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
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Wrong again, George!
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
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
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Wade Houston Wishes You a Merry Christmas!
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
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
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Unwanted E-mail Doesn't Deserve Your Permission
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
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
Friday, December 14, 2007
Saying, "No," to the Magic Potion
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
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
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
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
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Happy or Unhappy Holidays
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
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
Saturday, November 24, 2007
MLM and Diversity
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
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
Friday, November 23, 2007
Black Friday
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
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
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Talking Heads
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
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
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Should a Mormon be President?
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
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
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
UFO's and Why I Say They Do Exist
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
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
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Legal Drivers Licenses for illegal Aliens
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
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
Saturday, November 3, 2007
A Constructive Response to Adversity
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
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
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
True Driving Courtesy Requires Common Sense
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
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
Saturday, October 20, 2007
That Precious Liquid
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
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
Thursday, October 18, 2007
No Wave To Ride
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
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
Monday, October 15, 2007
Beware The Quick Fix Energy Solution
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
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
Saturday, October 13, 2007
SEO Is Not For The Faint Of Heart
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
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
Tuesday, October 9, 2007
Efficiency or Absurdity?
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
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
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Reparations for Slavery in America
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
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
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Solving the Private Health Insurance Dilemma
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 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
Sunday, September 30, 2007
The More The Merrier
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
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
Monday, September 24, 2007
Cutting Social Security Is Not A Moral Option
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
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
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
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
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Most Cooks Are In A Rut
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
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
Thursday, September 20, 2007
The Frugal Environmentalist
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
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
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Our Troops Need More Than Bumper Stickers
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
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
Monday, September 17, 2007
Not Yet As The Crow Flies
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
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
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
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
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Alan Greenspan Speaks Out
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
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
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
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
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
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
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Beware The Fraudulent Electronic Check
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
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
Friday, September 14, 2007
Declaration For Energy Independence
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,
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
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
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
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Get Ready For The Big Sale
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 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
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
It Goes Without Saying, Or Does It?
"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
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
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
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
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Where Are The True Patriots?
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
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
Monday, September 10, 2007
Iraq - Where Do We Go From Here?
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)