The regulations that business operates under is going to be an issue in the upcoming presidential election. Those candidates that are running on the right are saying that we have too many regulations on business and that the result is a loss of jobs.
If jobs are lost who could be against dumping the regulations?
Yes, perhaps, there are too many regulations. But, most regulations are in place for a reason. They protect people and the environment. Without these regulations, we would have to rely on corporations, whose sole legal goal is to create profit, to do the right thing. Many corporations say that their best practices meet or exceed the regulations.
As an example of corporations following their own best practices, there is Shell Oil that has operations in the Niger Delta, Africa. The corporation has established best practices between itself and NNPC, the national oil company of Nigeria. Those practices are to protect the environment, workers and the people living in the delta.
But, there is a serious problem in Africa, where Shell said they followed their best practices and said that the area was “clean”. As reported in The Economist, August 13th-19th, 2011, a United Nations report states that there is a “thick, black carpet of crude” in the Ogoniland. This spill has been estimated to be larger than the 1989 Exxon Valdez disaster in Alaska and covers about 10 square miles. This is the result of an oil spill that Shell first claimed was caused by theft and sabotage, but now has admitted was caused by equipment failure. It appears that their best practices didn’t anticipate the equipment failure and that Shell could blame it on other causes.
Residents of the area are drinking water with 900 times as much benzene, a carcinogen, then is deemed safe by the World Health Organization. The report goes on to say that it could take 30 years and a billion dollars for Shell to clean up an area. This report is published 20 years after Shell left Ogoniland.
Every time a corporation or an industry is threatened with regulations they claim that their best practices will be better and that there will be loss of jobs. But, in thousands of case in our own country and around the world, it isn’t the case.
So, should we skip the regulations so that Shell can hire a few more people? It is the lack of regulations and reliance on corporation’s best practices that have polluted the Ogoniland, a faraway place that is rarely seen by the eyes of American voters.
Let’s keep the regulations that protect people and environments.
-----
Responsible Community Working Together in Shared Responsibility.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Monday, August 29, 2011
Medical marijuana law in Michigan is confusing at best
There is few things clear in politics. But, in the case of the use of marijuana for medical purposes in Michigan, the intent of the voters was very clear. In a decisive vote, the people of Michigan said they wanted people to have access to marijuana if a doctor prescribed it as medication.
So why has it been such trouble to get them the medicine?
Politicians, police agencies and other authoritarian types don’t want them to. They believe that the drug is a great evil. They would ignore the intent of the voters and keep it from those that need it for fear that the state will become the, “drug capital of the world,” as one politician put it.
Two years ago, a citizens initiative passed in Michigan. The initiative said that marijuana should be made available to those that could benefit from the drug. As called for in the initiative, the state legislature acted. But, they created a confusing and vague law. The result has been nothing but confusion about a very clear decision by the voters.
Now a court has ruled, that marijuana dispensaries are illegal according to their interpretation of the confusing law passed by the state. This has forced perhaps hundreds of clinics around the state out of business, leaving those that are in need of the drug searching for another source for their medicine.
Where are these people to go? Shall we send them out on the street to drug dealers?
Most drugs do need to be controlled. The ill effects that the drugs bring on user, their families and communities would be destructive. But, that doesn’t mean that drugs that clearly are needed to ease the pain of an illness, and in some cases, improve the health of people should just be banned and only provided by the local illegal street vendor.
The legislature of the state should act quickly to write a clear law about something the voters clearly want.
-----
So why has it been such trouble to get them the medicine?
Politicians, police agencies and other authoritarian types don’t want them to. They believe that the drug is a great evil. They would ignore the intent of the voters and keep it from those that need it for fear that the state will become the, “drug capital of the world,” as one politician put it.
Two years ago, a citizens initiative passed in Michigan. The initiative said that marijuana should be made available to those that could benefit from the drug. As called for in the initiative, the state legislature acted. But, they created a confusing and vague law. The result has been nothing but confusion about a very clear decision by the voters.
Now a court has ruled, that marijuana dispensaries are illegal according to their interpretation of the confusing law passed by the state. This has forced perhaps hundreds of clinics around the state out of business, leaving those that are in need of the drug searching for another source for their medicine.
Where are these people to go? Shall we send them out on the street to drug dealers?
Most drugs do need to be controlled. The ill effects that the drugs bring on user, their families and communities would be destructive. But, that doesn’t mean that drugs that clearly are needed to ease the pain of an illness, and in some cases, improve the health of people should just be banned and only provided by the local illegal street vendor.
The legislature of the state should act quickly to write a clear law about something the voters clearly want.
-----
Friday, August 19, 2011
No tax increase doesn't make sense
There is a hidden agenda in the no tax pledge that the anti-tax crowd is talking about. It isn’t to keep from raising taxes because it hurts the economy. It is the killing of all government in the end.
Many conservative politicians that are running in the next election have signed a no tax increase pledge from groups like Americans for Tax Reform. The pledges states that they will not vote for a tax increase of any kind, even if it is just a move to increase revenue. Americans for Tax Reform don’t care if it is legislations that increases taxes or removes a deduction that will increase revenue. Americans for Tax reform will provide significant support for those politicians that keep their pledge. If someone slips up and votes for an increase in revenue, the organization will find another politician to support in the next election.
