail will not work with those who operate in violation of the laws. It is sad, but true, that in the spam wars, the heaviest casualties are suffered by the recipients and the legitimate bulk e-mailers. The worst offenders actually suffer the least.

Joanne Allen said in her report that the Detroit News indicated Ralsky was believed to be in Europe at the moment. To me that comes as little surprise. Although, there are some island nations that would have surprised me even less.

It should be noted that, as of this posting, Alan Ralsky and the others have yet to be tried on these charges. Legally, they are still considered innocent until such time as they may be convicted. We must wait to see what facts emerge at trial.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 4, 2008

Let The States Take Turns

2008-01-01T23:33:00.000-05:00

Do Iowa and New Hampshire have too much say in the early candidate selection processes? Obviously, they aren't going to think so. The polls bear that out. Many residents of those states wish they had even more.

To hang onto their influence those two states even have laws mandating they schedule their events before the other states in the nation. To try to get more of a say in the early process other states have moved their events up. This has resulted in the present situation where we have both of the first two contests ending just days from now. The general consensus is that (for the Democrats, at least) the apparent party nominee will have emerged by February 5th.

Personally, I would have preferred a more drawn out process. There are lots of issues that need to be explored. Furthermore, as events of the past seven days have shown, world events can take sudden decisive turns in short periods of time. A longer process would allow more opportunities to observe how the candidates respond to a changing world.

No matter who is elected to the office of President next November, that person will be taking office near the end of January 2009 in a different world from the one we have now. Drawing the selection process out allows presidential candidates to react to and address a wider range of situations. This could give the voters a greater feel of confidence in their selections.

As long as early primary and caucus states have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the process, we are going to stuck with this state competition to be out in front. That means ridiculously early primaries and caucuses. Yet, we cannot expect states to sit quietly by and do nothing while rival states move to the beginning of the line.

I believe the time has come for a nationally mandated rotation of the order and determination of the dates. While the states currently have the right to set their own primary/caucus dates, the national conventions are under no obligation to respect them. We are already seeing states being told their delegates will not be recognized because they stepped outside the lines. A fair rotation system would head off a more widespread rebellion.

That would mean that sometimes Iowa or New Hampshire might actually be at the end of the line. The process also needs to be spread out enough to allow candidates to get around to all the states. There is nothing like that in place now. And, unfortunately, nothing like that is going to be in place before 2012.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 1, 2008

Wade Houston Wishes You a Happy New Year!

2008-01-01T14:11:00.000-05:00

The start of a new year is nearly always fun. It's like getting to play in fresh fallen snow. There are hardly any tracks. You get to make a new start and perhaps carve a different path from the year just past.

It's also a time for reassessment and goal setting. I know many people who have given up setting resolutions because they failed to keep them in the past. By not setting new resolutions, they avoid one more thing that would make them feel like failures. I understand, but there is a cure for that. Set more REALISTIC resolutions. Make a small short resolution you know you can keep. Then, build upon your successes.

I have been seriously considering attempting to become proficient in Spanish. I studied the language in high school and again in college, but like many skills, you lose what you don't use. I never got comfortable with the language because I was too shy to practice it among people who spoke it. If I had done so, I believe I would be bilingual today. Should I make developing a comfortable proficiency with Spanish a resolution for this year?

I see some problems with that idea. First, it is frightening. For me, it's a huge goal. Second, it puts me outside my comfort zone. Third, it is difficult for me to quantify. What is a "comfortable proficiency"?

It is this last item that actually would make the resolution a real challenge to keep. To stay motivated to achieve a particular result, goals need to be measurable. Otherwise, it is difficult to know how to adjust your course. Big goals especially need to be measurable so you can break them up into smaller mini goals.

What I know I can quantify is my time. I can determine certain steps to take that would move me toward the objective. I can also establish realistic minimum standards for how much time I will spend each week on those steps.

For example, I could resolve to spend at least seven hours per week working to become proficient in Spanish. By not setting the resolution as an every day thing, it allows for the variables of life that intrude into my schedule. However, it is obviously attainable by spending one hour every day on the effort. It means that if I miss a day, I know I need to make up for that on the other days of the week to stay with the seven hour per week target.

Now, seven hours per week is probably not going to achieve the final objective in the course of a single year. However, it would certainly put me further along than I am now. Additionally, I am not prohibited from putting in more time and effort. Keeping the bar high enough to require focus but low enough to be within reach should enable me both to make progress and to avoid discouragement.

May your New Year dreams and aspirations find their way into reality (as long as they are not in conflict with my own).

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
January 1, 2008

Five Junk Mailboxes

2007-12-29T17:26:00.000-05:00

Today, as I write this, is the fifth day of Christmas. E-mail has slacked off a bit as we go through this holiday period between Christmas Day and the start of the new year. Nevertheless, since I returned home from visiting with relatives, the number of e-mail messages I have deleted with no interest in reading actually numbers in the thousands. So, believe me when I say I know what it is to have a mailbox full of junk.

However, as I mentioned in my first post on this subject, just because I am not interested in reading the e-mail does not qualify it as "spam". The truth is that the senders of most of those e-mails I received actually had my permission to send them to me. Some of the ways they got that permission was covered in my second post on this issue.

Even though I am getting hundreds of e-mails for which I have no interest every single day, my e-mail is actually under control. How? I am receiving those bulk mailings in designated junk mailboxes.

Here's what I mean. I set up a few e-mail accounts that I use strictly for those things that I know are going to trigger an avalanche of junk mail. There are several free accounts available on the internet. Yahoo offers free accounts. Google offers gmail accounts at no charge. Hotmail still has free accounts, but many companies now refuse to accept Hotmail addresses. Whenever I need to fill out a form that requires an e-mail address and I would rather not give my main account, I just use one of my dummy e-mail addresses.

I don't worry about trying to get removed from all those lists. Normally I just do a quick scan of the mailbox to see if there is anything I actually want. Then, I delete everything else in mass without even opening it. It takes just a few seconds of my time and even provides a perverse sense of satisfaction.

That still leaves the matter of what to do about the unwanted e-mails you are already getting in your primary e-mail account. There are right and wrong ways to get off those lists. Doing it correctly remains the subject for yet another post on the spam wars.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
December 29, 2007

Wrong again, George!

2007-12-27T13:35:00.000-05:00

George W. Bush has it wrong AGAIN! Just a few moments ago I learned that Benazir Bhutto of Pakistan was assassinated by a man who shot her and then killed himself along with several others by blowing himself up. I am saddened by this development.

The Associated Press reports George Bush as saying, "The United States strongly condemns this cowardly act by murderous extremists who are trying to undermine Pakistan's democracy." I agree with the condemnation of the act. I agree with the characterization of the person as a murderous extremist. I agree that his probable motivation was "to undermine Pakistan's democracy." However, to call the act "cowardly" shows NO UNDERSTANDING of the term.

How can it be cowardice to willingly die for a cause? That the cause is seriously misguided is beside the point. This murderous person was many vile things, but a coward was not one of them.

This is not the first time George Bush has misspoken regarding cowardice. For days following the heinous attacks on September 11, 2001 he referred to the individuals responsible as cowards. They too willingly gave their lives for an abhorrent cause they believed in. They were evil people who will languish in hell, but they were not cowards.

I was silent then, but this time I will not be. President George Bush is either an outright liar, or he does not know what "cowardice" means. Frankly, I am not sure which idea I find more disturbing.

That's Wade's Two Cents.

Wade Houston
December 27, 2007

Wade Houston Wishes You a Merry Christmas!

2007-12-23T11:47:00.000-05:00

The media is full of stories of the Christmas messages of the different presidential candidates in Iowa and New Hampshire. Their commercials take a break from mudslinging, but then the candidates themselves attack each other's commercials. I hope you are enjoying the show.

Meanwhile, I am taking some time with family and loved ones to commemorate the seasonal observance of Jesus Christ's birth. I hope that however you spend these days that close out the year that your days are happy ones. Thank you for your readership.

Merry Christmas!

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
December 23, 2007

Unwanted E-mail Doesn't Deserve Your Permission

2007-12-18T16:46:00.000-05:00

In my previous posting on the subject of unwanted e-mail, I mentioned that not all the e-mail you don't want that is cluttering your mailbox is spam. That is because you have actually given your permission for a lot of it. "How?" you may ask. That is the subject of this entry.

From the perspective of advertisers, your e-mail address has value. Your e-mail address with permission to send you e-mail is even more valuable. Merchants are constantly looking for ways to procure both your e-mail address and your permission to send messages there. Getting your permission is most of the battle in bringing their marketing into conformity with anti-spam laws. At least, this is true for those actually trying to comply.

If you don't want to give advertisers permission to e-mail you, don't! That's easy to say but harder to stick to. Here are some of the reasons.

1) Nearly every time you register a product or service warranty online, there is a mandatory request for a valid e-mail address. Somewhere in the registration will be a check box section (often pre-checked) saying something like, "Keep me informed regarding product updates." That sounds harmless enough. You certainly want to hear about any product recalls. But, product updates may include announcements about companion products such as a cup holder to fit on the handle of that lawnmower you registered. You may think the announcement is junk, but it is technically NOT spam because you did give your permission for it to be sent to you. The only way to avoid giving this permission was to have unchecked that box regarding updates.

2) Many contracts for such things as cell phone service or credit card accounts also ask for your e-mail address. Most of these will include a section offering to send you information from "partner companies" or "select companies." Many times you must take action to opt-out of this information sharing. Doing nothing will imply your permission. You might think you want information from the partner companies, but there is no guarantee that your cell phone company is not partnering with a sports drink producer. "Select" may sound exclusive, but the basis of selection may have been little more than agreeing to pay the fee to rent the list. Nevertheless, by giving your permission in such a general way, you opened the door for these kinds of e-mails.

3) If you have ever completed a survey that included your e-mail address, you have probably given permission for all kinds of mailings. For example, in a list of questions regarding your fashion tastes, favorite colors, political leanings, etc., you may have been asked, "Would you like to know more about making money from home on the internet?" If you answered anything other than "No," you probably gave your permission for that whole category of e-mail. These surveys are typically done by lead list companies who sell your e-mail address along with your response, the time, the date, and even your IP address to multiple marketers who are going to act on your unintentional request. They will be able to provide satisfactory evidence of your request if the matter should ever go to court.

4) Nearly every free online contest requires registration which includes permission to e-mail you advertising. This serves the obvious purpose of paying for the prizes. You accept this consequence instead of shelling out the money for lottery tickets, etc. If you don't recall this provision, check the "Terms and Conditions" that you said you agreed to. They actually expect most people will agree without ever reading them. Again, the time, the date, and the IP address from which you agreed to these terms were recorded in case it should ever be necessary to defend against charges of spamming.

I could go on, but I think you get the picture. The first step in stopping unwanted e-mail is to refuse to give permission for it to be sent to you in the first place. This requires vigilance. Dealing with unwanted e-mailings you already gave your permission for is a subject for a future post.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
December 18, 2007

See also Spam Wars

Saying, "No," to the Magic Potion

2007-12-14T19:19:00.000-05:00

A hundred years ago, if there had been a way someone could take a substance and improve his ability to play sports, it would have been hailed as a magic potion. It was the stuff of fantasy. Now that it's here, we call it steroids.

Actually, steroids and human growth hormones, are just some of the substances used to enhance physical performance. An athlete is definitely not doing his best if he neglects proper nutrition which includes the best nutritional supplementation. But steroids are considered bad and nutritional supplementation is good. How do we really know where to draw the line?

When is it cheating, and when is it taking proper advantage of the technological and medical advances of our society? We think we know. But do we really?

What about the Paralympics? How much medical technology can be introduced into the games before it becomes cheating? What if certain prosthesis actually make the contestants better than unaided persons with normal limbs? These are issues that will need to be resolved by consensus.

