The 2008 election is now over (except for a few runoffs). My state had one of the longest early voting periods in the nation. There was a lot of encouragement to vote early. I thought about it, but I held out. I did not vote until the final election day, November 4th.
Why did I wait? Well, it was not because of any indecision on my part. I knew I was going to vote for the candidates who came closest to my own position on health care. I knew those were all Democrats. I knew how I was going to vote a few months before the election. So indecision had nothing to do with my delay.
No, my issue was that I had little confidence in the early voting system in my state. Historically, there have been many instances of problems with counting absentee ballots. I was not convinced those difficulties had been resolved. Furthermore, for the non-absentee touch screen early voting, there was no paper trail. I wanted my vote to count and felt safest placing it in the mainstream of votes on election day. There was still no paper trail, but I had greater confidence the system would work smoothly that day. I was amused to see that the presidential candidates themselves waited until that final day to cast their own votes.
Since I had made a donation to Barack Obama's political campaign, I was on their e-mailing list. I kept getting one message after another encouraging me to vote early and to get others to vote early as well. I was considering putting my concerns aside and doing exactly that when the news reports started coming in of long long lines at the early polling places. Some in my state had to wait as long as seven hours to cast their votes.
At first I thought it was just temporary. After a few days of people voting early surely the numbers would taper off to a trickle with maybe a slight rise on the last early voting day. I was wrong! It became something of a feedback loop. The reports of such long lines made some people fear they needed to go ahead and vote lest they find the lines impossibly long on election day. So more people voted early making the lines still longer.
I pondered requesting an absentee ballot which could be mailed in but really hesitated because of the history of these ballots. Sure enough, in a few days it was in the news that faulty absentee ballots had been mailed out. The problem with these ballots was that the ovals were the wrong size and shape for the optical scanners to read. In Hamlet's words, "Oh, my prophetic soul!" New ballots were mailed out, but all those that had been marked and already returned were going to have to be manually transcribed onto new ballots.
(Here we are days after the close of the election and my state, Georgia, is still counting absentee ballots. The outcome of a U.S. Senate race is hanging in the balance. Perhaps by Tuesday the Georgia Secretary of State will be able to certify the election results.)
There continued to be issues with voting machines not working properly. Some of the voting machines were not properly calibrated and were registering votes for the wrong candidates. There were computer voter verification delays, etc. until the early election period finally ended. My hope was that all the kinks in the system got worked out. Maybe with all the normal polling places open on the regular election day there would be enough facilities in operation that the wait to vote would not be hours upon hours. I took that gamble.
I considered getting up early so I could be at the polls and in line by 6 a.m. Ultimately, I decided against that. I understand that others in my precinct who did go early had a wait of about an hour and a half. A local church serves as the polling place for my precinct and the poll workers had people queue through the pews in the sanctuary. People who waited until just before the polls closed also had to wait for a while.
I went to vote just before noon. If it had not been for the signs pointing where to vote, I would have thought the polling place had been moved. I experienced absolutely no wait to get my voting machine key card. After that, I actually spent more time trying to get through all the elections and issues on the ballot than I did waiting for an available machine.
I thanked the poll workers who volunteer their time and energies to make the operation work. I did not realize until recently that most of that work was voluntary. I am grateful to all those who voted early. They got their votes out of the way so my own voting experience went much more smoothly. (Gratitude feels so much better than any sort of guilt for the painlessness of my own voting experience.)
More needs to be done to improve the integrity of the balloting process in this country. We must have confidence in the way the will of the people is tabulated to believe that we really have "government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
We also need to do more to make voting less burdensome. My parents went to vote on one of the early days, but the line they encountered was about three hours long. With their health issues, that was not going to work. So, they went home.
Still, I am proud of our elections in this country. I am proud to be an American.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
November 8, 2008
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, October 31, 2008
Tricks or Treats for Voters
The conclusion of this election season is just days away, and the political cynic in me is fully engaged. The closer we are to having it all be over, the more the negative campaigns of misleading statements and half truths fly. This seems to be true for all levels of office being sought. From the election of the next county sheriff all the way up to the President of the United States, opponents are pulling each other's statements and situations out of context to use as billy clubs.
Unfortunately, the public is eating it up. The media senses that and provides more of what the public seems to want. Many people complain about the negativity but can't resist listening for the latest mud to reinforce their beliefs about the person they have decided not to vote for. At this stage of the race, getting a new understanding of the issues in depth has gone out the window.
There is an observable devolution in political campaigns. Typically they start with elevated discussions of goals and concepts. There will be a lot of civil discussions involving complex exchanges of ideas. Unfortunately, only the intellectual elite give them much notice. Over time, the complex ideas give way to simplifications. Then the simplifications give way to nice sound bites. At each stage the number of voters paying attention grows. By this point, the point of drastic over simplification, most of the voters will have made up their minds.
To go after the remaining voters, the campaign shifts from attracting voters to oneself to driving them away from one's opponent. This is the nasty Halloween part of the campaign. Unfortunately, this is the part the late deciders tune in for. The members of the electorate whose opinions are primarily shaped by negative ads are the same people who turn down Charlie Rose to tune into Jerry Springer. But, in a close election, their votes are vital.
While the candidates themselves are not blameless, the fault for all the mudslinging is not entirely theirs. They are doing what they must do to win. Even the most idealistic candidate can do nothing if not elected. If they have to crawl down into the mud in order to win, it's because that is where the votes they need reside. A mudslinging campaign is as much a reflection of the voters as it is of the ones running for election.
As the voters go looking for goodies, they should not be surprised to run into a few skeletons along the way. That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 31, 2008
Unfortunately, the public is eating it up. The media senses that and provides more of what the public seems to want. Many people complain about the negativity but can't resist listening for the latest mud to reinforce their beliefs about the person they have decided not to vote for. At this stage of the race, getting a new understanding of the issues in depth has gone out the window.
There is an observable devolution in political campaigns. Typically they start with elevated discussions of goals and concepts. There will be a lot of civil discussions involving complex exchanges of ideas. Unfortunately, only the intellectual elite give them much notice. Over time, the complex ideas give way to simplifications. Then the simplifications give way to nice sound bites. At each stage the number of voters paying attention grows. By this point, the point of drastic over simplification, most of the voters will have made up their minds.
To go after the remaining voters, the campaign shifts from attracting voters to oneself to driving them away from one's opponent. This is the nasty Halloween part of the campaign. Unfortunately, this is the part the late deciders tune in for. The members of the electorate whose opinions are primarily shaped by negative ads are the same people who turn down Charlie Rose to tune into Jerry Springer. But, in a close election, their votes are vital.
While the candidates themselves are not blameless, the fault for all the mudslinging is not entirely theirs. They are doing what they must do to win. Even the most idealistic candidate can do nothing if not elected. If they have to crawl down into the mud in order to win, it's because that is where the votes they need reside. A mudslinging campaign is as much a reflection of the voters as it is of the ones running for election.
As the voters go looking for goodies, they should not be surprised to run into a few skeletons along the way. That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
October 31, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Trusting As Far As I Can Spit
It's an emergency! We're going into financial meltdown! Unless Congress immediately authorizes a 700 billion dollar expenditure by the Treasury Secretary, we're doomed! Or, so they would have us believe.
Fortunately, our elected representatives from both political parties are resisting being railroaded. Many remember what a disaster the Patriot Act turned out to be because it was acted upon in haste. Then, too, they know that the administration that is sounding this alarm is the same Bush administration that told us and told the world that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. There is an understandable credibility gap.
There are problems with the economy. But to blindly follow this administration's leadership to an attempted solution is not the answer. Thankfully, our congressional leadership has learned some lessons from the recent past and is being more methodical in developing a solution.
Tonight, President George W. Bush will address the nation in an attempt to scare the public into putting more pressure on our congressional leadership to pass a hasty spending bill. Will the public demonstrate the same capacity to learn from past mistakes as the Congress? We shall see.
I am definitely in favor of taking appropriate action. But it is my wish that we take whatever time is necessary to get the action right.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2008
Fortunately, our elected representatives from both political parties are resisting being railroaded. Many remember what a disaster the Patriot Act turned out to be because it was acted upon in haste. Then, too, they know that the administration that is sounding this alarm is the same Bush administration that told us and told the world that Saddam Hussein was harboring weapons of mass destruction. There is an understandable credibility gap.
There are problems with the economy. But to blindly follow this administration's leadership to an attempted solution is not the answer. Thankfully, our congressional leadership has learned some lessons from the recent past and is being more methodical in developing a solution.
Tonight, President George W. Bush will address the nation in an attempt to scare the public into putting more pressure on our congressional leadership to pass a hasty spending bill. Will the public demonstrate the same capacity to learn from past mistakes as the Congress? We shall see.
I am definitely in favor of taking appropriate action. But it is my wish that we take whatever time is necessary to get the action right.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 24, 2008
Friday, September 12, 2008
Annie Oakley for Vice President?
Alaska governor, Sarah Palin, recently said in an interview that she had no hesitation in accepting John McCain's offer of the number two spot on the presidential ticket. On the surface that would seem to suggest supreme confidence in herself and her abilities. It certainly reflects some degree of ambition.
Ambition is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, we want people to have high aspirations for our country which probably means they will have high aspirations for themselves as well. It would be sexist to say it is not appropriate for a woman.
However, in saying she accepted the VP offer with NO hesitation, Sarah Palin has indicated she does not appreciate the gravity of the position. If her ticket is elected, she would be the Vice President. If for any reason John McCain could not serve out his term (and at his advanced age that carries a higher than normal degree of probability), Sarah Palin would be the President. Surely, accepting the role deserves some thoughtful reflection. I expect that from my leaders.
Though Sarah Palin has been governor of the state with the largest land area in the U.S., it is also the state with the sparsest population. She may have experience in managing a state budget, but it is the budget of a state with such a surplus it actually pays its citizens rather than exacting an income tax. Even though Alaska has both Canada and Russia as neighbors, her foreign policy experience pales in comparison to a number of other choices McCain could have made.
Sarah Palin may seem like the perfect poster girl for the National Rifle Association, but even Annie Oakley was not qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's time to take a hard look at John McCain's selection. Could this be the first sign of dementia?
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2008
Ambition is not altogether a bad thing. In fact, we want people to have high aspirations for our country which probably means they will have high aspirations for themselves as well. It would be sexist to say it is not appropriate for a woman.
