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
Wednesday, 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)