Let us not be too hasty to vilify those who may have chosen poorly. It takes time for society to work out the norms for new technologies and to establish clear definitions of right and wrong. We're still trying to figure out the proper etiquette for using a cell phone.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
December 14, 2007

Spam Is Not In The Eyes Of The Receiver

2007-12-14T12:17:00.000-05:00

As an internet blogger, I am put in contact with a lot of persons I might otherwise never know. Some of these are people who make their entire living on the internet. They have opened my eyes to some important points regarding the matter of bulk e-mail. I thought I would pass along those insights.

I am keenly aware of what it is like to receive massive amounts of e-mail concerning products or services in which I have absolutely no interest. I actually receive hundreds of such offers, not just every month, not just every week, but every single day. In fact, I receive way more bulk commercial e-mails than the average Joe. I am definitely anti-spam. However, much of the unwanted e-mail I receive is technically not spam.

You see, just not being interested in something you receive does not make it spam. Just because a particular e-mail is sent in bulk to a huge list does not make it spam. It may rub against the grain, but just because you consider a particular piece of e-mail to be junk or e-mail clutter does not make it spam. Why is that?

When our legislators started trying to get a handle on the growing problem of unsolicited commercial e-mail (UCE), they found it necessary to define "spam." You cannot pass reasonable laws against something unless you can define what that something is. It soon became clear that no definition was going to satisfy everyone. Furthermore, there were issues regarding free speech and restraint of trade that were going to make violations hard to prosecute.

Here are some hard facts:

1) Not all bulk e-mail is spam. A number of people intentionally subscribe to mailing lists which may be quite large. Both the senders and the receivers have the right to communicate in this fashion.

2) Not all commercial e-mail is unsolicited. People ask for product and/or service information all the time. The providers of that information have a right to respond to these requests.

3) If you subscribe to or request information and then later forget or change your mind, the sender has no way of knowing until you communicate this change. Your forgetting or changing your mind does not make the e-mail you received spam.

4) Many people unintentionally request information while surfing the internet. Sometimes they are completing surveys or entering contests. They may not notice their request or may fail to recognize that is what they are doing. Their ignorance does not justify accusing the one who honors their request of spamming.

People often get angry with themselves for getting on this or that list. However, instead of properly requesting removal, they will often hit the "report spam" link instead. This bogs down the system. A bonifide investigation will frequently verify that the recipient did indeed request or give permission for the information despite all protestations to the contrary. These false spam reports make it more difficult to isolate the real spammers because false reports waste the time and energy of the investigators.

I'll have more to say about the spam wars in future posts.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
December, 14, 2007

Previous post

Happy or Unhappy Holidays

2007-12-11T16:23:00.000-05:00

It's that time of year when emotions run high for a lot of people. Some people absolutely love the holiday season. Some people hate it. Many children become almost manic with giddiness. Other people sink into almost chronic depression until the second week in January.

There is a lot I enjoy about this festive season. The biggest downer for me is hanging around depressed people. Ironically, I have consistently found that these people who are habitually depressed during this time of year have higher (not lower) expectations for the season. I suspect that goes to the root of their depression. They set themselves up for disappointment with unrealistic expectations.

Several years ago, I was trapped in a similar cycle of disappointment. But someone encouraged me to give up all my expectations for the season and just enjoy what came. It made a world of difference! I was able to embrace what was without constantly reminding myself with how it fell short of what I might have thought should be.

I hear people lamenting their financial woes and saying things like, "We're not going to have much of a Christmas this year." I find myself thinking how awful that is. Not that their financial resources are so limited but that they have so lost sight of the true meaning of the holiday. True Christmas is not about material wealth. Maybe not having all the commercial trappings is the best thing they could experience for the season. But, they will never realize the blessing until they embrace it.

Not every Christmas season is going to be "the most wonderful time of the year," but every Christmas season can be meaningful. Relax. Let go of your expectations. Receive the gift God gives, and you will be blessed, indeed!

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
December 11, 2007

Previous post

MLM and Diversity

2007-11-24T10:48:00.000-05:00

In a global economy we need business persons who are ready to accept diversity. This is increasing true as modern communications have brought the world into reach with but a few keystrokes. Most of our larger corporations have already come to terms with this fact. Sadly, the small businesses are lagging behind.

In few sectors is this lag more evident than in multilevel marketing ("MLM" for short). For those who may not know what I mean, examples include such notables as Tupperware, Amway/Quixtar, MaryKay, Shaklee, and a host of others that rely on a system of recruiting others into the program to expand the business.

There is nothing particularly wrong with the MLM business model. It is time honored and tested. Contrary to many misconceptions, when these businesses follow the accepted guidelines, they are entirely legal and legitimate.

However, as the individuals working in these programs seek to expand their businesses, they naturally tend to seek out people like themselves as recruits. Their commonality gives them more of an influence which makes their recruiting easier. This tends to build entire business networks of people without a lot of diversity or inclusivity.

Many who have joined one MLM program or another have found themselves at various meetings where speakers wandered off the topic of the business and onto the subject of religion or politics (not related to business). One business leader after another would espouse this or that religious or political view point. It would eventually seem clear that this MLM business is more welcoming of people of a particular political or religious persuasion than they are embracing of diversity.

This has the effect of making those who do not hold the same political viewpoints or religious persuasions feel uncomfortable. This only increases the likelihood those people with divergent viewpoints will drop out. The attrition rate in MLM's is quite high anyway, so the cause and effect relationship between perceived intolerance and membership cancellations may not be obvious. But, it does exist.

As MLM businesses have moved to the internet, they cast a wider net than in times past. People are no longer just recruiting from within their own circle of contacts. However, many of the hard core MLM'ers have not adjusted. They still get up in their meetings and speak like they are at a political rally or leading their church's prayer meeting.

Very slowly, MLM businesses are moving toward inclusion. I want to be a fly on the wall when the day comes that someone gets up to share his business experience and offers words of praise to Vishnu or expresses gratitude for the loving support of his same gender life partner. It may serve as a wake up call to treat an inclusive MLM business as a business instead of a forum for something else.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 24, 2007

Black Friday

2007-11-23T08:01:00.000-05:00

Here in the United States we observe the fourth Thursday in November as a day of thanksgiving. Many countries around the world have days they set aside to give thanks for the harvest and so forth. Their observances come at other times in keeping with their own seasons.

Something that is uniquely American is this thing called, "Black Friday." When I first heard the term, I thought it was referring to some sort of stock market crash. However, it seems American culture has embraced the term as a designation for the day after Thanksgiving. It marks the start of the Christmas shopping season.

Now, why everyone would want to converge on the stores and shopping malls on this one day is a complete mystery to me. I hate crowds. I hate the madness. But, some people seem to thrive on it.

Since so many families reunite to celebrate Thanksgiving, I suppose it gives them a chance to go shopping together in a way they don't get any other time of year. Of course, I only shop out of necessity. So that sort of family togetherness holds no appeal for me. I would rather sit around and play cards and chat about life and the world.

I would think that after expending so much effort into preparing the Thanksgiving feast, people would want to take a break from all that work and just rest. Instead, stores compete against each other to see who can open their doors earliest to give way to the onslaught of Christmas shoppers. Perhaps they would rather keep their usual hours, but they're afraid of losing to the competition.

This year, even my elderly father was getting into the act. He had his eye on a 32 inch TV set which he hoped would be easier to read than the 27 inch set he has now. The store he was planning to visit opened up at midnight. I plan to call him later to see how he made out.

Because of the crowds, chaos and madness, "Black Friday" may indeed be a suitable designation. You won't catch me near a mall on this day if I can avoid it. I'll do my shopping on the internet.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 23, 2007

Previous post

Talking Heads

2007-11-18T16:56:00.000-05:00

As I write this, it is Sunday afternoon. Sunday morning always brings with it the usual line up of talk shows with their commentators and guests. I remember the first President Bush referring to these people as "the talking heads." I don't know if he coined that nickname or if it was someone else, but it has stuck.

When I first heard that phrase, "talking heads," I immediately understood what he was referring to. These television shows have several people who will discuss current happenings in government and politics. They tend to have more of an intellectual bent than you will find on the regular network news shows at the dinner hour.

However, there is something about the tone, the vocal inflection, people use when they say, "talking heads," that gives you the idea they don't have as high opinion of these commentators as the commentators seem to have of themselves. I find that amusing.

The whole terminology, "talking heads," amuses me as well. Of course these people are talking from their heads. What other part of their anatomy might they use? Don't answer that.

That these shows were relegated to Sunday morning probably says more about our society at large than it says about the people on them. Personally, I would prefer these shows were televised on Saturday. Many Sunday church goers either have to record the programs for later viewing or miss them altogether.

I actually enjoy listening to most of these discussions. Even the people I disagree with are enjoyable to listen to when they have a well thought out, well articulated presentation. The sort of meaningful exchange that occurs under the conditions of these particular shows would never happen in an atmosphere more akin to that of Jerry Springer. Of course, the people who actually watch Jerry Springer are likely to be bored with the talking heads because there just isn't enough action to entertain them.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 18, 2007

Previous post

Should a Mormon be President?

2007-11-11T10:32:00.000-05:00

Should being a Mormon affect someone's suitability and electability for the office of President of the United States? I think not. But, even though it shouldn't, I strongly suspect it does affect how a number of people view the candidate.

Mitt Romney has made no secret about his LDS affiliation, but he is well aware that many Americans, myself included, regard Mormonism as a cult. Romney knows that he wins no points for his religious beliefs among evangelicals. He doesn't let that stop him from acknowledging his convictions. That is to his credit. However, since his Mormonism is so well known, any other public position on his part would brand him as ingenuine and deceitful. Mitt Romney is taking the only stand that could get him any respect by laying everything out in the open.

Frankly, I believe Romney's religious beliefs should not be an issue in and of themselves. The only bearing they might have on a candidate's qualification is in how they influence that person's political positions. To be sure, religious beliefs do affect a person's politics.

For example, if a person's religious beliefs persuade that person that capital punishment is morally wrong, then one would expect that person would be politically opposed to capital punishment. On the other hand, if a person's religious beliefs are that God has prescribed death for those who commit murder, then one would expect that person would be politically in favor of capital punishment. Religious teaching does influence a person's moral values.

We expect our moral values to influence our politics. But the relationship between religion and politics needs to remain indirect. The separation of church and state is a very important one.

Now, it bears noting that some of the teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints regarding social issues are things that I support. However, their teachings on some other issues are things that I do not support. As Mitt Romney has translated those teachings into political policy, he has adopted some positions I cannot support. I will not be voting for him. But my reasons for not voting for him are based on his political policies and not his religious beliefs.

It would not matter to me whether Romney were Mormon, Baptist, Deist, Roman Catholic, Pentecostal, or whatever. It is because of Romney's political stands that I would not be voting for him. If Romney had more of my political views, regardless of what his church teaches, then I could consider supporting him.

Ironically, many of those most inclined to oppose Mitt Romney because of his alliance with the LDS church are most in harmony with Mitt Romney's politics. It is surprising that they have not figured that out. They are letting themselves be swayed by something that should not even be a factor.

None of Romney's opponents are visibly attempting to exploit this weakness. That is to their credit. However, it would brand them as being religiously intolerant if they took any other position. They are wisely keeping the focus on political issues and not peripheral matters.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 11, 2007

UFO's and Why I Say They Do Exist

2007-11-07T09:16:00.000-05:00

Every now and then, someone will ask me if I believe in UFO's. I have to laugh at the question. My answer is, "Of course I believe in UFO's!" Sometimes that person will look at me in amazement because I answer with such conviction.

However, when you really look at the question I was asked, my response is more understandable. A UFO is simply an unidentified flying object. There is nothing inherent in that definition that suggests the object is of extraterrestrial origin. Any object that appears to be traveling through the air which you cannot identify is an unidentified flying object. It remains a UFO until such time as you do identify it.