However, in saying she accepted the VP offer with NO hesitation, Sarah Palin has indicated she does not appreciate the gravity of the position. If her ticket is elected, she would be the Vice President. If for any reason John McCain could not serve out his term (and at his advanced age that carries a higher than normal degree of probability), Sarah Palin would be the President. Surely, accepting the role deserves some thoughtful reflection. I expect that from my leaders.
Though Sarah Palin has been governor of the state with the largest land area in the U.S., it is also the state with the sparsest population. She may have experience in managing a state budget, but it is the budget of a state with such a surplus it actually pays its citizens rather than exacting an income tax. Even though Alaska has both Canada and Russia as neighbors, her foreign policy experience pales in comparison to a number of other choices McCain could have made.
Sarah Palin may seem like the perfect poster girl for the National Rifle Association, but even Annie Oakley was not qualified to be one heartbeat away from the presidency. It's time to take a hard look at John McCain's selection. Could this be the first sign of dementia?
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
September 12, 2008
Telecommuting Has Pros and Cons
In this age of high transportation costs and increasing ease of telecommuting, more and more of us have taken to working from home. Working from home certainly has its perks. You don't have to fight the traffic. There is no time wasted on commuting, so more of your off time is really yours. You don't have to spend extra time preening for people at the office (unless you are doing a lot of work with a web cam). You can essentially go straight from your bedroom to your desk and never change from your pajamas.
Some people see telecommuting as the ideal solution for their child care issues. However, many employers are not so sure. Children, especially young children, frequently cannot appreciate the need to leave mommy or daddy alone to work. The constant interruptions prevent the type of sustained concentration many jobs require. On the other hand, this type of arrangement may be preferred by employers of nursing mothers.
During an interview, one friend of mine was asked by her future employer if she might be tempted to do housework while she should be focused on her job. Her reply was classic. "I've never been tempted by housework before. Why should doing my job from home make any difference?" They had a good laugh, and she was hired. But it does make an important point. There is a potential for distractions unique to a home environment.
If lots of face to face interaction with co-workers is vital for the performance of your job, then working from home is probably not for you. If you derive your energy and sense of satisfaction from the routine give and take between yourself and others on your work team, then working exclusively from home will leave you unfulfilled. Then again, if you hate your co-workers, working in isolation could improve your performance.
Some people need to get out of the house to experience a sense of separation between their professional lives and their personal lives. For them, working from home would be too much of an intrusion of one into the other. Many people complain that since they started working from home, they never seem to be able to get away from their jobs. They don't feel like their work day is done when they don't physically leave the workplace behind. One friend of mine addressed this problem by putting his office in his basement. When he went to the basement, he was "at work". His family came to understand and respect this arrangement. He stayed out of his basement office when he was done for the day.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
Some people see telecommuting as the ideal solution for their child care issues. However, many employers are not so sure. Children, especially young children, frequently cannot appreciate the need to leave mommy or daddy alone to work. The constant interruptions prevent the type of sustained concentration many jobs require. On the other hand, this type of arrangement may be preferred by employers of nursing mothers.
During an interview, one friend of mine was asked by her future employer if she might be tempted to do housework while she should be focused on her job. Her reply was classic. "I've never been tempted by housework before. Why should doing my job from home make any difference?" They had a good laugh, and she was hired. But it does make an important point. There is a potential for distractions unique to a home environment.
If lots of face to face interaction with co-workers is vital for the performance of your job, then working from home is probably not for you. If you derive your energy and sense of satisfaction from the routine give and take between yourself and others on your work team, then working exclusively from home will leave you unfulfilled. Then again, if you hate your co-workers, working in isolation could improve your performance.
Some people need to get out of the house to experience a sense of separation between their professional lives and their personal lives. For them, working from home would be too much of an intrusion of one into the other. Many people complain that since they started working from home, they never seem to be able to get away from their jobs. They don't feel like their work day is done when they don't physically leave the workplace behind. One friend of mine addressed this problem by putting his office in his basement. When he went to the basement, he was "at work". His family came to understand and respect this arrangement. He stayed out of his basement office when he was done for the day.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Universal Health Care is a Win, Win
The falling value of the dollar should be dramatically boosting our exports. This should increase domestic employment. Believe it or not, we're seeing some of that. Otherwise, our unemployment numbers would be even higher than they are. A major reason we are not seeing a greater benefit is because the American labor market is not structured for international competition.
A big hindrance to American labor's competitiveness around the world is the tying of health care to employment. We expect employers to provide health insurance for the employees. This one item adds significantly to labor costs. If we did not participate in a global marketplace, we could continue this practice indefinitely. Or, if the rest of the world followed this same model we could continue this approach to health care with no adverse consequences to our competitiveness. But, that is not what the other industrialized nations of the world are doing.
Nearly all the other major industrialized nations have some sort of government provided health care which leaves private businesses completely out of the picture. That means those businesses have no health care expenses associated with their labor costs. In comparison with American labor market, it is as if those foreign businesses were having a portion of their labor costs subsidized by their governments. That is a significant competitive advantage. It is so significant, in fact, that if it were a more direct subsidy, the United States would be suing those countries in the World Trade Court for unfair practices.
It would be extremely arrogant to expect the rest of the world to change to our system of health care. They happen to like their way. Many U.S. companies that have shifted parts of their operations abroad like their way also. Being able to operate without the costs of health care has been a driving factor in the export of jobs.
American labor can hardly be expected to suddenly give up employer provided health care with nothing to replace it. That would be a catastrophe. We can't fault American businesses for wanting to keep expenses down, either. Without some remedy, the steady export of jobs abroad will likely continue.
There have been a lot of proposals circulated to address the problem of Americans who either have no health care insurance or are woefully under insured. A significant number of these would place the burden for this insurance on the backs of the employers. In terms of world trade, this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.
To improve their global competitiveness, our businesses need for us to adopt a government provided system of universal health care. There are ways this can be done without putting the insurance companies out of business. In fact, depending upon how such a program is structured, it could even increase their business. This would be a win for businesses because their domestic costs would go down. This would be a win for labor because it would be easier for companies to add more jobs. That is why both business and labor should be leading the crusade for universal health care.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 9, 2008
A big hindrance to American labor's competitiveness around the world is the tying of health care to employment. We expect employers to provide health insurance for the employees. This one item adds significantly to labor costs. If we did not participate in a global marketplace, we could continue this practice indefinitely. Or, if the rest of the world followed this same model we could continue this approach to health care with no adverse consequences to our competitiveness. But, that is not what the other industrialized nations of the world are doing.
Nearly all the other major industrialized nations have some sort of government provided health care which leaves private businesses completely out of the picture. That means those businesses have no health care expenses associated with their labor costs. In comparison with American labor market, it is as if those foreign businesses were having a portion of their labor costs subsidized by their governments. That is a significant competitive advantage. It is so significant, in fact, that if it were a more direct subsidy, the United States would be suing those countries in the World Trade Court for unfair practices.
It would be extremely arrogant to expect the rest of the world to change to our system of health care. They happen to like their way. Many U.S. companies that have shifted parts of their operations abroad like their way also. Being able to operate without the costs of health care has been a driving factor in the export of jobs.
American labor can hardly be expected to suddenly give up employer provided health care with nothing to replace it. That would be a catastrophe. We can't fault American businesses for wanting to keep expenses down, either. Without some remedy, the steady export of jobs abroad will likely continue.
There have been a lot of proposals circulated to address the problem of Americans who either have no health care insurance or are woefully under insured. A significant number of these would place the burden for this insurance on the backs of the employers. In terms of world trade, this is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done.
To improve their global competitiveness, our businesses need for us to adopt a government provided system of universal health care. There are ways this can be done without putting the insurance companies out of business. In fact, depending upon how such a program is structured, it could even increase their business. This would be a win for businesses because their domestic costs would go down. This would be a win for labor because it would be easier for companies to add more jobs. That is why both business and labor should be leading the crusade for universal health care.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 9, 2008
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Wake Up to the Abundance of Energy
Energy finally seems to be getting the attention it deserves. People are recognizing the rising demand around our planet, and many are talking about energy shortages as developing nations start utilizing more energy themselves. But the reality is that we are surrounded by an abundance of energy. The earth is truly blessed.
The mindset of energy shortage comes from a tunnel vision focus on fossil fuels. That limited focus is drying up supplies and poisoning our planet. What is needed instead is for developers to take off their blinders and wake up to the enormous supply of untapped energy that surrounds us. I am not talking metaphysics here. I am talking about natural energy.
Here's one example. Long range forecasters are predicting some critical fresh water needs in the future that current delivery systems cannot accommodate. Many areas are already feeling the strain. Obviously, more needs to be done with water reclamation. But additionally, many are calling for much more to be done with the desalination of seawater. A major obstacle to that has been the high energy demand of such operations. Imagine, though, a desalination plant that harnesses the local power of the tides, the wind, and the waves to generate the electricity required to operate and pump the water. The output of the plant might be somewhat variable, but it would take no energy from the grid. Instead, the facility takes the energy from its environment.
We need to get away from the all or nothing approach to supplying our electrical energy needs. There is an enormous amount of energy lost in transmission from a central location. Envision, instead, a community in which every building has roof shingles that not only perform the usual protective functions but also convert sunlight into electricity for use in that building. In most locations, this would not be enough to substitute for the electrical grid, but it could certainly supplement. If the building is making use of a subterranean heating and cooling system, the power to provide the air circulation could all be generated on site. (Google "subterranean heating and cooling" for more information.)
This sort of decentralization of power supply can make an enormous difference in parts of the developing world where the infrastructure for power delivery has not been put into place. In many respects, it is similar to the way in which cell phone service has reached many areas were there are still no telephone land lines. These countries will be able to modernize more quickly and with less investment in infrastructure with this type of technology. As a bonus, it will have less negative impact on the environment.
What we need now and in the future is more creative energy. Sometimes, we need new technologies. Sometimes we just need new applications of very old technologies. Either way, we'll be drawing upon the abundance of energy that already surrounds us.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 3, 2008
The mindset of energy shortage comes from a tunnel vision focus on fossil fuels. That limited focus is drying up supplies and poisoning our planet. What is needed instead is for developers to take off their blinders and wake up to the enormous supply of untapped energy that surrounds us. I am not talking metaphysics here. I am talking about natural energy.
Here's one example. Long range forecasters are predicting some critical fresh water needs in the future that current delivery systems cannot accommodate. Many areas are already feeling the strain. Obviously, more needs to be done with water reclamation. But additionally, many are calling for much more to be done with the desalination of seawater. A major obstacle to that has been the high energy demand of such operations. Imagine, though, a desalination plant that harnesses the local power of the tides, the wind, and the waves to generate the electricity required to operate and pump the water. The output of the plant might be somewhat variable, but it would take no energy from the grid. Instead, the facility takes the energy from its environment.
