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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)