There are many objects in my world that I do not recognize. To be sure, most of these are on the ground. But some of these may be in the air. Now, someone may be tempted to report that a plastic bag that was caught by the wind and carried high in the air was "mistaken for a UFO." But actually, there was no mistake. Until the object was recognized as a plastic bag, it was unidentified. It flew through the air on the currents and not on its own power, but that is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not it flew above the earth. So, until the plastic bag was identified as a plastic bag, it really was a UFO.

Those who claim not to believe in UFO's are actually saying everything that has been sighted flying in the sky has been identified. I don't believe that is what they mean, but it is what they are saying. Saying something can be identified is not the same as saying something has been identified.

So, when you consider a correct understanding of what "UFO" actually means, you may grasp why it is I question the intelligence of those who say they do not believe in UFO's.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 7, 2007

Legal Drivers Licenses for illegal Aliens

2007-11-06T21:35:00.000-05:00

There is a lot of talk about the question of whether or not illegal aliens in the United States should be issued legal drivers licenses. There are a number of issues that enter into this discussion. Some of these are practical. Many are ideological. As I see it, the issues are these:

1) We want all drivers to have valid licenses to drive. We don't want anyone driving who does not have a license.

2) Drivers licenses are a way of identifying people. They help us track who is in the country and in what state.

3) A license to drive is a privilege and not a right.

4) We want to discourage illegal immigration while providing incentives for those who follow the rules.

5) Allowing illegal aliens to get valid drivers licenses may be construed as condoning their illegal residence.

6) If illegal aliens are unable to get valid drivers licenses, they will probably still continue to drive. They may even drive with fake drivers licenses.

It seems to me that the drivers license for illegals issue comes down to a matter of ideals versus pragmatism. I think we can generally agree on the ideals involved. Some will decide the practical issues carry greater weight.

Denying drivers licenses to those who are not legal residents will not stop illegal immigration. It does increase the demand for the criminal market in fake drivers licenses. It is similar to the way Prohibition made the illegal liquor trade so profitable.

I happen to be a proponent of more legal immigration into this country of talented people under the age of thirty. If we add enough of them to our workforce, it will help us stave off the impending Social Security crisis. However, I am opposed to illegal immigration and want it stopped.

Nevertheless, on the issue of drivers licenses, I feel the pragmatic matters outweigh the idealistic concerns. The benefits of allowing even illegal residents to obtain valid drivers licenses are greater than the detriments of making the lives of illegals easier. I have only recently come to this conclusion. A good argument could persuade me to change my mind. But for now, that is where I come down.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 6, 2007

A Constructive Response to Adversity

2007-11-03T11:41:00.000-04:00

As I write this blog entry, I am watching NASA TV on the internet. The astronauts are working on a repair for the solar array of the International Space Station. At the mission outset this particular spacewalk was not planned. The problem with the damaged solar array required this. But much was gained in terms of knowledge and space engineering experience as a result.

It often seems that much is gained as a result of having to overcome some sort of adversity. This past week, it was my pleasure to meet and enjoy the company of Aaron M. Blake, a man who experienced the adversity of feeling invisible to women upon finding himself single again. His book, co-authored with Christopher Cokley, was a product of that negative circumstance. The book bears the title, "Why Can't You See Me? Good Men Do Exist."

I talked with Aaron about his journey and the process of writing this book. He spent considerable time researching his topic. Then he enforced upon himself the daily discipline of transforming the vision into reality. If it had not been for the adverse situation in which Aaron Blake found himself, he would not have been motivated to this particular task.

When we respond positively to adversity, good things can come. I appreciate Aaron's response. It should encourage us all to take life's lemons and make lemonade.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
November 3, 2007

True Driving Courtesy Requires Common Sense

2007-10-24T13:47:00.000-04:00

I believe in sharing the road. When traffic permits, I move over a lane to allow people who need to merge onto the expressway to come in. I wait my turn at stop signs. I stop for pedestrians in the crosswalk. I try to give bicyclists and stranded motorists a safe clearance. I try to practice what I consider to be common sense good driver citizenship.

I like other drivers to be courteous drivers as well. But, I want them to use their heads! Some people seem to think it is being nice to yield the right of way when the laws of the road dictate that I need to be yielding to them and have already done so. That is absurd. In the time it takes for me to figure out what is going on with them, they could have already exercised their right of way and been out of my way. Instead of doing me a good turn, they just irritate me.

Some people like to do these driving "niceties" because it makes them feel good. They feel they are spreading good will in the world. That is often not the case. Consider the time I was stuck in traffic so dense that changing lanes was nearly impossible. The woman driving the car in front of me was on one of these "good will" missions. As we approached an intersection with a traffic light there were vehicles coming to a parking lot exit from a store parking lot to enter the roadway. This woman decided to let them on the road. Some others came up from the parking lot behind them, and the woman let them in as well. We actually missed that light because she let so many cars in from the store parking lot.

I would have liked to have gone around this driver, but that was not possible. I actually had to put up with this sort of behavior for several blocks before the opportunity to get around her finally appeared. All the while, she kept letting people onto the road regardless of whether they had been sitting there for a while or had only just driven up.

To be sure, the drivers who were on the receiving end of this "benevolence" were quite pleased. They smiled and waved and, I am sure, greatly added to the good feelings this woman in front of me was having about herself. She just loved spreading her good will. She was totally clueless to the ill will she was building up behind her. I was experiencing some rather nasty thoughts, and I know the people behind me were quite frustrated over our lane moving so much more slowly than all the others. They kept looking for opportunities to change lanes.

Obviously, unless we let people out of parking lots into traffic, they are stuck there. I know that. But driving courtesy needs to extend to people on all sides, including the rear.

This woman would have been fine if she had only used a simple common sense rule. If someone has been waiting to get out into the road longer than the person behind me has been waiting to get through this section, then, and only then, do I consider letting them in. If the person behind me has been waiting longer to get through this section longer than the other driver has been waiting to get out of the parking lot, then I consider myself to have no right to let the person sitting in the parking lot out. It is a matter of simple fairness.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 24, 2007

Previous Post

That Precious Liquid

2007-10-20T18:37:00.001-04:00

Thinking about the water crisis we are facing here in north Georgia has made me realize how very much water we could avoid using in the first place. Having an ample supply of running water is a convenience I do not want to give up. But I have to admit we have made it enormously convenient to waste it at an alarming rate.

Consider the question, "How much water would you use each day if you had to draw it up bucket by bucket from your hand cranked well?" I believe nearly every one of us would use less. Furthermore, the water we did use would be put through as many uses as possible before it was completely discarded. For example, we would catch the water from rinsing our dishes to use to flush our toilets. Water spent washing our fruits and vegetables would be captured to pour on our house plants.

Anyone who has ever been camping in the woods knows how possible it is to get by with using considerably less water. Since you normally have to carry with you the water you are going to drink and cook with, you guard that precious liquid with great care. You learn to brush your teeth using just a cup of water.

If we treated the water we conveniently access by simply turning on the faucet with the same care we would give it if we had to pull it up by bucket from a well, we would find we had plenty. That applies even during a drought.

Outdoor water use is already prohibited here. But, we need to start reducing our indoor water use as well. I have begun double checking to make sure I am not turning on the water flow at the faucet more than I need to. Some people have begun keeping a bucket in the shower to catch extra water to pour on their parched plants.

An additional step we can take is to avoid flushing our toilets as often. Unless there is solid waste present we can normally just put the lid down and go on our way. In some parts of the country, more familiar with water rationing, they use the limerick, "If it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down."

If our clothes are not visibly dirty, we might be able to get by with just airing them out a bit. Perhaps we could shorten our showers and do just a quick total rinse with special attention to a different section of the body each day.

Yes, there are measures we can take to conserve before the water stops flowing. The big question is, "Will we take them?" Some of us will. But lots of my fellow citizens seem to see conservation and sacrifice as something for the other guy.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 20, 2007

Previous post

No Wave To Ride

2007-10-18T13:38:00.000-04:00

In the metropolitan Atlanta we are facing a water crisis that is beyond any we have ever faced in the past. Extreme drought conditions have drained area lakes to the point where many docks lead to more dry land and boating is seriously restricted. Lakeside businesses are finding their commerce drying up as well. But those problems are minor compared to the looming loss of drinking water.

All outdoor watering is now banned. Violators are having their water shut off and must pay heavy fines to have it restored. Area restaurants are offering table water only upon request. Plant nurseries have curtailed selling outdoor plants that require much watering upon transplantation. New sod is not being delivered.

This is not enough. We are still consuming water faster than it is accumulating. The long range forecast is for dryer than normal conditions. With the present rate of consumption, it is forecast that our area will be without running water sometime in early 2008.

In spite of these extreme conditions, the Army Corp of Engineers continues to drain the reservoir sending water downstream to Alabama and Florida at the same rate they normally do. Does that make any sense? Why should Alabama and Florida be exempt from suffering from the same consequences of drought that plague Georgia?

Obviously, it does not make sense. Unfortunately, no provision for the current conditions was ever built into the water release guidelines. The Governor has requested that the water release be curtailed. The Army Corp of Engineers said they are considering their options but are continuing to drain the lake. It is sort of like someone saying, "Yeah, it looks like this fire is getting out of hand," while throwing more wood on it at the same time.

The State of Georgia is now faced with trying to get legal injunctions to block further water releases until a new plan can be drafted. A legal injunction will take the Corp of Engineers off the hook for not following the guidelines they have been given. It will empower them to use their common sense without suffering the consequences.

Clearly, we need more forward thinking in our government and in the electorate. It is inefficient to wait until situations become critical before we react. But that is the nature of politics. Even the best of our elected officials often lack the mandate to make needed changes until the public is so uncomfortable with current circumstances they give them no choice. The blame lies not just on our elected government but also upon ourselves.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 18, 2007

Previous post

Beware The Quick Fix Energy Solution

2007-10-15T13:08:00.000-04:00

In the United States we are rapidly coming to the understanding that we must have energy independence as soon as possible. We have already seen our foreign policy hijacked because of dependence on oil from abroad and face an ever worsening trade deficit besides. As more and more third world countries are industrializing, their energy demands are putting upward price pressure on scarce resources.

None of this was unforeseen. But we lacked the political will to do much about it until the situation became urgent. Maybe some of the blame can be placed on oil industry lobbyists; maybe not. But the situation has become increasingly difficult to simply dismiss as "the pessimistic forecasts of the chronic doom sayers".

The fact that we need energy independence as soon as possible (if not yesterday) has increased the likelihood that we will make some bad choices. We want the quick fixes. But we need to take some time to think through the consequences of those fixes.

Some want us to move into greater use of coal and its derivative, coal oil. We can do that. The United States has vast quantities of coal. It has been said that the U.S. is to coal what Saudi Arabia is to oil. That would certainly make us energy independent, and we already have the technology. The problem is that it would be an environmental catastrophe.

Traditional coal mining (digging caves in the ground) is dangerous to the miners. Mountain top removal is ugly and pollutes our streams and rivers. Burning coal releases enormous amounts of carbon dioxide along with other pollutants. When it comes to fuel sources, you can hardly get more carbon based than coal. We could use coal to almost completely solve the problem of reliance on foreign sources for our energy. But by doing so we could destroy our fresh water supplies and further pollute our air while simultaneously hastening global warming.

Corn farmers want us to do more with converting corn to ethanol. We already have the technology to do this. Since corn is grown, it is a renewable resource. Burning ethanol does release some carbon dioxide, but carbon dioxide is absorbed from the air by the corn plants themselves. So it sort of cleans up after itself and becomes the perfect solution, right? Wrong!

Corn is useful for an amazing number of things. So many, in fact, it is a waste to burn it up. If you walked through your local grocery store and removed everything that had corn or a corn derivative in it, you would find the shelves rather barren. If you took away animals raised on corn products, much of the meat, eggs, and dairy would disappear. Obviously, anything that increases our demand for corn is going to cause the cost of a lot of other things to rise.

There are also the fuel expenditures in raising corn and getting the ethanol to market. Furthermore, it would require all the suitable agricultural land in the U.S. just to grow enough corn to produce the amount of ethanol required to replace our need for gasoline and diesel. There would be no farmland for anything else. However, as we diminish our population through starvation, we would find our energy needs going down.