We need to get away from the all or nothing approach to supplying our electrical energy needs. There is an enormous amount of energy lost in transmission from a central location. Envision, instead, a community in which every building has roof shingles that not only perform the usual protective functions but also convert sunlight into electricity for use in that building. In most locations, this would not be enough to substitute for the electrical grid, but it could certainly supplement. If the building is making use of a subterranean heating and cooling system, the power to provide the air circulation could all be generated on site. (Google "subterranean heating and cooling" for more information.)
This sort of decentralization of power supply can make an enormous difference in parts of the developing world where the infrastructure for power delivery has not been put into place. In many respects, it is similar to the way in which cell phone service has reached many areas were there are still no telephone land lines. These countries will be able to modernize more quickly and with less investment in infrastructure with this type of technology. As a bonus, it will have less negative impact on the environment.
What we need now and in the future is more creative energy. Sometimes, we need new technologies. Sometimes we just need new applications of very old technologies. Either way, we'll be drawing upon the abundance of energy that already surrounds us.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 3, 2008
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Best Way for Hillary Clinton to Help Barack Obama
The last of the 2008 presidential primaries are behind us. It is clear that Barack Obama is going to be the Democrat nominee. All of his opponents have endorsed him. That includes his most enduring competitor, Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to support the election of Barack Obama. She is committed to seeing a Democrat elected to the White House. That invites the question, "How can Hillary Clinton's services be put to the best use?"
Certainly, Senator Clinton can go a long way to persuade those who supported her in the nomination process that their best next option is to support the election of Barack Obama. This is probably the single most important task for Hillary Clinton. Her consistent enthusiastic message has to be that Barack Obama must become the next President of the United States.
But, what about outside her base of support? Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. There are some people in this country who were determined to vote for anyone who was running against her. Of course, the majority of those aren't going to vote for Senator Obama, either, but some will. Obama needs to use Hillary Clinton's support to the best advantage without stirring up energy for the opposition. That is the challenge.
My recommendation would be that Senator Clinton hit the campaign trail stumping for other Democrats running for office. At every stop she can encourage people to support Barack Obama for President by voting for him and also sending to Washington people who will support his policies. This would need to be done carefully to see that she only appears with candidates in areas where her support is a net benefit, but it could help the Democrats enormously.
This approach is a win for Hillary Clinton as well. Much of politics is based on trading favors. By campaigning for other Democrats seeking office, Clinton builds political capital she can use to push policies in the Senate later.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 2, 2008
Senator Clinton has promised to do everything she can to support the election of Barack Obama. She is committed to seeing a Democrat elected to the White House. That invites the question, "How can Hillary Clinton's services be put to the best use?"
Certainly, Senator Clinton can go a long way to persuade those who supported her in the nomination process that their best next option is to support the election of Barack Obama. This is probably the single most important task for Hillary Clinton. Her consistent enthusiastic message has to be that Barack Obama must become the next President of the United States.
But, what about outside her base of support? Hillary Clinton comes with baggage. There are some people in this country who were determined to vote for anyone who was running against her. Of course, the majority of those aren't going to vote for Senator Obama, either, but some will. Obama needs to use Hillary Clinton's support to the best advantage without stirring up energy for the opposition. That is the challenge.
My recommendation would be that Senator Clinton hit the campaign trail stumping for other Democrats running for office. At every stop she can encourage people to support Barack Obama for President by voting for him and also sending to Washington people who will support his policies. This would need to be done carefully to see that she only appears with candidates in areas where her support is a net benefit, but it could help the Democrats enormously.
This approach is a win for Hillary Clinton as well. Much of politics is based on trading favors. By campaigning for other Democrats seeking office, Clinton builds political capital she can use to push policies in the Senate later.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
July 2, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Choose Your Pain Wisely
We are in an economic slowdown at the same time we're experiencing rising prices of essentials such as food and transportation. Of course, non-essentials are going up, too. But it's easier to adjust to those price increases by cutting back.
As we tighten our belts and adjust to making what we have left go further, it is natural to expect our government agencies to do the same. It is politically popular to talk about "eliminating waste and unnecessary spending." Unfortunately, in the real world those cuts rarely get applied to extravagant toilets, etc. Instead they translate into job losses and reduction of services to the public.
When we insist our government agencies reduce spending, we don't really want people to lose their jobs. We just want lower taxes. Sadly, we cannot eat our cake and have it still.
When any organization or agency cuts jobs, there are going to be more people competing for the jobs that remain. Unemployment rises. Even if you believe your job is secure, the prevailing job market has a dampening effect on wages. This can lead to a downward economic spiral as people cut back on spending to adjust.
In the United States the federal government is the largest single employer. When you add to those federal jobs all the jobs of the various states and municipalities, you can see that governmental cuts have a big impact on overall unemployment rates. Those taxes you pay may hurt, but lower wages and even unemployment hurt still more. Keep that in mind the next time you look at your paycheck stub.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 27, 2008
As we tighten our belts and adjust to making what we have left go further, it is natural to expect our government agencies to do the same. It is politically popular to talk about "eliminating waste and unnecessary spending." Unfortunately, in the real world those cuts rarely get applied to extravagant toilets, etc. Instead they translate into job losses and reduction of services to the public.
When we insist our government agencies reduce spending, we don't really want people to lose their jobs. We just want lower taxes. Sadly, we cannot eat our cake and have it still.
When any organization or agency cuts jobs, there are going to be more people competing for the jobs that remain. Unemployment rises. Even if you believe your job is secure, the prevailing job market has a dampening effect on wages. This can lead to a downward economic spiral as people cut back on spending to adjust.
In the United States the federal government is the largest single employer. When you add to those federal jobs all the jobs of the various states and municipalities, you can see that governmental cuts have a big impact on overall unemployment rates. Those taxes you pay may hurt, but lower wages and even unemployment hurt still more. Keep that in mind the next time you look at your paycheck stub.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
June 27, 2008
Wednesday, June 18, 2008
The Blessings Of High Oil Prices
There is a lot of moaning and groaning about high oil and gasoline prices. It's understandable. No one likes paying for anything more than he has to. But with all the weeping and gnashing of teeth, there are a lot of people who are completely ignoring the numerous blessings this situation brings us. This filthy-dark, high price oil cloud has an amazingly bright silver lining.
Some of us have been saying for some time now that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. One of the obstacles has been that oil was too cheap an option for energy independence advocates to gather the support and public will needed to make that happen. As the price of oil rises, the energy independence movement is gaining strength. Indeed, the reality of that fact has Saudi Arabia currently leading the way in trying to get the world price of oil under control. The pusher never wants to lose the junkie.
Environmentalists have been calling for higher mileage standards on our vehicles, but the legislative will has not been there in sufficient force. With high gasoline prices, the market forces are doing what the law makers failed to do. Gas guzzling monsters are losing sales. The public is demanding higher fuel efficiency. Car manufacturers are revamping their production lines accordingly. They previously denied being able to adjust to any new mandatory standards so rapidly. But, with their very survival on the line, we're hearing a different song.
Safety advocates have long urged people to slow down while driving, to stay within the speed limit. Now, many people are slowing down. They aren't doing it because it decreases the chances they will be in an accident. They are driving closer to the limit because of the certainty it will improve their gas mileage. Some are even allowing more distance between their own cars and the vehicle in front so as to avoid breaking as often.
Those who concern themselves with traffic congestion have to be pleased that people are making fewer unnecessary trips. Drivers are combining errands and planning routes more efficiently. Carpoolers are growing in number. Those with short commutes are even getting more exercise by walking or riding bicycles.
In many cities, public transportation has been woefully underfunded. There just was not the demand to justify the investment. Thanks to higher gasoline prices that situation is changing. More and more people are leaving their cars at home and taking the bus, subway or train. Under current circumstances, cities find the support for expanding transportation services to be greater than ever. As public transportation is improved, it becomes a viable option for more and more people.
Investment in alternative energy technologies has lagged far behind what has been needed. But, necessity is the mother of invention. With oil prices so high, alternative energy applications become more viable economically. As demand for these applications grows, so will the investment to make them more efficient and economical.
I am amazed to see so many changes happening at once! I had feared we would adjust to gradually increasing oil prices the way tobacco addicts accepted the rising price of cigarettes. It is my belief that only the suddenness of the steep rise in the price of oil has created this shift. Wisdom has long been crying for these changes. The present pain could have been avoided, a crises averted. Instead, we have waited until our shocked wallets demand something different. So be it.
I'm still going to look for the lowest priced gasoline to fill my tank, but I can appreciate the benefits high fuel prices are bringing us. I don't like the pain, but bring on the blessings!
That's Wades 2 cents.
Wade Houston
June 18, 2008
Some of us have been saying for some time now that we need to break our dependence on foreign oil. One of the obstacles has been that oil was too cheap an option for energy independence advocates to gather the support and public will needed to make that happen. As the price of oil rises, the energy independence movement is gaining strength. Indeed, the reality of that fact has Saudi Arabia currently leading the way in trying to get the world price of oil under control. The pusher never wants to lose the junkie.
Environmentalists have been calling for higher mileage standards on our vehicles, but the legislative will has not been there in sufficient force. With high gasoline prices, the market forces are doing what the law makers failed to do. Gas guzzling monsters are losing sales. The public is demanding higher fuel efficiency. Car manufacturers are revamping their production lines accordingly. They previously denied being able to adjust to any new mandatory standards so rapidly. But, with their very survival on the line, we're hearing a different song.
Safety advocates have long urged people to slow down while driving, to stay within the speed limit. Now, many people are slowing down. They aren't doing it because it decreases the chances they will be in an accident. They are driving closer to the limit because of the certainty it will improve their gas mileage. Some are even allowing more distance between their own cars and the vehicle in front so as to avoid breaking as often.
Those who concern themselves with traffic congestion have to be pleased that people are making fewer unnecessary trips. Drivers are combining errands and planning routes more efficiently. Carpoolers are growing in number. Those with short commutes are even getting more exercise by walking or riding bicycles.
In many cities, public transportation has been woefully underfunded. There just was not the demand to justify the investment. Thanks to higher gasoline prices that situation is changing. More and more people are leaving their cars at home and taking the bus, subway or train. Under current circumstances, cities find the support for expanding transportation services to be greater than ever. As public transportation is improved, it becomes a viable option for more and more people.
Investment in alternative energy technologies has lagged far behind what has been needed. But, necessity is the mother of invention. With oil prices so high, alternative energy applications become more viable economically. As demand for these applications grows, so will the investment to make them more efficient and economical.
I am amazed to see so many changes happening at once! I had feared we would adjust to gradually increasing oil prices the way tobacco addicts accepted the rising price of cigarettes. It is my belief that only the suddenness of the steep rise in the price of oil has created this shift. Wisdom has long been crying for these changes. The present pain could have been avoided, a crises averted. Instead, we have waited until our shocked wallets demand something different. So be it.
I'm still going to look for the lowest priced gasoline to fill my tank, but I can appreciate the benefits high fuel prices are bringing us. I don't like the pain, but bring on the blessings!
That's Wades 2 cents.
Wade Houston
June 18, 2008
Saturday, May 17, 2008
California Gay Marriage Ruling Energizes GOP
This week, California's supreme court struck down the state's law defining marriage as being exclusively between persons of differing genders. Gay rights activists cheered the state constitutional ruling. Ellen DeGeneres lost little time in announcing her upcoming nuptials. Yes, there has been dancing in the streets.
However, some conservative Republicans are almost as gleeful. They see this as a clear opportunity to rally their electoral base to get them to the polls in November. They plan to hold the specter of same gender couples being able to marry, adopt children, and file joint tax returns up as a nightmarish abomination that only their votes for the Republican party candidates can prevent.
Right wing Republicans have been less than enthusiastic about their apparent presidential nominee, John McCain. There has been considerable concern that they might just stay home in November. As a consequence, the Republicans face a real possibility of substantial losses at all political levels. However, being able to stir up anti-gay feelings may be just the catalyst they need to get their people to the polls. The California ruling makes it more likely that will happen.
I don't think the GOP necessarily likes being the haven of bigots. But in an election year like this one, they'll take their votes wherever they can get them. When opportunity knocks, they don't care if it's the devil on the other side of the door.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 17, 2008
However, some conservative Republicans are almost as gleeful. They see this as a clear opportunity to rally their electoral base to get them to the polls in November. They plan to hold the specter of same gender couples being able to marry, adopt children, and file joint tax returns up as a nightmarish abomination that only their votes for the Republican party candidates can prevent.
Right wing Republicans have been less than enthusiastic about their apparent presidential nominee, John McCain. There has been considerable concern that they might just stay home in November. As a consequence, the Republicans face a real possibility of substantial losses at all political levels. However, being able to stir up anti-gay feelings may be just the catalyst they need to get their people to the polls. The California ruling makes it more likely that will happen.
I don't think the GOP necessarily likes being the haven of bigots. But in an election year like this one, they'll take their votes wherever they can get them. When opportunity knocks, they don't care if it's the devil on the other side of the door.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 17, 2008
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Why Not Lift the Gasoline Tax?
Senator John McCain and Senator Hillary Clinton have both been advocating for a summer suspension of the federal gas tax. Senator Barack Obama says the whole idea is a useless gimmick designed to buy votes. Who is right?
The idea that lifting the taxes on gasoline would reduce its price at the pump has appeal. Everyone would like to pay less. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the consumer would ever see that savings.
* The gasoline retailers might simply use the savings to increase their profit margins leaving the prices where they are.
* The oil companies might increase their prices to the stations to increase their profit margins.
* If neither of those happened, a temporary drop in retail prices would probably spur increased usage of gasoline pushing up demand. This would result in more rising prices.
So, why even propose suspending the gasoline tax? Because it gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the situation. It gives voters the impression that their politicians care and are trying to help. Unfortunately, the most likely beneficiaries would be the oil companies.
It takes courage to tell voters what they don't want to hear. It takes integrity to admit an idea that sounds great on the surface simply won't work. I commend Senator Obama for doing just that. I also wonder what happened to John McCain's straight talk.
That's Wade's 2 cents.
Wade Houston
May 14, 2008
The idea that lifting the taxes on gasoline would reduce its price at the pump has appeal. Everyone would like to pay less. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee the consumer would ever see that savings.
* The gasoline retailers might simply use the savings to increase their profit margins leaving the prices where they are.
* The oil companies might increase their prices to the stations to increase their profit margins.
* If neither of those happened, a temporary drop in retail prices would probably spur increased usage of gasoline pushing up demand. This would result in more rising prices.
So, why even propose suspending the gasoline tax? Because it gives the appearance that the government is doing something about the situation. It gives voters the impression that their politicians care and are trying to help. Unfortunately, the most likely beneficiaries would be the oil companies.
It takes courage to tell voters what they don't want to hear. It takes integrity to admit an idea that sounds great on the surface simply won't work. I commend Senator Obama for doing just that. I also wonder what happened to John McCain's straight talk.
That's Wade's 2 cents.
Wade Houston
May 14, 2008
Monday, May 12, 2008
If I Had a Do Over
As I mentioned in my post regarding my super Tuesday vote, I cast my vote in the primary for Hillary Clinton. After a lot of internal debate, I made my decision based entirely upon her position on health care. All of my immediate family has some sort of health condition which makes individual health insurance either impossible to obtain or prohibitively expensive. So, this issue carries enormous weight with me personally.
Since that time, there have been new developments in the course of the campaign which have greatly increased my respect for Barack Obama. The exposure of the outlandish statements by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was a significant challenge. However, instead of immediately disowning Rev. Wright (as would have been politically expedient), Senator Obama acknowledged the differences between them but affirmed the relationship. This was admirable.
Later, when Jeremiah Wright made additional statements before the National Press Club in which he accused Senator Obama of saying whatever was needed for political reasons, Barack Obama adjusted to this new development with measured, but appropriate, distancing action. This demonstrates the ability to change course when necessary and to face reality. Both times I felt Barack Obama showed enormous strength and depth of character.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton told the blatantly untrue tale of running for cover to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia. She told this story not just once, but several times. It is difficult to believe that someone so normally in command of the facts would have made such a gaff unintentionally. This does not speak well of her character.
Senator John McCain suggested suspending the federal gasoline tax for the summer. Senator Clinton jumped on that bandwagon as well. Either they are both so ignorant they can't see what a useless gesture that would be, or they are political opportunists just looking to buy votes from a gullible electorate. To his credit, Senator Obama is calling this what it is, "a gimmick".
In spite of these developments, if we were having our primary today, instead of back in Feburary, I would still have let the health care issue decide my vote. Universal health care is that important to me. I would mark my ballot for Hillary Clinton, but I might have to hold my nose to do it.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 12, 2008
Since that time, there have been new developments in the course of the campaign which have greatly increased my respect for Barack Obama. The exposure of the outlandish statements by Barack Obama's former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, was a significant challenge. However, instead of immediately disowning Rev. Wright (as would have been politically expedient), Senator Obama acknowledged the differences between them but affirmed the relationship. This was admirable.
Later, when Jeremiah Wright made additional statements before the National Press Club in which he accused Senator Obama of saying whatever was needed for political reasons, Barack Obama adjusted to this new development with measured, but appropriate, distancing action. This demonstrates the ability to change course when necessary and to face reality. Both times I felt Barack Obama showed enormous strength and depth of character.
Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton told the blatantly untrue tale of running for cover to avoid sniper fire in Bosnia. She told this story not just once, but several times. It is difficult to believe that someone so normally in command of the facts would have made such a gaff unintentionally. This does not speak well of her character.
Senator John McCain suggested suspending the federal gasoline tax for the summer. Senator Clinton jumped on that bandwagon as well. Either they are both so ignorant they can't see what a useless gesture that would be, or they are political opportunists just looking to buy votes from a gullible electorate. To his credit, Senator Obama is calling this what it is, "a gimmick".
In spite of these developments, if we were having our primary today, instead of back in Feburary, I would still have let the health care issue decide my vote. Universal health care is that important to me. I would mark my ballot for Hillary Clinton, but I might have to hold my nose to do it.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 12, 2008
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Rev. Jeremiah Wright is Wrong
While there has been a lot of furor over the comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, few of his statements slapped me across the face so much as an assertion he made before the National Press Club. When Wright suggested that an attack against him and his positions was really an attack against the black church, I was astounded.
First, I could not believe the arrogance of such a statement! Jeremiah Wright may be a very public person. He may be a prominent person. But he is NOT the summation of Christendom among blacks in America. The idea is outlandish! No one person can lay claim to that role.
Second, there is more than one predominantly black denomination in America. National Baptist churches, African Methodist Episcopal churches, Church of God in Christ churches, and numerous others all make up different Christian denominations with predominantly black memberships. So, there is not even one denomination that speaks for all Christians who are black in this country.
Third, the denomination of which Jeremiah Wright is a part is not even predominantly black. It is true that the congregation he pastored is made up almost entirely of black members. However, the United Church of Christ denomination at large has far more non-black members than black members.
Fourth, I would assert there is no Black Church (with a capital "C") in America or anywhere in the world. Yes, there are black churches (with a lowercase "c"). But, it is a precept of mainstream Christian theology that there is but one universal Church, and it encompasses people who are from all races and nationalities.
Fifth, while I know many Christians who are black, I don't personally know any who would join Jeremiah Wright in saying, "God damn America." Jeremiah Wright did not consult with them. Rev. Wright does not speak for them.
Rev. Wright is wrong! An attack against Jeremiah Wright and his positions is an attack against him individually. He should stop trying to drag other people into his battles.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 11, 2008
First, I could not believe the arrogance of such a statement! Jeremiah Wright may be a very public person. He may be a prominent person. But he is NOT the summation of Christendom among blacks in America. The idea is outlandish! No one person can lay claim to that role.
Second, there is more than one predominantly black denomination in America. National Baptist churches, African Methodist Episcopal churches, Church of God in Christ churches, and numerous others all make up different Christian denominations with predominantly black memberships. So, there is not even one denomination that speaks for all Christians who are black in this country.
Third, the denomination of which Jeremiah Wright is a part is not even predominantly black. It is true that the congregation he pastored is made up almost entirely of black members. However, the United Church of Christ denomination at large has far more non-black members than black members.
Fourth, I would assert there is no Black Church (with a capital "C") in America or anywhere in the world. Yes, there are black churches (with a lowercase "c"). But, it is a precept of mainstream Christian theology that there is but one universal Church, and it encompasses people who are from all races and nationalities.