I have named the increased use of coal and corn based ethanol as but two examples of quick fixes. They are quick fixes because we possess the technology in a sufficiently developed state to implement these solutions now. There are others in this category.

Each solution has its supporters. Most of these are advocated by people with a personal economic interest in their adoption. They will emphasize the benefits and dismiss the problems. Beware the quick fix.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 15, 2007

SEO Is Not For The Faint Of Heart

2007-10-13T14:47:00.000-04:00

Search engine optimization is like running on a treadmill. You have to stay constantly on the move to keep from going backwards. It is not a task for a lazy person.

That's my problem. I want to do something once and have it done. I don't want to keep doing the same thing over and over again. That seems like a waste of time. Of course, you could say the same thing about eating, sleeping, or bathing. The author of Ecclesiastes said it well when he proclaimed, "All is vanity."

Their are several reasons search engine optimization is a constant battle. For one, there are always new websites being added to the mix. They never stop coming. Those websites have to be crawled and examined by the search engines and then positioned according to the rules. That means your website may have a lower placement tomorrow simply because of a new website that came on the scene today.

Another reason search engine optimization is a constant process is because people keep changing their websites. They don't stay the same. Search engines like fresh content and give websites with the newest content more favorable placement. Well, with content for websites always changing, the search engines are always rearranging the order they place sites in.

Since everybody wants to be placed near the top of the search engines, there is lots of competition. You are competing with people all over the world for a good position in Google, Yahoo, or whatever. Until your competition sleeps, you do so at your peril.

There is no one magic bullet that will propel you to the top of the search engines and keep you there. If there were, it would not last, because the search engines keep changing their own rules and criteria for evaluating websites. There is an entire industry just devoted to keeping up with search engine optimization rule changes.

It used to be that you could do a search on something and find several sites that came up were no longer in operation. That is hardly true anymore unless your search is on a really obscure subject. The competition for top spots will drive the dead listings so far down in the pack, practically no one will ever find them. That is a good thing.

No, search engine optimization is not for the faint of heart. Ironically, some people will pay good money to this or that SEO service to get their websites in the upper rankings and then they will let those services go. They totally ignore the law of gravity. It takes effort to sustain the lofty position. If someone is not going to keep up the effort, one should not bother employing the service.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
October 13, 2007

Efficiency or Absurdity?

2007-10-09T12:17:00.000-04:00

Years ago, as a teenager, I read the book, "Cheaper By The Dozen," which was about the exploits of an efficiency expert and how he applied his craft to the raising of his twelve children. It was amusing reading, but it was inspiring too. I found myself looking for ways to make my own life more efficient.

Now, when I first got inspired along those lines, I was a bit absurd. For example, to save time getting ready in the morning I combined my toothbrushing time with the time I spent on my morning elimination. But, I got over it.

However, even today, the influence of that book shows up in my life. Long before it was a gas saving concern, I was trying to organize my errands and combine trips. I save up my junk mail so as to handle it all at one time and be done with it. I put the trash by the door so as to carry it to the can when I go out rather than making a special trip.

Even the way I use the microwave oven has been influenced by efficiency consciousness. For example, if something needs to be zapped for one minute, I will hit 55 seconds or 66 seconds which involve two strokes on a single key instead of using three key strokes on two different keys to enter 100. Instead of half a minute, I'll use 33 seconds. Instead of one and a half minutes, I will key in 88 seconds. That way I use two strokes on the same key instead of three strokes on three different keys.

Some people will view such economy of effort as laziness. I really don't care. I think it's fun.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 9, 2007

Reparations for Slavery in America

2007-10-06T15:16:00.000-04:00

From time to time the subject of the payment of reparations for black slavery in America comes up. Politically, this issue is a non-starter. No mainstream politician is willing to embrace the matter. Generally, politicians prefer to change the topic.

To have any sort of meaningful conversation on the subject there are several problems which must be faced squarely. Avoidance of any of these issues derails the entire discussion. Unfortunately, people to prefer to cherry pick the different aspects of the problem and only present those concerns that support their own agenda.

Here are the key points I see that need to be included in any meaningful discussion:

1) Kidnapping people, taking them from their homeland, depriving them of their liberty, and subjugating them to the whim and will of others through no fault of the victims is a crime against humanity.

2) Slavery is vile, immoral, evil, wicked, deplorable, and inhumane.

3) Though against their will slaves made a significant contribution to American life and culture.

4) Justice cries for restitution.

5) None of the slaves who were brought to America are alive today.

6) No one living in America today was born in slavery.

7) All those who engaged in the slave trade in America have died.

8) None of those living in America today ever held slaves.

9) It is not possible to make direct amends to the victims of slavery who are now dead.

10) It is wrong to hold anyone who did not participate in a crime and who had no power to stop it accountable for the acts of others who did.

There are those who would argue that while direct restitution to the slaves is not possible, it is acceptable to make reparation payments to their descendants. Unfortunately, these payments would be a defacto punishment of others who were not even alive when the atrocity of slavery was being committed. This would seem to be creating a new injustice to make up for an old one.

The advocates for reparations for slavery argue that placing this burden on people who did not directly participate in slave ownership is okay. The reason they say it is okay is because the descendants of slave holders have inherited the benefits of the slavery institution in the passed down quality of their lives. There is some merit to this concept.

However, it is also true that the descendants of slaves have also benefited from the contributions their ancestors made to our society at large. Furthermore, compared against the average member of the population of the slave ancestral homeland, many of the slave descendants are actually much better off. Any honest discussion of inherited benefits must not ignore these facts.

Since all the direct victims and perpetrators of the black slave trade in America are dead, and since the descendants of the victims are generally fairing better than they would be if their ancestors had remained in their homeland, no reasonable calculation of reparations can be determined.

If this were a civil lawsuit, it would be a situation where actual damages to the claimant could not be assessed. Any other damages would be punitive in nature. Since people who did not commit the crime should not be punished, no award would be given. The case would be dismissed.

Saying that nothing can (or, at this point, should) be done regarding monetary reparations for slavery in America does not ignore the injustice that was done. We should honor the memory of the slaves and their contributions. We must dedicate ourselves to eliminating all aspects of racism in our society. We must all build on the lessons of the past and seek to promote respect and equality before the law for everyone. Living for freedom and justice for all is the best reparations that our society can make.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 6, 2007

Solving the Private Health Insurance Dilemma

2007-10-03T14:46:00.000-04:00

According to the latest polls, the number one domestic issue in the minds of the American people is health care. There is a growing push toward universal health care, and the politicians know it. I am one who strongly favors this trend.

The biggest question is how to get from where we are to where we want to be. Some people want to completely scrap private health insurance in favor of enrolling everyone in a government run program. The greatest merit to this approach is its apparent simplicity. However, that is totally unfair to those who have invested their capital and labor in health insurance businesses. These people have invested in good faith and would suddenly have the financial rug jerked out from beneath them. I would not want the government doing that to me. Would you?

We have to know that derailing the private health insurance industry is as wrong as condemning someone's house to make way for a highway and providing no compensation except for a tax write off. It screams of injustice. It is unAmerican.

But private health insurance programs have their problems. Their inherent reason for existing is to make money. There is nothing wrong with that. Making money is not a sin, but it does put them at odds with providing the best possible health care. When they pay for prescriptions, doctor visits, hospital stays, medical tests, etc., insurance companies are cutting into their profits. So, naturally, they are going to try to keep these expenditures to a minimum.

One way private health insurers keep their costs down is by refusing to accept people who already have costly health problems. They know these people are going to be spending more money on their medical needs than they would be paying to the insurance company. So, it only makes sense that the company would not want them as customers. Generally, they refuse them. Even when they do take on these people as individuals, the insurance company will charge quite a bit extra for their coverage and may impose high deductibles and exclusions. It's just good business sense.

Even with group insurance, small groups will find their aggregate premiums raised when there are very many claims. Even a single claim for a high cost procedure, such as a liver transplant, can dramatically raise the premiums for the entire small group. The group may seek to reduce this premium increase by raising the deductibles and out of pocket expenses. But this can have the effect of discouraging preventive medicine and creating more costly expenses down the road.

The private health insurers face a dilemma as well. If they pay all the medical claims too readily, they lose money and end up going out of business. If they don't pay the medical claims reasonably well, they will lose their customers and end up going out of business. Under present laws this balancing act can only work to the insurance industry's favor if it is allowed to exclude higher risk customers.

What if a health insurance company acting alone decided to accept everyone regardless of medical history? What if it just decided to raise its premiums enough to stay in business? Two things would happen.

First, those people with no known health problems would leave that insurer to find someone else who had lower premiums. Second, those with serious health problems would rush to get coverage by that insurer. The company would be unable to keep pace with the expenses and would fold. Everyone loses.

What if a law were passed requiring ALL health insurance companies to stop considering pre-existing medical conditions? This would avoid the flight of the healthy to the lower premium companies since all the companies would be in the same situation. However, it would create another problem.

People who are able to get health insurance generally do so to avoid potential devastating out of pocket medical expenses somewhere down the road. If pre-existing medical conditions are excluded from consideration, then more people will wait until they know they are going to need the insurance benefits before they will spend the money on the premiums. This is especially true for those without much disposable income. Unfortunately, this would bankrupt the insurance companies.

The only way the insurance industry can work is if people pay for the coverage before they need it and even if they don't. It has been described as a gamble. The insurance industry is betting for you, and you are betting against you. The odds must favor the house or they don't play.

One intriguing proposal to resolve this problem has been to both require health insurance companies to stop eliminating pre-existing health conditions from coverage and at the same time require everyone to have health insurance. We resist this idea because it means the government intrudes even more upon our lives. Those who are healthy certainly don't like being forced to pay for something that is not providing an immediate benefit. But this proposal could work.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
October 3, 2007

The More The Merrier

2007-09-30T19:09:00.000-04:00

After weeks of speculation, Newt Gingrich announced at the end of last week that he would not be putting his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination for President. Well, it was a crowded field anyway. Though I had no intention of voting for him, I was a little disappointed he would not be entering the race.

We have a large number of people seeking nomination for President. Six significant contenders for the nomination for the Democrats and about ten Republicans contenders on the other side. I love it! When we have more candidates, it is easier to get more issues discussed in a public forum. I think it increases the probability we will see meaningful dialog.

Before we know it, the earliest primaries and caucuses will be upon us. We can expect the numbers of candidates to plummet immediately after that. Some may endorse one of the other candidates. Some may hold out hoping to use their endorsement as some sort of bargaining chip. It largely depends on how important they feel that endorsement might be and what their ambitions are. Six months from now, it will largely be over.

That normally leaves a large span of time between the recognition of the inevitable nominees and the conventions. That is also normally a dead time in terms of public interest. It really should not be. There is no point when the people have more input in our government than in elections.

My preference would be to have the type of large fields of candidates that are only slowly sifted to finally arrive at the final nominees. That might engage the public in politics for a longer period. But all these states maneuvering to make their own selections earlier than ever works against that.

But for now, anyway, the election game is on. Enjoy it while you may.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 30, 2007

Cutting Social Security Is Not A Moral Option

2007-09-24T16:10:00.000-04:00

The U.S. Treasury Department is forecasting big trouble for Social Security in the coming years. Currently, it is saying the only way to avoid these problems is to either cut benefits or raise Social Security taxes or some combination of both. Their statistics would seem to bear that out.

I have a major problem with the idea of cutting benefits. I am still rather miffed over having my Social Security retirement age pushed back. Altering the promised benefits is breaking faith with the people who have paid into the system for so many years. Whatever we do, we must not do that!

Proper planning for retirement normally takes years. Some forward thinking people actually start their planning from the time they enter the workforce. Along the way, some have taken their retirement savings to start this or that business to try to provide an even better future for themselves. They have taken risks. Sometimes those ventures did not pan out, but they knew their Social Security would be there to fall back on. In a way, having Social Security has been a way of encouraging new business ventures.