Fifth, while I know many Christians who are black, I don't personally know any who would join Jeremiah Wright in saying, "God damn America." Jeremiah Wright did not consult with them. Rev. Wright does not speak for them.
Rev. Wright is wrong! An attack against Jeremiah Wright and his positions is an attack against him individually. He should stop trying to drag other people into his battles.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 11, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
A Feeble Explanation
There is no good excuse for my not posting to this blog in the past several weeks. There is, however, a feeble explanation. This is it.
While I was trying to make a habit of posting to this blog at least once a week and commonly more often, I got derailed by a bout with the flu. It was one of those strains that the current vaccine did not prevent. The reason I can tell even though I did not get the vaccine, is that I managed to pass it along to someone else who had received the shot a couple of months before.
Anyway, I was in bed with the flu for about a week. Even though I went back to my job, I still felt really tired and coughed quite a bit. In fact, the coughing persisted for a number of weeks afterward. Others who had this influenza have told me similar stories. For the sake of my ability to function at work, I felt obliged to rest as much as possible when I came home. So, instead of blogging, I lay in bed. Instead of studying Spanish, I lay in bed. Instead of doing a number of household chores, I lay in bed.
Once all this laying around was no longer necessary, I had a lot of catching up to do with other things. Blogging took a seat in the far back of the bus. Now, regular posting is no longer a habit.
By the way, we really really really need universal health care.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 10, 2008
While I was trying to make a habit of posting to this blog at least once a week and commonly more often, I got derailed by a bout with the flu. It was one of those strains that the current vaccine did not prevent. The reason I can tell even though I did not get the vaccine, is that I managed to pass it along to someone else who had received the shot a couple of months before.
Anyway, I was in bed with the flu for about a week. Even though I went back to my job, I still felt really tired and coughed quite a bit. In fact, the coughing persisted for a number of weeks afterward. Others who had this influenza have told me similar stories. For the sake of my ability to function at work, I felt obliged to rest as much as possible when I came home. So, instead of blogging, I lay in bed. Instead of studying Spanish, I lay in bed. Instead of doing a number of household chores, I lay in bed.
Once all this laying around was no longer necessary, I had a lot of catching up to do with other things. Blogging took a seat in the far back of the bus. Now, regular posting is no longer a habit.
By the way, we really really really need universal health care.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
May 10, 2008
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
My Super Tuesday Decision
Super Tuesday has come and gone. My state, Georgia, was one of those participating. Up until the actual day of the vote, I did not know exactly which candidate I would vote for. Until the last few days, I was not even certain which primary I would vote in. Since Georgia is an open primary state, you can actually make that decision when you get to the verification table. Even though I expect to be voting with the Democrats this November, I entertained the possibility of voting in the Republican primary. However, ultimately, I did not.
Among Democrats, at one point I most favored Joe Biden. However, he dropped out weeks ago. After him, I preferred John Edwards. But Edwards suspended his campaigning just days ago. I could have still voted for either candidate since their names were actually on the ballot, but that would have been a waste. Instead, I decided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama based on one and only one issue. That issue was health care. Of all the health care proposals advanced by any of the candidates, I favored John Edwards' plan the most. Of the remaining candidates, the one with the health care plan most like John Edwards was Hillary Clinton. In fact, at one point, Edwards accused Clinton of copying his own plan almost verbatim. So, when I got out of bed Tuesday morning, I decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Does that mean I am going to be upset if Barack Obama ends up winning the Democratic nomination? Hardly! However, it does point up my deep concern that Obama's health plan leaves out too many people and ultimately becomes actuarially unfeasible. Barack Obama is an intelligent man. Surely he will realize this problem if he ever really makes health care a truly high priority. I would sleep easier if Barack Obama adopted John Edwards' health plan also. That way, whoever gets the Democratic nomination would have a health plan I could believe in.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 6, 2008
Among Democrats, at one point I most favored Joe Biden. However, he dropped out weeks ago. After him, I preferred John Edwards. But Edwards suspended his campaigning just days ago. I could have still voted for either candidate since their names were actually on the ballot, but that would have been a waste. Instead, I decided between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama based on one and only one issue. That issue was health care. Of all the health care proposals advanced by any of the candidates, I favored John Edwards' plan the most. Of the remaining candidates, the one with the health care plan most like John Edwards was Hillary Clinton. In fact, at one point, Edwards accused Clinton of copying his own plan almost verbatim. So, when I got out of bed Tuesday morning, I decided to vote for Hillary Clinton.
Does that mean I am going to be upset if Barack Obama ends up winning the Democratic nomination? Hardly! However, it does point up my deep concern that Obama's health plan leaves out too many people and ultimately becomes actuarially unfeasible. Barack Obama is an intelligent man. Surely he will realize this problem if he ever really makes health care a truly high priority. I would sleep easier if Barack Obama adopted John Edwards' health plan also. That way, whoever gets the Democratic nomination would have a health plan I could believe in.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 6, 2008
Friday, February 1, 2008
Kennedy Endorses Obama - How Important Is It?
This week, the final State of the Union address by the current U.S. President, George W. Bush, was completely overshadowed by the announcement that Senator Edward Kennedy was endorsing Barack Obama in his quest for the Democratic nomination. It almost made the State of the Union address a non-event. Post speech commentators found it hard not to mention that Senators Kennedy and Obama were sitting together.
Both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns made sure the public was aware of which members and how many of the Kennedy family were supporting each candidate. This was somewhat ironic in that the Obama camp has made much of the fact that two families, the Bush and Clinton families, have had such a dominate role in our political scene. We were directed to believe that another prominent political family was jumping on the "change" theme.
How important is an endorsement from a member of the Kennedy family? Apparently, it is quite important if only for the publicity. Frankly, I feel it is overrated. We need to remember that the Kennedy family is made up of individuals each of whom have varying talents and skills. Certainly none of them are worthy of an unquestioned following.
Barack Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy. People who put forward this comparison are being quite selective in their memories. JFK has been almost deified in the minds of some. This is largely because of his tragic assassination. The Kennedy family has artfully kept this in the forefront of American consciousness along with his boldness in standing up to the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. Keeping these events prominent in the memories of that period has been advantageous in shoring up the Kennedy clan powerbase.
However, Barack Obama would be well advised to stay clear of pointing out too many similarities between himself and JFK. Many of today's voters have little memory of that time. An objective review of the history of the Kennedy administration would reveal that the Bay of Pigs fiasco came on John F. Kennedy's watch. It was JFK who put the U.S. military in the midst of the Vietnam conflict. If John F. Kennedy had lived, it would have been he, not Johnson, who suffered the eventual political fallout. Also, there is still much uncertainty regarding the personal moral conduct of both John and Robert Kennedy. Obama will do well to avoid inferring too many similarities.
The endorsement from Senator Edward Kennedy does mean something. But, it should not be because it is from a Kennedy. Rather, it should be because it comes from a man who has a long history of public service and championing the causes Barack Obama also supports. This is the United States of America. We have no royal families here. Let's keep this endorsement in its right perspective.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 1, 2008
Both the Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama campaigns made sure the public was aware of which members and how many of the Kennedy family were supporting each candidate. This was somewhat ironic in that the Obama camp has made much of the fact that two families, the Bush and Clinton families, have had such a dominate role in our political scene. We were directed to believe that another prominent political family was jumping on the "change" theme.
How important is an endorsement from a member of the Kennedy family? Apparently, it is quite important if only for the publicity. Frankly, I feel it is overrated. We need to remember that the Kennedy family is made up of individuals each of whom have varying talents and skills. Certainly none of them are worthy of an unquestioned following.
Barack Obama has been compared to John F. Kennedy. People who put forward this comparison are being quite selective in their memories. JFK has been almost deified in the minds of some. This is largely because of his tragic assassination. The Kennedy family has artfully kept this in the forefront of American consciousness along with his boldness in standing up to the Soviet Union during the Cuban missile crisis. Keeping these events prominent in the memories of that period has been advantageous in shoring up the Kennedy clan powerbase.
However, Barack Obama would be well advised to stay clear of pointing out too many similarities between himself and JFK. Many of today's voters have little memory of that time. An objective review of the history of the Kennedy administration would reveal that the Bay of Pigs fiasco came on John F. Kennedy's watch. It was JFK who put the U.S. military in the midst of the Vietnam conflict. If John F. Kennedy had lived, it would have been he, not Johnson, who suffered the eventual political fallout. Also, there is still much uncertainty regarding the personal moral conduct of both John and Robert Kennedy. Obama will do well to avoid inferring too many similarities.
The endorsement from Senator Edward Kennedy does mean something. But, it should not be because it is from a Kennedy. Rather, it should be because it comes from a man who has a long history of public service and championing the causes Barack Obama also supports. This is the United States of America. We have no royal families here. Let's keep this endorsement in its right perspective.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
February 1, 2008
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
John Edwards and Rudolph Giuliani Bow Out
The news is out, and so, apparently are both Giuliani and Edwards. Giuliani is a victim of a his own bad campaign strategy. Edwards is a victim of the historicity of running against a truly viable black candidate and a truly viable female candidate in the competition for the nation's highest office. Edward's exit virtually guarantees the Democrat party will have a significant historical first with the party nominee.
I am saddened by John Edwards exit. Of the remaining candidates, his was the proposed health care reform I believed in the most. Edwards voice on that issue was vital to setting the agenda for the Democrats.
Regarding Giuliani's exit, I am fairly ambivalent. I never bought into the idea that being the mayor of New York City and guiding that city through one great crises made him qualified for the day to day responsibilities of the President of the United States. So, I was not anticipating voting for him, anyway. However, as I have stated previously, I welcomed hearing from as many different voices as possible to have the most thorough airing of the issues.
John McCain stands the most to gain from Guiliani's withdrawal in the northeast Republican primaries. Whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination benefits from not running against Guiliani in the general election in those same states. Of course, there is no guarantee Guiliani won't end up in the second spot on the ticket.
Who benefits from John Edward's withdrawal is a more open question. In the storm of election politics, Edwards has been a voice of calm and reason. I am going to miss that voice.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 30, 2008
I am saddened by John Edwards exit. Of the remaining candidates, his was the proposed health care reform I believed in the most. Edwards voice on that issue was vital to setting the agenda for the Democrats.
Regarding Giuliani's exit, I am fairly ambivalent. I never bought into the idea that being the mayor of New York City and guiding that city through one great crises made him qualified for the day to day responsibilities of the President of the United States. So, I was not anticipating voting for him, anyway. However, as I have stated previously, I welcomed hearing from as many different voices as possible to have the most thorough airing of the issues.