No! We must not break faith with the people who have been paying into the system. It is immoral. That option must be taken off the table. There are other solutions.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 24, 2007

Don't Just Sick There

2007-09-24T13:49:00.000-04:00

A lot has been in the news recently about health care. Political candidates are talking about their health care programs, about how their solution is better than someone one else's, etc. This morning's news carried a report of a major labor union calling a strike largely over health care issues. There is no question that we're concerned about health care.

The fact that so many presidential candidates from both the Republicans and Democrats have been talking about how to improve the healthcare situation in this country has been encouraging to me. We have lots of uninsured people in this country whose employers do not provide health insurance. Many of them cannot afford the premiums for individual health insurance policies. Some have pre-existing medical problems that make it impossible to get individual health insurance even if they can afford it. Something needs to be done.

There are lots of proposals on the table. There are lots of complex issues to consider. My greatest fear is that our government will be so caught up in the "paralysis of analysis" that nothing will be done. That would be tragic!

As I have looked at the different proposals being made, I have become convinced that just about any of them are an improvement over what we have now. The last thing I want to see is a legislature so deadlocked over competing plans that it does nothing. But that is often what happens.

One side will want reforms with provisions A, B, C, G, and H. Another side will want reforms with provisions A, D, E, F, G, H, and I. Both sides have provisions A, G and H in common. Do they pass a single bill with just the parts they agree on so that something gets done? NO! They each hold those parts hostage trying to get everything they want for their side. So, nothing gets done!

The only winners in this type scenario are the pharmaceuticals and insurance companies. I have nothing against these businesses. I am so grateful they exist, and I want them to make money. I just don't want our society to be exploited by them. Unfortunately, it is in their interest to block change, and that is what they will try to do.

Bringing about health care reform will be extremely difficult regardless of whom gets elected. No matter what, some people will be unhappy. Debate and discussion are critically important. I just hope and pray they actually do something, and do it soon.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 24, 2007

Most Cooks Are In A Rut

2007-09-22T15:10:00.000-04:00

Most cooks I know are in an allium rut. Alliums are foods like onions, garlic, shallots, and anything in that family of vegetation. Take these away, and many cooks flounder. I am keenly aware of this rut because I have an allergic response to these things. Fortunately, I am not deathly allergic. I would certainly be dead if I were because alliums are in so many many different things. No, my allergic response is that they upset my digestive system. I feel yucky and have a major acid attack.

Since I actually don't like the taste of onions or garlic, doing without those foods is no personal sacrifice. I had avoided them whenever convenient. But, I had never really discovered the cause of all my acid trouble until I decided to take garlic tablets for their health benefits. I didn't taste the garlic, but when I took the tablets I started having major attacks of acid indigestion. A little experimentation soon revealed that any alliums triggered this response.

Armed with this knowledge, I began reading food labels much more carefully trying to avoid anything with alliums. Only onions and garlic proved difficult to avoid. The other alliums are less frequently used.

I soon found people did not want to have me over for dinner because cooking around my allergy spoiled their recipes. Our society members seem to be as addicted to onions and garlic as they are to salt. Furthermore, since most people only experience health benefits from these things, chefs have no motivation to give them up.

Sadly, the cooks have fallen into a rut of relying too heavily on onions and garlic to flavor foods. Instead, they need find their creativity and introduce other fruits and vegetables into their stews and casseroles to enhance the flavors.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
September 22, 2007

The Frugal Environmentalist

2007-09-20T11:32:00.000-04:00

Frugal living often combines beautifully with caring for our environment. Perhaps you know someone who buys lots of plastic bags. Every time she wants another, she just reaches for the roll of plastic bags and peels off another. When she's through with the bag, she just throws it in the trash. This is her routine. It wastes money, and all that extra plastic in the trash is bad for the environment.

There are ways to have the convenience of a plastic bag when you need it. You can even reduce your ecological footprint, and save money at the same time. Here's a wonderful example that was shared with me. Give it a try.

The next time you reach the end of a box of facial tissues, don't throw that box away. Instead, reuse it in a different way. When you come home from the store, take those empty plastic bags you carried your purchases in and stuff them into the empty tissue box. You will find one box can hold quite a few bags. Then, whenever you need a plastic bag, you can simply reach for that tissue box and pull one out. You are doing your own recycling of plastic bags and tissue boxes. You are also saving money over buying small plastic bags from the store.

I keep one of these tissue boxes stuffed with bags in the trunk of my car. I never know when I might be out somewhere and find I need a plastic bag. I also keep an empty tissue box in my car to use as a trash collector. I burst out laughing when I saw disposable automobile trash bags being marketed in the store. My reused tissue boxes are sturdier and cost me nothing extra.

There are lots of simple, easy, and sensible ways we can make less of a negative impact on the environment. We need to make these types of adjustments fashionable. Use these ideas and share them with others.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 20, 2007

Our Troops Need More Than Bumper Stickers

2007-09-19T23:06:00.000-04:00

There are many people on both sides of the issue of whether or not we should be in Iraq who are in agreement on the need to support the troops. Sadly, many seem to think supporting the troops is simply a matter of supplying war material. There is much more to it than that.

Our troops need encouragement. They need our prayers. They need reasonable time away from deployment in Iraq to decompress and to tend to their families. An amendment to a defense bill that is before the Senate would have mandated that troops be given as much time between deployments to Iraq as they spent on their last tour in Iraq.

It is absolutely reasonable. It certainly makes sense to protect the mental and emotional health of the troops. Yet, it failed to get the sixty votes required to add it to the bill. My own senators both voted against the amendment. I sent them each e-mails expressing my displeasure with their votes. I think all the senators who voted against the amendment deserve to be raked over the coals for their lack of concern for the wellbeing of our soldiers.

I will list how the Associated Press reported their votes. A "Yes" vote would have supported the reasonable mandatory time between deployments. A "No" vote was against the measure.

Alabama
Sessions (R) No; Shelby (R) No.

Alaska
Murkowski (R) No; Stevens (R) No.

Arizona
Kyl (R) No; McCain (R) No.

Arkansas
Lincoln (D) Yes; Pryor (D) Yes.

California
Boxer (D) Yes; Feinstein (D) Yes.

Colorado
Allard (R) No; Salazar (D) Yes.

Connecticut
Dodd (D) Yes; Lieberman (I) No.

Delaware
Biden (D) Yes; Carper (D) Yes.

Florida
Martinez (R) No; Nelson (D) Yes.

Georgia
Chambliss (R) No; Isakson (R) No.

Hawaii
Akaka (D) Yes; Inouye (D) Yes.

Idaho
Craig (R) No; Crapo (R) No.

Illinois
Durbin (D) Yes; Obama (D) Yes.

Indiana
Bayh (D) Yes; Lugar (R) No.

Iowa
Grassley (R) No; Harkin (D) Yes.

Kansas
Brownback (R) No; Roberts (R) No.

Kentucky
Bunning (R) No; McConnell (R) No.

Louisiana
Landrieu (D) Yes; Vitter (R) No.

Maine
Collins (R) Yes; Snowe (R) Yes.

Maryland
Cardin (D) Yes; Mikulski (D) Yes.

Massachusetts
Kennedy (D) Yes; Kerry (D) Yes.

Michigan
Levin (D) Yes; Stabenow (D) Yes.

Minnesota
Coleman (R) Yes; Klobuchar (D) Yes.

Mississippi
Cochran (R) No; Lott (R) No.

Missouri
Bond (R) No; McCaskill (D) Yes.

Montana
Baucus (D) Yes; Tester (D) Yes.

Nebraska
Hagel (R) Yes; Nelson (D) Yes.

Nevada
Ensign (R) No; Reid (D) Yes.

New Hampshire
Gregg (R) No; Sununu (R) Yes.

New Jersey
Lautenberg (D) Yes; Menendez (D) Yes.

New Mexico
Bingaman (D) Yes; Domenici (R) No.

New York
Clinton (D) Yes; Schumer (D) Yes.

North Carolina
Burr (R) No; Dole (R) No.

North Dakota
Conrad (D) Yes; Dorgan (D) Yes.

Ohio
Brown (D) Yes; Voinovich (R) No.

Oklahoma
Coburn (R) No; Inhofe (R) No.

Oregon
Smith (R) Yes; Wyden (D) Yes.

Pennsylvania
Casey (D) Yes; Specter (R) No.

Rhode Island
Reed (D) Yes; Whitehouse (D) Yes.

South Carolina
DeMint (R) No; Graham (R) No.

South Dakota
Johnson (D) Yes; Thune (R) No.

Tennessee
Alexander (R) No; Corker (R) No.

Texas
Cornyn (R) No; Hutchison (R) No.

Utah
Bennett (R) No; Hatch (R) No.

Vermont
Leahy (D) Yes; Sanders (I) Yes.

Virginia
Warner (R) No; Webb (D) Yes.

Washington
Cantwell (D) Yes; Murray (D) Yes.

West Virginia
Byrd (D) Yes; Rockefeller (D) Yes.

Wisconsin
Feingold (D) Yes; Kohl (D) Yes.

Wyoming
Barrasso (R) No; Enzi (R) No.

Send a letter, fax, or e-mail to your senators and let them know how you feel about their votes. Don't let them think you don't pay attention or care. If you don't know how to contact them, just go to www.senate.gov.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 19, 2007

Not Yet As The Crow Flies

2007-09-17T21:07:00.000-04:00

When I was a young child watching the Jetsons on television, I dreamed of the day when we would have flying cars. It seemed so ideal. It would not matter where the roads were. We would just fly where ever we wanted. It's really simple to a child.

As I grew a bit older, my perspective changed. When I began driving as a teenager, I would have loved to have been able to get in my car and fly. I would not have to worry about sharp turns, because I could take the same path as the crows. So, I should be able to go just as fast as I wanted. Right? Well, maybe, if I had been the only one in the air.

As I have matured and found myself driving in one of the most traffic congested metropolitan areas in the nation, I have often wished I could rise above all the mess and fly to my destination. But, there's a major problem. I would not be the only one. I would have to avoid not only flying cars coming toward me, but those coming up from below me, those coming down from above me, and I must not forget those behind me.

Of course, it is true that airplane pilots contend with this sort of thing every day, but these are professionals. Also, they are not having to deal with the incredible number of different drivers all traveling at varying speeds to different destinations. These drivers meanwhile are talking on their cell phones, putting on their makeup, and lighting up their cigarettes and all without the aid of co-pilots. And they also have lots and lots of accidents.

No, we don't have flying cars like the Jetsons. But given the way I have seen people drive just on the streets and highways, I thank God that is so! Until the crazy drivers are removed from the mix, I am content to do my driving on the ground.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 17, 2007

Universal Health Care Calls For Altruism

2007-09-17T13:47:00.000-04:00

Will universal health care mean longer waits for doctor visits and other medical services? Duh! If people who can't afford proper health care now are given access to it in the future, yes, they will add to the lines and increase the wait time. At least, that is true initially.

The people most opposed to universal health care are people who already have insurance provided for them or who can afford to pay their medical expenses out of pocket. They don't want to see their wait times expanded by others who are not so privileged. That is certainly understandable, but it is also selfish.

Conversely, those who most want universal health care are people who don't currently have access to the quality care they need. Or they are people who have a close association with others in this predicament. Some would say that they have their own selfish reasons for wanting universal health care. The poor just want to inconvenience the rich to benefit their own health. Disgusting? I think not.

It takes time for supply to adjust to sudden increases in demand. If we were to suddenly get universal health coverage in the United States, there would be a definite immediate increase in demand for services. It would put a strain on the system. I firmly believe the health care system can and will adjust given time. But, I also believe the adjustment will not happen before the strain. Any body builder will tell you that you have to stress a muscle to make it grow.