John McCain stands the most to gain from Guiliani's withdrawal in the northeast Republican primaries. Whoever ends up with the Democratic nomination benefits from not running against Guiliani in the general election in those same states. Of course, there is no guarantee Guiliani won't end up in the second spot on the ticket.
Who benefits from John Edward's withdrawal is a more open question. In the storm of election politics, Edwards has been a voice of calm and reason. I am going to miss that voice.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 30, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
Dennis Kucinich Makes A Rare Bow To Pragmatism
Dennis Kucinich is withdrawing from the presidential contest. This is hardly surprising since his candidacy has been little more than a footnote to the overall picture. Nevertheless, his voice has been refreshing in its idealogical consistency. It has never been difficult to determine where Kucinich stood on the issues. His was a clear voice of liberal politics that was strong on idealism that rarely deferred to pragmatism.
The lack of pragmatism was undoubtedly one of the things that doomed the Kucinich candidacy from the outset. American politics is strong on ideals at the extremes of the parties, but pragmatism is what draws most of the electorate to the center. Dennis Kucinich was never in the center.
Of course, competing against a viable black candidate, a viable woman candidate, and (in the beginning) a viable Hispanic candidate did not help. Each of those represented constituencies which have been subject to some measure of oppression historically. The liberal components Kucinich relied upon were conflicted between an intellectual support for Kucinich's ideas and positions and an emotional inclination toward some sort of affirmative action. So, Dennis Kucinich was never able to line up the support he otherwise might have counted on.
Because Kucinich ran a campaign based entirely on ideals, I thought he might actually stay in the race even when it was obvious he had no chance of winning. Just being out there with his message seemed to serve a purpose. However, since he has been excluded from the most recent debates, his voice was not being heard.
Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich is facing opposition in the race for his congressional seat from within his own party. Understandably, his challengers have complained that with all Kucinich's focus on the presidential race he has neglected his own district. (Of the remaining candidates, only John Edwards is immune from such charges.) While finding his voice greatly diminished in the presidential race, Kucinich is in danger of losing his congressional voice as well.
This predictable turn of circumstances has pushed Dennis Kucinich into making a very practical decision. To retain any significance, he must focus on his congressional re-election. Once again, pragmatism wins the day.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 25, 2008
The lack of pragmatism was undoubtedly one of the things that doomed the Kucinich candidacy from the outset. American politics is strong on ideals at the extremes of the parties, but pragmatism is what draws most of the electorate to the center. Dennis Kucinich was never in the center.
Of course, competing against a viable black candidate, a viable woman candidate, and (in the beginning) a viable Hispanic candidate did not help. Each of those represented constituencies which have been subject to some measure of oppression historically. The liberal components Kucinich relied upon were conflicted between an intellectual support for Kucinich's ideas and positions and an emotional inclination toward some sort of affirmative action. So, Dennis Kucinich was never able to line up the support he otherwise might have counted on.
Because Kucinich ran a campaign based entirely on ideals, I thought he might actually stay in the race even when it was obvious he had no chance of winning. Just being out there with his message seemed to serve a purpose. However, since he has been excluded from the most recent debates, his voice was not being heard.
Meanwhile, Dennis Kucinich is facing opposition in the race for his congressional seat from within his own party. Understandably, his challengers have complained that with all Kucinich's focus on the presidential race he has neglected his own district. (Of the remaining candidates, only John Edwards is immune from such charges.) While finding his voice greatly diminished in the presidential race, Kucinich is in danger of losing his congressional voice as well.
This predictable turn of circumstances has pushed Dennis Kucinich into making a very practical decision. To retain any significance, he must focus on his congressional re-election. Once again, pragmatism wins the day.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 25, 2008
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Why Is The Kos Stirring the Republican Pot?
The Michigan primary is over. Mitt Romney has his first state victory under his belt. There was nothing really surprising about that. Any other result would have been an upset.
However, I am surprised to learn that the media reported that a prominent liberal blog, Daily Kos, was calling for Democrats in that state to vote in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney. I really don't believe Romney's win was the result of that effort, but I question reasoning of Daily Kos as reported by the media. Supposedly, the Kos was advocating a win for Romney to help keep the Republicans off balance and up in the air regarding who their presidential nominee was going to be. Now, I agree that at the moment it does have that effect.
However, the more uncertainty there is in the selection process, the greater the degree of curiosity about it. The uncertainty invites more media attention thereby keeping the Republican candates' messages more in the minds of the public. Does Daily Kos really want the Republicans soaking up all the public attention?
One of my complaints about the compressed primary season has been that there is so much dead time between the apparent end of the primaries and the conventions. This invites public apathy and boredom. I can't see how that works in either party's favor. The spector of a brokered convention, however, is just the sort of thing a fickle gossip hungry public would feed upon. The attendant free publicity surrounding such an event would have value beyond our ability to measure. It would require the bitterest of party infighting for this to emerge as anything but a windfall for the eventual victor.
By contrast, the sooner one knows who one's opponent is going to be, the longer one has to prepare for the battle. So, why was Daily Kos calling for stirring up the Republican pot? It's a mystery.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
However, I am surprised to learn that the media reported that a prominent liberal blog, Daily Kos, was calling for Democrats in that state to vote in the Republican primary for Mitt Romney. I really don't believe Romney's win was the result of that effort, but I question reasoning of Daily Kos as reported by the media. Supposedly, the Kos was advocating a win for Romney to help keep the Republicans off balance and up in the air regarding who their presidential nominee was going to be. Now, I agree that at the moment it does have that effect.
However, the more uncertainty there is in the selection process, the greater the degree of curiosity about it. The uncertainty invites more media attention thereby keeping the Republican candates' messages more in the minds of the public. Does Daily Kos really want the Republicans soaking up all the public attention?
One of my complaints about the compressed primary season has been that there is so much dead time between the apparent end of the primaries and the conventions. This invites public apathy and boredom. I can't see how that works in either party's favor. The spector of a brokered convention, however, is just the sort of thing a fickle gossip hungry public would feed upon. The attendant free publicity surrounding such an event would have value beyond our ability to measure. It would require the bitterest of party infighting for this to emerge as anything but a windfall for the eventual victor.
By contrast, the sooner one knows who one's opponent is going to be, the longer one has to prepare for the battle. So, why was Daily Kos calling for stirring up the Republican pot? It's a mystery.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
Monday, January 14, 2008
How To Request Removal From a Mailing List
In my posts on the spam wars, I seem to have talked more about the wrong ways to request removal from someone's e-mailing list than about the proper ways. This post is dedicated strictly to correcting this deficiency. These methods are presented in the order of most preferred to least preferred.
If the unwanted e-mail you received has a clickable link for removal, using this link is the FASTEST way to get off the list. Typically, these links process your removal without any human intervention on the other end. Your removal is in no way held up by the other demands on the time of a human being who would have to process your request otherwise. Also, you can be sure your correct e-mail address is submitted for removal and there is no misspelling. Even one keystroke in error would cause your removal request to fail. Using these links produces the most satisfactory and prompt results for all concerned.
If there is a removal link that seems to be a bad link, it does not necessarily mean the sender was trying to pull a fast one. Mail servers experience frequent problems and have to be taken down for service. You may have tried the link at just the wrong time. It is also possible that the sender has changed servers since the time the mailing went out. The older the e-mail you received, the more likely this is to be the case.
Removal links may be called different things. Some will say, "unsubscribe." Some will say, "opt out." Still others, may simply say, "good bye." There is no one way of phrasing that applies universally. Having a removal method is necessary for U.S. based mass e-mailers to remain in compliance with anti-spam laws. Unfortunately, many spam filters specifically search for removal link language and block any e-mails that contain it. This has the ironic result of rewarding those who break the law and exclude any removal methods. At the same time, it punishes those who are in compliance. There are no laws requiring spam filters to be compliant with regulation. So, legitimate mass e-mailers will sometimes use uncommon phraseology regarding removal seeking to avoid errant filtration.
If there is no removal link, or if the link does not work, send the entire e-mail back to the sender, but change the subject line to, "Remove from list," or "Unsubscribe," or something similar. Often the e-mail will tell you the exact words to put in the subject line to request your deletion. Whoever opens these e-mails for the sender will probably sort them by subject lines so all removal requests are grouped together to process them more efficiently. Since your objective is to get off the list as soon as possible, it is in your interest to make this as easy as possible. You might also include a message such as "Remove me from your list," at the TOP of the body of the e-mail.
You do want to include the e-mail you received in the body of your removal request. This proves you are on the list. Frequently, the e-mail itself contains coding that the sender can use to process your removal more quickly. At the very least, it identifies which list you are on. Some mailers manage multiple lists. If you send only a removal request but do not include the message you received, the mailer may attempt to remove you from a list you are not on and never realize the effort failed.
Some e-mailers will state that if you wish to be removed from a list, simply hit REPLY and press SEND. That simply returns the e-mail to the sender without alteration. This method is fine IF the sender specifically suggests it. DO NOT ASSUME it will work for everyone. Most mass e-mailers simply assume the recepient had set up an out of office message on the e-mail and forgot to turn the feature off after deleting the out of office message. So, they ignore these types of replies. This is why it is important to change your subject line and to explicitly state your removal request.
If your mail server automatically puts the e-mail you received in an attachment instead of in the body, do not send the attachment. Mass mailers are frequently the target of hackers seeking to access their databases of e-mail addresses. For security reasons many mass mailers will refuse to open e-mails with attachments.
Delete the attachment and attempt to copy the body of the e-mail into the body of the message you are sending. This may not deliver all the information, but it is better than nothing. Place your clear removal request at the TOP of the body of the message to make sure it is seen.
It is important that your requests for removal be explicitly stated. You may think a message like, "I don't know you," communicates your desire for removal. But, actually, it doesn't. Use clear words to say you want to be taken off the mailing list.
Finally, some e-mails will actually contain a regular postal address for you to send your paper mail request for removal. This is the slowest method for getting off a list since it adds paper mail delivery time to the process. Use this method only if you are attempting to build a legal case against a spammer and are seeking to prove non-compliance.
Since these latter types of removal requests do require human intervention, you will generally have a longer delay before they are processed. The law allows up to ten days. Using the automatic removal links (if available) will get almost immediate results. That alone makes them preferable.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
If the unwanted e-mail you received has a clickable link for removal, using this link is the FASTEST way to get off the list. Typically, these links process your removal without any human intervention on the other end. Your removal is in no way held up by the other demands on the time of a human being who would have to process your request otherwise. Also, you can be sure your correct e-mail address is submitted for removal and there is no misspelling. Even one keystroke in error would cause your removal request to fail. Using these links produces the most satisfactory and prompt results for all concerned.
If there is a removal link that seems to be a bad link, it does not necessarily mean the sender was trying to pull a fast one. Mail servers experience frequent problems and have to be taken down for service. You may have tried the link at just the wrong time. It is also possible that the sender has changed servers since the time the mailing went out. The older the e-mail you received, the more likely this is to be the case.
Removal links may be called different things. Some will say, "unsubscribe." Some will say, "opt out." Still others, may simply say, "good bye." There is no one way of phrasing that applies universally. Having a removal method is necessary for U.S. based mass e-mailers to remain in compliance with anti-spam laws. Unfortunately, many spam filters specifically search for removal link language and block any e-mails that contain it. This has the ironic result of rewarding those who break the law and exclude any removal methods. At the same time, it punishes those who are in compliance. There are no laws requiring spam filters to be compliant with regulation. So, legitimate mass e-mailers will sometimes use uncommon phraseology regarding removal seeking to avoid errant filtration.
If there is no removal link, or if the link does not work, send the entire e-mail back to the sender, but change the subject line to, "Remove from list," or "Unsubscribe," or something similar. Often the e-mail will tell you the exact words to put in the subject line to request your deletion. Whoever opens these e-mails for the sender will probably sort them by subject lines so all removal requests are grouped together to process them more efficiently. Since your objective is to get off the list as soon as possible, it is in your interest to make this as easy as possible. You might also include a message such as "Remove me from your list," at the TOP of the body of the e-mail.
You do want to include the e-mail you received in the body of your removal request. This proves you are on the list. Frequently, the e-mail itself contains coding that the sender can use to process your removal more quickly. At the very least, it identifies which list you are on. Some mailers manage multiple lists. If you send only a removal request but do not include the message you received, the mailer may attempt to remove you from a list you are not on and never realize the effort failed.
Some e-mailers will state that if you wish to be removed from a list, simply hit REPLY and press SEND. That simply returns the e-mail to the sender without alteration. This method is fine IF the sender specifically suggests it. DO NOT ASSUME it will work for everyone. Most mass e-mailers simply assume the recepient had set up an out of office message on the e-mail and forgot to turn the feature off after deleting the out of office message. So, they ignore these types of replies. This is why it is important to change your subject line and to explicitly state your removal request.
If your mail server automatically puts the e-mail you received in an attachment instead of in the body, do not send the attachment. Mass mailers are frequently the target of hackers seeking to access their databases of e-mail addresses. For security reasons many mass mailers will refuse to open e-mails with attachments.
Delete the attachment and attempt to copy the body of the e-mail into the body of the message you are sending. This may not deliver all the information, but it is better than nothing. Place your clear removal request at the TOP of the body of the message to make sure it is seen.
It is important that your requests for removal be explicitly stated. You may think a message like, "I don't know you," communicates your desire for removal. But, actually, it doesn't. Use clear words to say you want to be taken off the mailing list.
Finally, some e-mails will actually contain a regular postal address for you to send your paper mail request for removal. This is the slowest method for getting off a list since it adds paper mail delivery time to the process. Use this method only if you are attempting to build a legal case against a spammer and are seeking to prove non-compliance.
Since these latter types of removal requests do require human intervention, you will generally have a longer delay before they are processed. The law allows up to ten days. Using the automatic removal links (if available) will get almost immediate results. That alone makes them preferable.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Anti-Spam - Retaking Your E-mail Inbox
You have mail, lots of it filling your e-mail account. Some of it you want. Lots of it you don't. What do you do?
First, you need to admit you have a problem. You need to accept responsibility for putting yourself on so many mailing lists (even if you don't remember doing so or didn't realize you were doing that). This was covered in one of my previous postings.
Second, you need to unsubscribe to each list you don't want to be on. Once upon a time, e-mail providers were telling people to just delete the e-mails and not respond to them in any way. They put forward the idea that any sort of response would "confirm your address" and open you up to lots more unwanted e-mail. If that was ever true, that is not the way things are today. When your e-mail does not bounce back to the originator, the sender considers it confirmed as a real address. Furthermore, in the United States, senders of bulk and commercial e-mails must honor any removal requests within a reasonable period (ten days) to remain in compliance with anti-spam laws. Even if you personally and specifically requested to be added to the mailing list, your removal request must be honored.
Third, you need to change the behavior that got you on those lists in the first place. Either stop doing those things, or use a special mailbox just for that purpose as was suggested in another earlier post.
Fourth, set any filters you may have on your e-mail account to automatically file as junk all e-mails coming from anyone not in your address book. This does mean you will need to scan the contents of your junk folder periodically because friends and relatives change addresses. They don't always let you know. Even if they do, their notification may arrive by e-mail.
As I have spoken with friends who do a lot of bulk commercial e-mailing, I have gotten some interesting feedback concerning what people should NOT do to get off mailing lists.
1) Unless the removal instructions in the body of the e-mail specifically say to do this, do not just hit REPLY and press SEND. There are some people who do accept this as a means of communicating an opt out request. However, it is NOT UNIVERSAL. In fact, it is becoming less commonly accepted. This is because many people use automatic reply messages in their mailboxes when they are out. Then, when they return, they delete the message, but they don't always turn the feature off. This results in every e-mail they receive triggering an automatic response with no message. So, more and more bulk mailers are ignoring these.
2) Unless the opt out instructions in the body of the e-mail specifically say to do this, do not just send a blank e-mail. For some mailers this is the method to opt IN instead of OUT.
3) Do not take out your frustrations on the mailer. Some people refuse to accept responsibility for allowing themselves to be on the list. Instead of being adult about the matter, they will send vulgar and abusive messages to whomever is opening the mail. This is just plain foolish for two reasons. a) The senders already have your e-mail address. They probably know how to remove you from this particular list and add you to hundreds of others possibly outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Being abusive or threatening does not serve your purpose. It may make your situation worse if they respond in kind. b) The second reason this is foolish is because the most successful bulk e-mailers are employing others to open their mail and deal with the removal requests. The people who get the hateful messages are not necessarily the ones sending out the mail. They're just performing a clerical function and trying to feed their families.
Finally, if taking the right steps does not restore a level of control over your e-mail, you may need to consider changing your e-mail address. When you do that, start from the beginning to limit who has access to your new primary e-mail address. Give one of your junk e-mail addresses to everyone else.
Fighting the spam wars is never ending. In a future post, I'll talk discuss dealing with illegal senders of truly unsolicited bulk e-mail(UBE).
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 8, 2008
First, you need to admit you have a problem. You need to accept responsibility for putting yourself on so many mailing lists (even if you don't remember doing so or didn't realize you were doing that). This was covered in one of my previous postings.
Second, you need to unsubscribe to each list you don't want to be on. Once upon a time, e-mail providers were telling people to just delete the e-mails and not respond to them in any way. They put forward the idea that any sort of response would "confirm your address" and open you up to lots more unwanted e-mail. If that was ever true, that is not the way things are today. When your e-mail does not bounce back to the originator, the sender considers it confirmed as a real address. Furthermore, in the United States, senders of bulk and commercial e-mails must honor any removal requests within a reasonable period (ten days) to remain in compliance with anti-spam laws. Even if you personally and specifically requested to be added to the mailing list, your removal request must be honored.
Third, you need to change the behavior that got you on those lists in the first place. Either stop doing those things, or use a special mailbox just for that purpose as was suggested in another earlier post.
Fourth, set any filters you may have on your e-mail account to automatically file as junk all e-mails coming from anyone not in your address book. This does mean you will need to scan the contents of your junk folder periodically because friends and relatives change addresses. They don't always let you know. Even if they do, their notification may arrive by e-mail.
As I have spoken with friends who do a lot of bulk commercial e-mailing, I have gotten some interesting feedback concerning what people should NOT do to get off mailing lists.
1) Unless the removal instructions in the body of the e-mail specifically say to do this, do not just hit REPLY and press SEND. There are some people who do accept this as a means of communicating an opt out request. However, it is NOT UNIVERSAL. In fact, it is becoming less commonly accepted. This is because many people use automatic reply messages in their mailboxes when they are out. Then, when they return, they delete the message, but they don't always turn the feature off. This results in every e-mail they receive triggering an automatic response with no message. So, more and more bulk mailers are ignoring these.
2) Unless the opt out instructions in the body of the e-mail specifically say to do this, do not just send a blank e-mail. For some mailers this is the method to opt IN instead of OUT.
3) Do not take out your frustrations on the mailer. Some people refuse to accept responsibility for allowing themselves to be on the list. Instead of being adult about the matter, they will send vulgar and abusive messages to whomever is opening the mail. This is just plain foolish for two reasons. a) The senders already have your e-mail address. They probably know how to remove you from this particular list and add you to hundreds of others possibly outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Being abusive or threatening does not serve your purpose. It may make your situation worse if they respond in kind. b) The second reason this is foolish is because the most successful bulk e-mailers are employing others to open their mail and deal with the removal requests. The people who get the hateful messages are not necessarily the ones sending out the mail. They're just performing a clerical function and trying to feed their families.
Finally, if taking the right steps does not restore a level of control over your e-mail, you may need to consider changing your e-mail address. When you do that, start from the beginning to limit who has access to your new primary e-mail address. Give one of your junk e-mail addresses to everyone else.
Fighting the spam wars is never ending. In a future post, I'll talk discuss dealing with illegal senders of truly unsolicited bulk e-mail(UBE).
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 8, 2008
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Free Dust Covers for Your Shoes
Here's an epiphany for you. Do you subscribe to your local newspaper? If so, there is a good chance it is delivered to you inside plastic bags which are the ideal size for a single shoe. Simply slip the shoe into the bag and stuff the loose end of the bag into the shoe. It makes a perfect dust cover and keeps the plastic bag out of the landfill.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 6, 2008
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 6, 2008
Friday, January 4, 2008
Spam and Stock Fraud
Today, Joanne Allen of Reuters is reporting the indictment of a man from Michigan for engaging in a stock fraud scheme in which obscure penny stocks were promoted through spam. Alan Ralsky is being described as the "spam king" and the mastermind behind the operation which involved ten others.