Passage of legislation to bring about universal health care in America requires appealing to our higher natures, our more altruistic selves. The task is complicated. There are far reaching ramifications to every action. But, the the need is urgent and is not going to become less while we sit and analyze.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 17, 2007

Alan Greenspan Speaks Out

2007-09-16T19:59:00.000-04:00

Alan Greenspan has a new book out this week. Since he was chairman of the Federal Reserve for so many years and under so many different U.S. Presidents, this is getting a lot of attention. Though Greenspan himself is a Republican, he is reported to be saying that the Republicans deserve to lose this next election.

Chief among the reasons Greenspan says the Republicans deserve to lose is the amazing runaway deficit spending of the Bush administrations. That doesn't necessarily mean Greenspan will vote for Democrats in the next election. It only means he believes the Republicans deserve to lose.

Back in the days when I became a Republican, Republicans stood for fiscal responsibility. They also stood for individual liberty and some other things they seem to have forgotten about. It is safe to say I did not leave the Republican Party so much as the Republicans left me. But, that was a few years ago.

At his advanced age, I doubt Greenspan will leave the Republican party. But, it isn't stopping him from speaking out. We'll see how many people still listen.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 16, 2007

I have a late addition and possible correction. It seems the reporter upon whom I relied for some of the information may have gotten the story not quite right. Alan Greenspan commented upon the 2006 election and perhaps not the upcoming 2008 election. Here is the quote as reported by Fortune Magazine:

Where I had difficulties were on the fiscal side. We had a situation where the Republican Party had the presidency and both houses of Congress and the surplus. And I said, "Nirvana." We dissipated it. In the election of 2006 the Republicans deserved to lose, and the reason is that they had originally come to office with major policy initiatives, and they went out of office solely seeking power, and in the end they achieved neither. And I find that very saddening.

September 17, 2007

Pride, Power, and Political Corruption

2007-09-16T16:36:00.000-04:00

Who dares to preach to another on the subject of too much pride? Doesn't the preacher who points out such weakness in others risk falling guilty of the same sin? But, someone needs to do it.

Proverbs 16:8 says, "Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall." This ancient truth is just as applicable to us today. This is clearly borne out in the numerous scandals involving Republican politicians that have come to light in recent months.

Republicans swelled with pride over their domination of both the executive and legislative branches of our government. They dropped their collective guard against the vices so alluring to persons of power. It has become clear that a few notable examples, while drunk on the power of majority, have abused their positions.

Thinking back on when the Democrats were in a similar position of power, I recall several instances of corruption that emerged at that time. The Democrats presently hold a majority position(however slim) in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. They are likely to increase that majority and take the White House in the next national election. I genuinely expect that by 2010 we will see numerous examples of official corruption among Democrats.

It seems being in the position of power encourages bad behavior. Each party is at its collective best when in a position of minority. I wish it were not so. But, neither party is inherently good or inherently evil. Moral vigilance is required at all times, but especially during times of political success.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 16, 2007

Name Calling Is For Children

2007-09-16T15:03:00.000-04:00

When I was in elementary school, one of the cruel things the children would do would be to make fun of someone and use that person's name in a cruel way. They might taunt with something like, "Howard is a coward," or "Patty is a fatty."

The attack was mean, and since it involved the person's name, it was undeniably personal. It was often based on little more than a rhyme or similarity of sound. But, the simplicity of it made it catchy.

Last week, MoveOn.Org regressed to such playground name calling by referring to General Petraeus as "General Betray Us." It reminded me of the stupid attack Jerry Falwell once lodged against Ellen DeGeneres by calling her "Ellen Degenerate." It was vicious. It was personal. And by using the surname, it attacked the entire family.

We can disagree on a lot of things. But if we want to be taken seriously, we need to disagree as adults. We can attack each other's positions without making it unnecessarily personal. MoveOn.Org crossed the line on decency. They should be big enough to apologize and purpose not to resort to such childish tactics in the future.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 16, 2007

Beware The Fraudulent Electronic Check

2007-09-15T14:42:00.000-04:00

During a routine online check of my bank account, today, I discovered a fraudulent check charge. Apparently, an electronic check made out to [name deleted] was drawn on my checking account a couple of days ago. This was in the amount of $39.90 and is completely fraudulent. It has no relation to any transactions I have made and is payable to a company with whom I have no dealings.

I did a quick check online and found that www.RipoffReport.com has other reports of [name deleted] cashing fraudulent electronic checks. I called my bank and finally got through to a live person who transferred me to the fraudulent check claims division where I got a recording telling me to call back during normal business hours. Today is Saturday, so resolving this will have to wait until next week.

The moral of this story is that you need to keep a close watch on your financial accounts whether you have used them recently, or not. The information necessary to commit this type of electronic check fraud is available on any paper check you write. So, never using online payment services is no protection against it happening to you. You want to catch the theft as soon as possible, so keep a close eye on all your accounts.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 15, 2007

Declaration For Energy Independence

2007-09-14T14:31:00.000-04:00

The United States needs a determined commitment to energy independence, and we need it NOW! According to the NRDC we spend more than $13 million per hour on foreign petroleum products. That's more than half our national petroleum consumption.

There are several reasons we must have energy independence. Here are a few:

1) Energy is essential to our economy and our security. It's our lifeblood. We cannot continue the risk of being at any other nation's mercy in this regard.

2) Purchasing so much of our energy abroad is having a devastating effect on our balance of trade.

3) Much of what we spend on foreign sources of energy goes into the hands of governments and groups hostile to the United States. We are giving them the money to fund terrorism.

4) Dependence on foreign oil has hijacked our nation's foreign policy.

5) Dependence on foreign sources of energy can lead us into war. Many would argue that it already has.

One of the reasons we don't have energy independence is because we rely so heavily on petroleum based energy sources. Even if we exploit all the known and suspected domestic deposits of oil fully (regardless of the environmental impact), we will still not be able to replace all the oil we are importing from abroad. We cannot use what we do not have.

The only way we will successfully achieve national energy independence is by developing other sources. This takes initiative. This takes determination. This takes ingenuity. This takes MONEY.

My Congressman, David Scott, recently sent me an e-mail in which he wrote, " I have joined as a co-sponsor of H.R. 395, the Cellulosic Ethanol Development and Implementation Act, which would authorize $1 billion in grants for research and development in cellulosic ethanol fuel." I applaud his efforts; I really do. But, what is a $1 billion investment in our future compared to the $2 billion we are gobbling up every week on the war in Iraq?

We won't have energy independence for this country until our citizens demand it. Only then will we be able to marshall the financial and intellectual resources to bring it about. I firmly believe it is past due.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
September 14, 2007,

Just A Dollar

2007-09-14T10:41:00.000-04:00

When I started this blog, I decided to call it, "Wade's Two Cents." But, the feedback I have been getting tells me I have a growing readership. So, for this blog entry, I decided to set my sights a bit higher. Let's talk about a dollar.

I enjoy shopping in dollar stores. You know what I mean, those stores where everything they sell goes for a dollar or less. Generally, these stores buy up large quantities of distressed merchandise. Now, the term "distressed merchandise" has nothing to do with the emotional state of the products. Rather, their previous owners (either manufacturers or middle men) are in distress because for some reason they need to dump the product. Maybe it hasn't been selling. Maybe they are going out of business. Maybe they got into financial trouble. Whatever the reason, they needed to unload their inventory in a hurry. So, they slashed their prices so low that these dollar type stores could buy them up, sell them for one dollar each, and still make a profit.

You can find some really good stuff in dollar stores. The inventory keeps changing, too. That is the nature of distressed merchandise. When the manufacturer is discontinuing a line or going out of business, you can't expect to keep getting a steady supply of the product. But many of these stores do try to keep certain things in supply. Take off the shelf reading glasses for example. You can pay as much as twelve dollars or more for a pair of these glasses if you pick them up at a pharmacy or department store. But, we found a dollar store that stocks them regularly. Whenever we need another pair, we don't even consider buying them anywhere else.

I keep a pair of polarized sunglasses in my car at all times. I consider that a vital part of driving safety. But, one day I broke my sunglasses. I'm not terribly fashion conscious while driving, and so, without a moment's hesitation, I swung by a dollar store and bought a replacement.

There are some important things to remember, though, about shopping in one of these stores. Sometimes distressed merchandise is distressed for a very good reason. A thing can be of less value than the sum of its parts. I have found a lot of useless kitchen gadgets that seem to fall in this category. There have been many items someone would have had to pay me to carry out.

Consider alternate uses for things. Perhaps, there is a huge bottle of shampoo available for a dollar. You might be afraid to use it on your hair, but it might make a suitable refill for your liquid soap dispensers. Those figurines on the shelf might look hideous on your coffee table. But if they are water safe, they might be just the accent piece for your aquarium.

Knowing what is available at a local dollar store can inform your other bargain hunting as well. I am a frequent visitor at a local thrift store. There have been numerous times when I have passed up a thrift store bargain because I knew where I could get an even better deal for only a dollar. I am sure the same thing could apply to yard sales.

Watch out, though, for some items that are actually overpriced at a dollar. These stores have been successful in getting people into a buying mood snapping up bargains for a dollar each. They catch customers when their sales resistance is down. Then, they will throw something else into the mix also priced at one dollar that may normally retail at a different store for 78 cents. You may want to buy your candy bars somewhere else.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 14, 2007

Get Ready For The Big Sale

2007-09-13T12:12:00.000-04:00

Have you ever been to a store and found something advertised as 20% off only to realize the sale price is about the same as the product was a few months before? It's an old gimmick merchants have been using for years. They raise the price only to lower it later and promote it as a sale.

It looks very much like the Bush administration is trying to put that kind of spin on their proposed troop reduction by July of next year. The reduction will bring the U.S. forces in Iraq back down to the level they were before the surge. The surge was always intended to be temporary. It cannot be maintained without seriously over stressing the troops. So, Bush is trying to spin it like doing what they MUST do is some mark of progress. The question is, "Will the public buy what they are selling?"

Many of the Republicans in Congress are jumping on board with this promotion. I believe they are primarily playing to their own constituencies. They need to point to something to suggest the Iraqi situation is really not the quagmire it seems.

At the same time, many Democrats are calling for bigger troop reductions sooner. They are even talking of passing legislation to mandate such action. They have little concern for the consequences because they know there is no chance of having the votes needed to override a presidential veto. It's all a game to keep the American public focused on placing the blame for the war on the Republicans.

Both Republicans and Democrats are spinning like crazy. I see a lot of politics and very little statesmanship. But, the sale is on!

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 13, 2007

It Goes Without Saying, Or Does It?

2007-09-12T23:16:00.000-04:00

"It goes without saying that. . ." I don't know how many times I have heard that expression. The most recent was just a few hours ago in a newscast. It's an idiotic expression because the speaker always follows it up with saying whatever "it" is.

When the expression comes up I find myself wanting to scream, "It would have gone without saying, but you blew it! You've said it now. So, it didn't get to go without saying."

The idiocy of such statements is that the speaker makes a liar of him/herself even as he/she speaks. Somehow, the fact of that escapes the person. Why is that? Don't people listen to themselves?

Just a few minutes after that report went off, I was listening to yet another newscaster use the phrase, "Needless to say, . . ." Yes, he went on to say exactly the thing he just told us was needless to speak about. I don't know about you, but I don't tune into news reports with the intention of listening to people babbling on about things they think are not necessary to say.

Do we really mean it when we say, "it goes without saying," or "needless to say"? If not, we need to drop such phrases from our speech. If we do mean them, then we need to know when to shut up and not say. Needless to say, all this goes without saying, or it would have if I had just kept it to myself.

That's Wade's two cents.

Wade Houston
September 12, 2007

Global Warming Speeds Up - Naturally

2007-09-12T13:12:00.000-04:00

Those who study global warming talk about a tipping point. That is, there comes a point when we have gone so far into the process of global warming, it cannot be halted. How can that be?

Well, consider the polar ice caps. The ice reflects large amounts of light and heat back into space. The world is cooler than it would be otherwise because we have these great areas of packed snow and ice. But, the ice caps are diminishing. The north and south polar regions are actually heating up faster than the rest of the planet. The Arctic is melting exposing more open sea which absorbs light and heat much more than the ice. The same sort of thing is happening to the ice shelves in the Antarctic. So, there is less ice to reflect light and heat. The planet heats up more. The melting gets faster. And so on.