The way it worked was that the group would find an obscure stock trading at a really low price and make a large purchase. Then, they would send out spam mail to millions announcing the stock was about to rise. This was essentially a self-fulling prophecy because as people acted on this "tip" it did drive the stock price up. When that happened, Ralsky's group promptly dumped the stock to reap a nice profit. Since the rise was artificial the stock would soon fall back to its earlier level leaving lots of investors with a loss.
I, myself, had received any number of these stock promotions. I even tracked a few of the stocks to see what would happen. Usually, there was a bubble as the stock rose and then fell. My own observation was that it nearly always started the decline before reaching the level the e-mails suggested it would attain. That must have been when the stock was being dumped. I was never taken in by these schemers because I recognized it for the stock manipulation ploy that it was. However, many were seduced, and those who did not get out at the right time lost.
The indictment charges that Ralsky's group used illegal means to trick the recipients into opening the e-mails and to get past the spam filters. Though the techniques were not named in the report, typically those who knowingly operate illegally are using offshore mail servers and phony e-mail addresses which are difficult to trace. Unfortunately, the strategies I suggest for controlling your unwanted e-mail will not work with those who operate in violation of the laws. It is sad, but true, that in the spam wars, the heaviest casualties are suffered by the recipients and the legitimate bulk e-mailers. The worst offenders actually suffer the least.
Joanne Allen said in her report that the Detroit News indicated Ralsky was believed to be in Europe at the moment. To me that comes as little surprise. Although, there are some island nations that would have surprised me even less.
It should be noted that, as of this posting, Alan Ralsky and the others have yet to be tried on these charges. Legally, they are still considered innocent until such time as they may be convicted. We must wait to see what facts emerge at trial.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 4, 2008
The way it worked was that the group would find an obscure stock trading at a really low price and make a large purchase. Then, they would send out spam mail to millions announcing the stock was about to rise. This was essentially a self-fulling prophecy because as people acted on this "tip" it did drive the stock price up. When that happened, Ralsky's group promptly dumped the stock to reap a nice profit. Since the rise was artificial the stock would soon fall back to its earlier level leaving lots of investors with a loss.
I, myself, had received any number of these stock promotions. I even tracked a few of the stocks to see what would happen. Usually, there was a bubble as the stock rose and then fell. My own observation was that it nearly always started the decline before reaching the level the e-mails suggested it would attain. That must have been when the stock was being dumped. I was never taken in by these schemers because I recognized it for the stock manipulation ploy that it was. However, many were seduced, and those who did not get out at the right time lost.
The indictment charges that Ralsky's group used illegal means to trick the recipients into opening the e-mails and to get past the spam filters. Though the techniques were not named in the report, typically those who knowingly operate illegally are using offshore mail servers and phony e-mail addresses which are difficult to trace. Unfortunately, the strategies I suggest for controlling your unwanted e-mail will not work with those who operate in violation of the laws. It is sad, but true, that in the spam wars, the heaviest casualties are suffered by the recipients and the legitimate bulk e-mailers. The worst offenders actually suffer the least.
Joanne Allen said in her report that the Detroit News indicated Ralsky was believed to be in Europe at the moment. To me that comes as little surprise. Although, there are some island nations that would have surprised me even less.
It should be noted that, as of this posting, Alan Ralsky and the others have yet to be tried on these charges. Legally, they are still considered innocent until such time as they may be convicted. We must wait to see what facts emerge at trial.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 4, 2008
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Let The States Take Turns
Do Iowa and New Hampshire have too much say in the early candidate selection processes? Obviously, they aren't going to think so. The polls bear that out. Many residents of those states wish they had even more.
To hang onto their influence those two states even have laws mandating they schedule their events before the other states in the nation. To try to get more of a say in the early process other states have moved their events up. This has resulted in the present situation where we have both of the first two contests ending just days from now. The general consensus is that (for the Democrats, at least) the apparent party nominee will have emerged by February 5th.
Personally, I would have preferred a more drawn out process. There are lots of issues that need to be explored. Furthermore, as events of the past seven days have shown, world events can take sudden decisive turns in short periods of time. A longer process would allow more opportunities to observe how the candidates respond to a changing world.
No matter who is elected to the office of President next November, that person will be taking office near the end of January 2009 in a different world from the one we have now. Drawing the selection process out allows presidential candidates to react to and address a wider range of situations. This could give the voters a greater feel of confidence in their selections.
As long as early primary and caucus states have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the process, we are going to stuck with this state competition to be out in front. That means ridiculously early primaries and caucuses. Yet, we cannot expect states to sit quietly by and do nothing while rival states move to the beginning of the line.
I believe the time has come for a nationally mandated rotation of the order and determination of the dates. While the states currently have the right to set their own primary/caucus dates, the national conventions are under no obligation to respect them. We are already seeing states being told their delegates will not be recognized because they stepped outside the lines. A fair rotation system would head off a more widespread rebellion.
That would mean that sometimes Iowa or New Hampshire might actually be at the end of the line. The process also needs to be spread out enough to allow candidates to get around to all the states. There is nothing like that in place now. And, unfortunately, nothing like that is going to be in place before 2012.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 1, 2008
To hang onto their influence those two states even have laws mandating they schedule their events before the other states in the nation. To try to get more of a say in the early process other states have moved their events up. This has resulted in the present situation where we have both of the first two contests ending just days from now. The general consensus is that (for the Democrats, at least) the apparent party nominee will have emerged by February 5th.
Personally, I would have preferred a more drawn out process. There are lots of issues that need to be explored. Furthermore, as events of the past seven days have shown, world events can take sudden decisive turns in short periods of time. A longer process would allow more opportunities to observe how the candidates respond to a changing world.
No matter who is elected to the office of President next November, that person will be taking office near the end of January 2009 in a different world from the one we have now. Drawing the selection process out allows presidential candidates to react to and address a wider range of situations. This could give the voters a greater feel of confidence in their selections.
As long as early primary and caucus states have disproportionate influence on the outcome of the process, we are going to stuck with this state competition to be out in front. That means ridiculously early primaries and caucuses. Yet, we cannot expect states to sit quietly by and do nothing while rival states move to the beginning of the line.
I believe the time has come for a nationally mandated rotation of the order and determination of the dates. While the states currently have the right to set their own primary/caucus dates, the national conventions are under no obligation to respect them. We are already seeing states being told their delegates will not be recognized because they stepped outside the lines. A fair rotation system would head off a more widespread rebellion.
That would mean that sometimes Iowa or New Hampshire might actually be at the end of the line. The process also needs to be spread out enough to allow candidates to get around to all the states. There is nothing like that in place now. And, unfortunately, nothing like that is going to be in place before 2012.
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 1, 2008
Wade Houston Wishes You a Happy New Year!
The start of a new year is nearly always fun. It's like getting to play in fresh fallen snow. There are hardly any tracks. You get to make a new start and perhaps carve a different path from the year just past.
It's also a time for reassessment and goal setting. I know many people who have given up setting resolutions because they failed to keep them in the past. By not setting new resolutions, they avoid one more thing that would make them feel like failures. I understand, but there is a cure for that. Set more REALISTIC resolutions. Make a small short resolution you know you can keep. Then, build upon your successes.
I have been seriously considering attempting to become proficient in Spanish. I studied the language in high school and again in college, but like many skills, you lose what you don't use. I never got comfortable with the language because I was too shy to practice it among people who spoke it. If I had done so, I believe I would be bilingual today. Should I make developing a comfortable proficiency with Spanish a resolution for this year?
I see some problems with that idea. First, it is frightening. For me, it's a huge goal. Second, it puts me outside my comfort zone. Third, it is difficult for me to quantify. What is a "comfortable proficiency"?
It is this last item that actually would make the resolution a real challenge to keep. To stay motivated to achieve a particular result, goals need to be measurable. Otherwise, it is difficult to know how to adjust your course. Big goals especially need to be measurable so you can break them up into smaller mini goals.
What I know I can quantify is my time. I can determine certain steps to take that would move me toward the objective. I can also establish realistic minimum standards for how much time I will spend each week on those steps.
For example, I could resolve to spend at least seven hours per week working to become proficient in Spanish. By not setting the resolution as an every day thing, it allows for the variables of life that intrude into my schedule. However, it is obviously attainable by spending one hour every day on the effort. It means that if I miss a day, I know I need to make up for that on the other days of the week to stay with the seven hour per week target.
Now, seven hours per week is probably not going to achieve the final objective in the course of a single year. However, it would certainly put me further along than I am now. Additionally, I am not prohibited from putting in more time and effort. Keeping the bar high enough to require focus but low enough to be within reach should enable me both to make progress and to avoid discouragement.
May your New Year dreams and aspirations find their way into reality (as long as they are not in conflict with my own).
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 1, 2008
It's also a time for reassessment and goal setting. I know many people who have given up setting resolutions because they failed to keep them in the past. By not setting new resolutions, they avoid one more thing that would make them feel like failures. I understand, but there is a cure for that. Set more REALISTIC resolutions. Make a small short resolution you know you can keep. Then, build upon your successes.
I have been seriously considering attempting to become proficient in Spanish. I studied the language in high school and again in college, but like many skills, you lose what you don't use. I never got comfortable with the language because I was too shy to practice it among people who spoke it. If I had done so, I believe I would be bilingual today. Should I make developing a comfortable proficiency with Spanish a resolution for this year?
I see some problems with that idea. First, it is frightening. For me, it's a huge goal. Second, it puts me outside my comfort zone. Third, it is difficult for me to quantify. What is a "comfortable proficiency"?
It is this last item that actually would make the resolution a real challenge to keep. To stay motivated to achieve a particular result, goals need to be measurable. Otherwise, it is difficult to know how to adjust your course. Big goals especially need to be measurable so you can break them up into smaller mini goals.
What I know I can quantify is my time. I can determine certain steps to take that would move me toward the objective. I can also establish realistic minimum standards for how much time I will spend each week on those steps.
For example, I could resolve to spend at least seven hours per week working to become proficient in Spanish. By not setting the resolution as an every day thing, it allows for the variables of life that intrude into my schedule. However, it is obviously attainable by spending one hour every day on the effort. It means that if I miss a day, I know I need to make up for that on the other days of the week to stay with the seven hour per week target.
Now, seven hours per week is probably not going to achieve the final objective in the course of a single year. However, it would certainly put me further along than I am now. Additionally, I am not prohibited from putting in more time and effort. Keeping the bar high enough to require focus but low enough to be within reach should enable me both to make progress and to avoid discouragement.
May your New Year dreams and aspirations find their way into reality (as long as they are not in conflict with my own).
That's Wade's two cents.
Wade Houston
January 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)