Now consider the matter of permafrost. Permafrost is ground that so cold it remains frozen year round. There are several areas of permafrost around the world. Many of these are actually frozen bogs. Over the past few years, as the world has been heating up, a growing number of these sections have been defrosting. They are no longer permafrost.

The problem lies in that the frozen state of these bogs kept contained large quantities of methane gas. Methane in the environment is a greenhouse gas that traps heat in the atmosphere the way carbon dioxide does, but it is 25 times more powerful in its heat trapping action. As the permafrost melts it is releasing huge amounts of methane into the atmosphere. This is speeding up the process of global warming.

So, with the melting of the polar ice and the release of methane with the defrosting of permafrost, we have two examples in which nature itself has joined in the process of heating up our planet. When the tipping point is reached, nature will keep the process of global warming rolling even if all of the human contributions cease. There can be no going back.

Because the polar regions are showing more drastic warming trends than the rest of the planet, the natural contributions to the global warming factors are entering the picture sooner than expected and to a greater extent. This means that the furthermost out (later in time) predictions of when the tipping point would be reached are definitely wrong. The climate change is not going to be nearly as gradual as we hoped.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 12, 2007

Where Are The True Patriots?

2007-09-11T11:52:00.000-04:00

Six years ago today, I was driving to work and listening to music on the radio. The broadcast was interrupted to report that a jetliner had just crashed into the Pentagon. I was stunned. When I got to the office, I learned that planes had also hit the World Trade Center in New York. Then, another plane went down in Pennsylvania.

We remember well the horror of that day. We were angry, confused, and fearful all at the same time. We weren't sure who had done this, or why.

Eventually, the truth came out, and we responded. We reacted militarily in Afghanistan and legislatively in Congress. To their everlasting shame, our elected representatives ignored their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States and passed the Patriot Act.

Certainly, there were some new security measures called for. That is not in dispute. But to trample on the liberty our true patriots gave their lives for and call it "The Patriot Act" was an outrage.

Our nation's true patriots bravely faced certain danger and risk of their lives. But they were willing to do so because they believed in the freedoms we were privileged to inherit. The people who attacked us on September 11, 2001 hate our way of life and its freedoms. They are determined to destroy our liberty. The legislative and executive branches of our government have cowardly and unwittingly joined forces with those who would destroy our freedoms and had the audacity to label it patriotism. God deliver me from "patriots" such as these!

It is past time for our elected leaders to find again the courage they lost and to once more stand up for liberty. Yes, there is risk. But then Patrick Henry, Ben Franklin, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and a host of others faced more certain risk. Many gave their lives. We do these true patriots no honor to name freedom robbing legislation after them.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 11, 2007

Iraq - Where Do We Go From Here?

2007-09-10T12:37:00.000-04:00

At the start of this blog, I mentioned that I was opposed to the United States going to war with Iraq. That was based on the information which had been shared to that point. I was not at all certain the case had been made. I also mentioned (to my shame) that I was largely silent on the issue trusting that our leadership had secret knowledge I did not. I thought they could make a more informed decision. Well, all that is water under the bridge. It doesn't matter whether we should have gone to war in Iraq or not. We are there now. So, what's the best course of action from here?

I don't know. The deed has been done. The Iraqi government that existed at the start of this war has been deposed and is definitely not coming back. That government was a brutal dictatorship, but it did maintain order. It did provide an infrastructure for the Iraqi society. It was a stable government.

I was raised to believe that when you make a mess, it is your responsibility to clean it up. I largely feel that way about our nation's responsibility toward Iraq. Frankly, I still don't want us there, but I am conflicted between my desire to have our forces home and my sense of moral obligation to do right by the Iraqi people.

The biggest question is, "Can we actually do anything to make this right?" If the answer is yes, then we need to do it. If the answer is no, then we need to stop and make an orderly withdrawal.

At first, I thought we could clean up our mess. But the present administration has so bungled managing the war's aftermath, I have no confidence in Bush's ability to set things right. I think perhaps a different administration could, but we won't experience a real change in government for about a year and a half. By that point, the American people will be so sick of this Iraq thing the new President will be hard pressed to get our forces out of Iraq without delay. Without the support of the American public, doing the right thing by Iraq may not be possible.

The Bush administration is not going to willingly pull the United States out of Iraq. Barring some major new development, Congress is not going to force the issue by cutting off funds. Between now and the next administration, the only change we can really hope for must come from the Iraqi people themselves. So far, they don't seem to sense the urgency. It's all quite sad.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 10, 2007

The Demonization of Environmentalists

2007-09-09T19:15:00.000-04:00

I got quite a start one day as I was reading a novel of fiction by conservative Christian writer, Larry Burkett. The novel was given to me as a Christmas gift. The giver genuinely thought I would enjoy reading it. What caught me off guard was the way it demonized environmentalists.

Whoa! When did this happen that environmentalists were regarded as the tools of Satan? It didn't make sense. It certainly did not square with my understanding of the Bible. But it provoked me to do a little probing.

In recent times, many in the evangelical Christian community (a.k.a. Christian right) have become more politically active. So what? Good citizenship is encouraged in Christian teaching. However, largely due to the efforts of the late Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and others, most of these Christian political activists have aligned themselves with the most conservative wing of the Republican party.

What my probing revealed was that many of these right wing Christians had been just as influenced by the party as they were able to influence the party for their causes. For example, in the same way these right wing Christians had pushed their agendas of Right to Life and intolerance of homosexuality onto right wing Republicans, the right wing Republicans had swayed many of these right wing Christians to embrace the other issues such as hostility toward environmentalists as their own. When this is put in a God versus the devil context in the minds of these right wing Christians, that must mean environmentalists are being used by the devil to thwart the purposes of God.

I couldn't believe people bought into that sort of nonsense. But, apparently, many have. I am reminded of the serpent telling Eve how good the forbidden fruit was for making them wise and godlike.

Quite the opposite of what anti-environmentalists might want Christians to believe, God gave mankind dominion over the earth to take care of it, not to destroy it. What greater evidence that God was concerned with the survival of the different species could we have than the narrative of Noah preserving numerous animals from the devastation of the flood? Jesus said that God cares about every sparrow that falls and even the lilies of the field. How can a Christian ignore the environment? Good stewardship of God's creation should be intrinsic to any sort of Christian political activism. Any other position is a lie from the devil, and it is time it was exposed.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 9, 2007

The Thompson Non-Event

2007-09-09T15:02:00.000-04:00

It finally came this past week, the formal announcement that Fred Thompson was entering the race for the Republican nomination for President. People who watch politics have been anticipating his entry for months. After all, in something similar to "pre-engagement," Fred Thompson had previously announced he was going to announce during the week of Labor Day. The lack of surprise actually detracted from the event.

The media tried, and continues to try, to play it up to increase readership/viewership, but the public was largely ho hum on the matter. It was almost yesterday's news even before it happened. There was little new to report.

Fred Thompson really missed an opportunity here. He has taken all this time to formally enter the race. And, when he finally does, he has little to offer in the way of substance.

After all this getting ready to get ready, the public rightfully expected a candidate to emerge with a largely formed (if not fully formed) agenda. The announcement of Thompson's entry would have been newsworthy if he had coupled that announcement with a substantive presentation of his personal platform. Instead, Fred Thompson presents us with what is chiefly a political philosophical statement and little concrete content. The phrase, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing," comes to mind.

Don't misunderstand me. Knowing and understanding the guiding philosophy behind a candidate is important. That philosophy dictates (or should) all the decisions a candidate is likely to make whether addressed in the course of a political campaign or not. But, the voter has a right to expect some material examples of how a particular candidate is going to apply that philosophy to make a positive difference.

There is a danger in putting out specifics. Opponents to one action or another will always emerge. But, a true statesman does not shirk from opposition. Instead, he welcomes the dialog.

Fred Thompson knew that by not announcing his formal entry into the race until he did, he cut himself off from participating in the Republican debate in New Hampshire. He could have been there had he announced a few days earlier. Why didn't he?

I now believe Thompson feared appearing on stage with other candidates who actually had some specific plans for what they wanted to do as President. He feared being shown up. He feared facing them empty handed.

The absence of specifics in a Thompson agenda allows voters to fill in the blanks with whatever their hearts desire. Clearly, that is the way Thompson wants it. Debating with other candidates might have exposed him as lacking substance. It is far easier to work from a prepared script.

Fred Thompson had the attention of the media this last week and could have used it to present his agenda. But, if he has one, it is still largely a secret. This may have been the most costly mistake of the Thompson campaign.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 9, 2007

Believing In One's Position

2007-09-08T18:29:00.000-04:00

"You think you're right, don't you?" Vicki stood looking at me as if she had made some sort of accusation.

Puzzled, I asked my cousin what she meant. "You're right; that's what you think," came the response.

Still mystified, I stammered out, "Of course. I wouldn't have said it if I didn't."

"That's what I thought," my cousin said and walked off as if she had made some sort of point.

I was confused. She did NOT accuse me of believing I am always right about everything. I could have at least understood her attitude if she had said that. She just berated me for believing I was right in this instance.

Somehow, that did not strike me as a character flaw. Instead, believing in one's position and being able to defend it seems to me to be more of an asset.

Much time has passed since that conversation. I don't even remember the subject matter we were discussing. But I have never forgotten the odd outcome. It comes to mind occasionally when someone will ironically voice the view that people should not express opinions. I know they think they're right.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 8, 2007

Iraqi Internal Conflict Should Not Be a Surprise

2007-09-06T23:54:00.000-04:00

Should the current civil conflict in Iraq have come as a surprise? I don't think so. The tensions between the Sunnis and the Shiites have been playing out in the Arab world for a long time. Saddam Hussein felt like the Kurds were in the way and tried to exterminate them, so naturally some bad feelings persisted there.

Recent events in our world should have prepared us to expect some strife if not outright civil war. We have had several notable examples of suppressed conflict bubbling to the surface when the iron fist of oppression was removed. The totalitarian government was the glue keeping the whole together.

Take the former Soviet Union, for example. When the communist government collapsed, the different republics started asserting their own feelings of nationalism. Ethnic tensions that had been glossed over reasserted themselves. The initial attempts to hang together as a loose federation collapsed.

The same thing happened in Czechoslovakia. It also happened in Yugoslavia. Iraq was a similarly divided country held together by an oppressive dictator. When that dictator was removed, why should we expect a result any different from other countries whose ethnic conflicts had been suppressed rather than resolved.

The ethnic conflict genie has been let out of the bottle. There is no putting it back in.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 6, 2007

Hold the Mayo

2007-09-05T18:14:00.000-04:00

I like mayonnaise. I don't mean I like to take a spoon and eat it from the jar. No, I mean I like mayonnaise as a condiment. It's my condiment of choice on any sort of poultry sandwich. It's a vital component of my tuna fish salad. I do like mayonnaise -- IN MODERATION.

I live in the metropolitan Atlanta area. I moved here in 1988 from Fort Worth, Texas. There are always some regional adjustments to make such a move. But one that surprised me was the way so many people in Atlanta use mayonnaise, not so much as a condiment, but as the primary purpose of the sandwich. Frankly, such soggy creations grossed me out.

Whenever I ordered any sort of sandwich with mayonnaise, I was often opening it up after receiving it and scraping off as much mayonnaise as I could. The mayo that was left, that is what had soaked up into the bread, was as much or more than what I wanted. I would have a pile of mayo on my plate sufficient to make a couple of more sandwiches.

The first few times this happened, I wondered if the sandwich had been made by a teenager on his first job. Later, I observed experienced adults slathering the mayonnaise onto the bread like a bricklayer applying mortar. There was so much it squished out the sides when you picked it up. That did it for me. Then and there I started saying, "Hold the mayo!" whenever I ordered a sandwich. I'll occasionally ask for the mayo on the side. But most often, I will substitute mustard. They do a better job of moderating that.

I still use mayonnaise at home. But as far as dining out goes, I don't trust any Atlanta area sandwich makers near me with the stuff. It's a shame their mothers never taught them the difference between a condiment and the main event.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 5, 2007

Are Civil Unions Different From Marriage

2007-09-05T15:14:00.000-04:00

One of the most hotly contested issues in our day is the question of whether to accept or reject the concept of same gender marriage. This issue remains quite contentious in the main stream even though few (I know of one) presidential candidates actually support the idea of national legal recognition and acceptance of same gender marriage.

The majority of candidates reject imposing legal recognition of same gender marriage upon the entire country. Instead, where they differ is on the matter of "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". These latter institutions seem to be an effort to provide the legal protections and benefits of marriage without the title.

Some candidates reject even these alternative institutions for the same reasons they reject same gender marriage. They simply want no legal recognition of any sort for same gender domestic relationships. The inherent consistency makes their positions easier to understand whether or not one agrees with them.

Its harder to understand those who do not support universal recognition of same gender marriage but at the same time do support this recognition for same gender civil unions. If civil unions convey the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities as legal marriage, is there really a difference other than terminology? Gay rights leaders seem to think there is. The American public as a whole seems to think there is a difference.

Current polls show the majority of Americans oppose same gender marriage. However, those same polls show a majority of Americans are not opposed to same gender civil unions. What is this perceived difference?

To the candidates who support civil unions and oppose national recognition of gay marriage I believe they see the difference as little more than a question of electability. If they support "gay marriage" they will hurt their chances with the voters because of the voters' perception of a difference. Yes, my cynicism is showing.

Actually, I think most of the American public is conflicted. The majority believe that same gender sexual relationships are morally wrong. Most will site religious reasons for these views. At the same time, they feel a civic responsibility to recognize the rights of others to differ. They recognize right of individuals not have the religious morals of other people (majority or not) imposed upon them by government. They resolve this conflict within their own minds by opposing same gender marriage but allowing for same gender civil unions or registered domestic partnerships. It would seem to be a distinction of convenience, a way of saying, "I will allow, but I will not approve."

Gay rights leaders must recognize this implicit disapproval. They must also fear that different terminology for marriage and civil unions will provide the basis for future legal discrimination. That is why I believe they will continue their push for national recognition of gay marriages even if they get nationally recognized civil unions. This issue is not going away any time soon.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 5, 2007

Make Room For Flip-Flops

2007-09-04T00:02:00.000-04:00

The political season is in full swing. The different candidates are under constant examination by each other, the media, special interests, and their constituents. Periodically, someone accuses this or that person of flip-flopping on one issue or another. This accusation is intended as a challenge to that person's sincerity and depth of conviction.

This sort of exchange may get traction with the voter, but I think it is highly overrated. Over the course of my life, there are many subjects on which I have changed my opinion. Sometimes, it was because I simply matured. Other times, I received new information which altered my perception. For example, at one point in my life, I considered myself to be a Democrat. At a different period in my life, I was a card carrying Republican. Today, when someone asks, I say I am a political cynic.

If we are going to relate honestly with ourselves and with political candidates, we must allow that there are times when people will change their minds. The only people I know who never change their minds are closed minded boobs, people so arrogant they believe their first judgment is always right and never needs to be reconsidered. Do we really want such persons serving in elected office? I don't! In fact, one of the characteristics I look for in leadership is the ability to receive and consider advice.

So, it doesn't bother me too much when I hear that a particular politician who once embraced one position is now advocating something different. What I want to know is how that person explains the change. I want to know where that person stands on the issue today and why. I'll make my voting decisions based on how closely I agree with the candidate's position in the present.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 4, 2007

Protecting American Labor by Raising Foreign Worker Standards

2007-09-03T13:24:00.000-04:00

Labor Day seems like a good time to speak out on the subject of offshore outsourcing. We are seeing more and more of it. Just recently, Earthlink (a locally based company) announced they are laying off hundreds more American workers. They have been outsourcing much of their technical support to India for years. This is just the latest fallout from that. Numerous companies and even some state governments have been following this trend.

Why is the U.S. losing so many jobs to people in other countries? It is not because we lack the talent or the work ethic. The reason is virtually always to save labor costs. Corporations do this to improve their profits for their stock holders. Some state governments have been doing this because of budgetary constraints. They need to stretch the tax payer dollars.

Some of this job redistribution is inevitable in a global market. Advances in telecommunications and rapid shipping has made the entire rest of the world both our marketplace and our competitor for goods and services.

So, what is the best role for labor unions in today's world? I think it is still the same as the best role labor unions have had historically -- insuring fair and just treatment of workers. In a global market this means applying all the political pressure possible to our elected officials to require all trade agreements demand the same high standards of safety and reasonable treatment of laborers in the countries where the work is done as we require in the United States.

Why care about the safety and fair treatment of foreign laborers? Certainly it is moral and humane, but there is a more self-serving reason. Compliance with safety standards and treating workers fairly costs money. Raising the cost of foreign labor serves to level the playing field. This helps our domestic workers be more competitive than they are now.

There are additional ways we can help our workers become more competitive in the global marketplace, but that is a subject for another day. Today, we celebrate American labor and its accomplishments. Long live the American worker!

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 3, 2007

Can a Christian Accept Abortion?

2007-09-02T18:55:00.000-04:00

This post contains an argument which I presently believe to be both correct and outrageous. How can that be? Read on.

Sometimes I am confronted with the question, "Can a person be a good Christian and not be opposed to abortion?" Or, to phrase it differently, "Can a Christian be true to his faith and also defend a woman's right to control her own body?"

To understand the question, you must be aware that mainstream Christian orthodoxy holds that we are persons in the sight of God while yet within our mothers' wombs and are still (to all appearances) "unformed substance." If that is true, it must follow that to willfully destroy such a one is to kill a human person.

That being said, it must also be acknowledged that taking the life of another human being is not always murder. There are many circumstances when doing this is justified. So, it does NOT automatically follow that abortion equals murder. The question becomes, "Is the abortion justified?"

Consider the following presuppositions. They are based on conservative evangelical Christian perspectives.

1) Though "born in sin" children are in a state of grace until they reach a capacity (sometimes referred to as the "age of accountability") when they can respond to the salvation given through Jesus Christ.

2) All persons who fail to accept salvation given through Jesus Christ are doomed to spend eternity in hell.

3) More people are going to hell than will be going to heaven.

4) All who die before reaching the age of accountability are taken to heaven.

If one accepts these presuppositions (and they are embraced by nearly all evangelical Christians), then the following conclusions must also be true.

1) Aborted babies never have the chance to reach the age of accountability.

2) Aborted babies go to heaven.

3) If they had lived, the majority of aborted babies would have gone to hell.

It is certainly unchristian to desire more people to go to hell. However, when one takes these premises to their extreme conclusions, one could justify abortion. One could also use the same logic to justify widespread infanticide. Fortunately, something within us says this is wrong. It is so contrary to our God given instincts that we draw the line there.

I said at the beginning, this was an outrageous argument. I also believe it is based upon precepts which are correct.

I am not saying that Christians everywhere should be satisfied that abortion is okay. What I am suggesting is that from an eternal perspective, abortion is not the catastrophe some would make it out to be. It is acceptable to just let the issue alone.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 2, 2007

Uncommon Incompetence

2007-09-02T13:26:00.000-04:00

I was strongly opposed to beginning U.S. war action in Iraq. (There were several reasons for my view, but that is a subject all its own.) But, I was also convinced that if we did go to war, it was essential that we pursue it vigorously to a successful conclusion. Our national credibility was on the line. If the world was going to continue to take the United States seriously, we could not stop short of utterly defeating the government of Saddam Hussein. So, once the battle was engaged, I supported doing everything possible to bring it to a victorious conclusion.

The inherent problem with deposing any government is that it must be replaced. Even the worst and most oppressive governments on the planet fulfill some vital functions. Maintaining order is chief among them. This is SO basic that I was flabbergasted when the coalition forces allowed Baghdad to descend into anarchy following Saddam Hussein's ouster. I could not believe the incompetence!

Eventually, some semblance of order was restored but only after considerable damage had been done. It was as if the victorious military had no idea what to do with itself after the Iraqi government had been defeated. I'll grant you that George W. Bush is not the brightest bulb on the tree, but couldn't his advisers have warned about the need for immediate next step planning and implementation?

This delay in restoring order told the Iraqi people and the rest of the world that the coalition forces were being led by incompetents. It was an open invitation to anyone who wanted to create havoc in the coming days. How could it be taken otherwise?

Jesus said that when an evil spirit is cast out, if it finds that nothing has replaced it, it will take seven other spirits that are even more evil and return. That makes the latter state worse than the former. This is ancient wisdom. WHY WAS IT OVERLOOKED?

I don't have a satisfactory answer to this question. My inability to understand the lack of foresight undermines my confidence in the Bush administration's ability to bring any sort of long term benefit for this military action to our country, the Middle East, or even the people of Iraq.

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 2, 2007

Senator Craig Resigns - So What?

2007-09-01T17:49:00.000-04:00

It is official. Senator Larry Craig of Idaho is resigning effective the last day of September. What has been interesting to me is that nearly all the calls for Craig's resignation have come from members of his own party.

While Senator Craig did plead guilty for improper conduct in an airport men's room, there was nothing about what he did that in any way abused his office. It was certainly embarrassing to the Senate, but it in no way affected the performance of his duties until the story was made public.

Whether or not Craig should have resigned is not for me to say. What I find interesting is the piling on of criticism by members of his own party with such characterizations as "unforgivable" and "disgusting". Given the many personal failings in the lives of numerous political figures, I find this sort of vilification by Craig's colleagues to be excessive. I can't help wonder what motivates it. I have observed that many closeted homosexuals (who were later exposed) led public lives in which they denounced anything having to do with homosexuality with particular vehemence. Senator Craig himself seems to have been guilty of this sort of hypocrisy.

Without question, any sort of sexual behaviour between people in a public restroom is completely inappropriate. However, I cannot see the justification for condemning that more harshly than, say, picking up a prostitute. In short, regarding this extreme harshness that Craig has met with, I can only say, "Me thinks they doth protest too much."

That's my two cents.

Wade Houston
September 1, 2007

Why Wade's Two Cents

2007-08-31T13:12:00.000-04:00

This blog mostly serves as a sounding board for my opinions. That's why I call it, "Wade's Two Cents." As the title suggests, I try not to overvalue my own opinions. But events of the past few years have lead me to believe that I do need to do a better job of putting them out there.

Following the events of September 11, 2001 the United States went to war with Afghanistan. I completely understood the reasons for that war and supported the action. I still feel it was justified. But when George W. Bush began the push for war action in Iraq, I had serious doubts. I kept hearing the administration talking about Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction and supporting global terriorism. But I never saw any definitive evidence. The case seemed completely circumstantial and sketchy at best.

'Surely they have evidence they are keeping secret,' I thought. 'Bush must have definitive information he is not sharing with the whole world to avoid tipping his hand to Iraq. But, if so, why is he not able to convince more of our allies?'

As the administration did present its case on the world stage and I saw how sketchy it was,
I remained personally opposed taking military action. But, I kept quiet. I was hoping there
was better evidence than what I had seen.

Surely the Congress was being given more convincing evidence. They couldn't possibly
support military action without it. I WAS WRONG! I should have been more vocal at a time that could have made a difference.

I have never held public office and have no plans for ever doing so. Yet, if I, a mere citizen, could see the folly of this course, then why couldn't our elected officials? Nevertheless, I and I alone bear the responsibility for my silence.

I cannot change the past, but I hope I can correct the error of my ways. I will not always be right, but I owe my fellow man the benefit of my insight and judgment. This blog represents turning over a new leaf. I hope somehow the world benefits from my two cents.

Wade Houston
August 31, 2007