Sometimes revenues need to be increased. Even the most conservatively run business find that they need to increase prices occasionally. Costs just have a way of always going up. Those that operate a business can search for new suppliers, can cut cost and do many other things that will enable them to keep costs in line. But, at some point, the price of their goods or services are going to increase. If they don’t, they will lose money and go out of business.
Government, just like business, should run as lean as possible. All the things that businesses do to keep costs in line, government should also do. But, sometimes costs are going to increase. In order to keep a balance budget, taxes will need to increase at some point in order to cover the deficient or the government will be running in the red.
Of all the things that we ask government to do, police, fire and other essential services like that should be maintained and control by the community. When inflation pushes up the costs of maintaining the essential services, if the elected officials have signed a no tax increase pledge they plan on keeping, it means that officers or fire personal will need to be laid off. Reducing the amount of people that protect the community, one of the primary things a government should be doing.
There are ways that we can cut the cost of government. We should be working on them all the time. But, pledging to not raise taxes, no matter what the reason, will place the basic services that we all need in jeopardy.
-----
Many conservative politicians that are running in the next election have signed a no tax increase pledge from groups like Americans for Tax Reform. The pledges states that they will not vote for a tax increase of any kind, even if it is just a move to increase revenue. Americans for Tax Reform don’t care if it is legislations that increases taxes or removes a deduction that will increase revenue. Americans for Tax reform will provide significant support for those politicians that keep their pledge. If someone slips up and votes for an increase in revenue, the organization will find another politician to support in the next election.
Sometimes revenues need to be increased. Even the most conservatively run business find that they need to increase prices occasionally. Costs just have a way of always going up. Those that operate a business can search for new suppliers, can cut cost and do many other things that will enable them to keep costs in line. But, at some point, the price of their goods or services are going to increase. If they don’t, they will lose money and go out of business.
Government, just like business, should run as lean as possible. All the things that businesses do to keep costs in line, government should also do. But, sometimes costs are going to increase. In order to keep a balance budget, taxes will need to increase at some point in order to cover the deficient or the government will be running in the red.
Of all the things that we ask government to do, police, fire and other essential services like that should be maintained and control by the community. When inflation pushes up the costs of maintaining the essential services, if the elected officials have signed a no tax increase pledge they plan on keeping, it means that officers or fire personal will need to be laid off. Reducing the amount of people that protect the community, one of the primary things a government should be doing.
There are ways that we can cut the cost of government. We should be working on them all the time. But, pledging to not raise taxes, no matter what the reason, will place the basic services that we all need in jeopardy.
-----
Saturday, August 13, 2011
BART shuts down cell phone use in subway stations
Cell phone use in San Francisco subway stations was halted Thursday. BART, the authority that operates the subways, “learned” that protests were planned in some of the stations. People wanted to express their anger over the shooting death of a man by BART police. So, electricity was cut off to cell phone towers in the stations from 4 to 7 pm on Thursday in response.
Communities are given the responsibility to protect its citizens. Collective self defense was one of the first reasons people gathered in communities. But, the defense of the community must be kept in balance with the rights of individuals.
According to news reports, it is illegal for people to assemble in subway stations in San Francisco to protest. The law to prevent these assemblies is a reasonable act. The dangers that would exist if many angry people were protesting on subway platforms would go beyond a mere inconvenience of commuters. It is reasonable to think that people would be injured or killed. Also, the law most likely doesn’t choose sides, it just simple states no protests of any kind. There are plenty of other places in the city for people to assemble to express their grievances without endangering the lives of people.
When BART authorities “learned” that something was planned, it sounds like they did develop a plan to protect commuters and prevent a violation of the law. But, sense the plan they developed involved the violation of everyone’s rights, not just those involved in the protests, they should have sought judicial review. This review would have allowed a public examination of the evidence and a evaluation of the dangers that would be presented if the protest were not preempted. (Courts would have responded quickly to a request from BART due to the nature of the issues.)
I used the word preempted about the plan to negate the protests. The plan that was developed by the BART authorities was based on what might happen, as opposed to what is happening. It is dangerous to image a community that would preempt political activity without judicial review. If political activity was allowed to be preempted communities would walk right in to the issues that were explored in “Minority Report”. It was a movie from a few years ago that arrested people based on what they might do, with convictions and confinement based on action they hadn’t taken.
This action by BART authorities is similar to laws that are being considered on a national level, the so called “internet kill switch.” This law would allow the president or some other authority to kill the internet in part or whole to prevent illegal or dangerous action by individuals or groups. In that law, I supported the law as long as there was a review of the intelligence that suggested great harm was going to happen if the internet was not shut down. Even then, the action should only take place temporarily.
If intelligence provides evidence that an illegal activity was going to happen, present the evidence to a court. If approved by the court, then stand ready to take action when the activity happens, as opposed to cutting everyone’s rights short.
-----
Communities are given the responsibility to protect its citizens. Collective self defense was one of the first reasons people gathered in communities. But, the defense of the community must be kept in balance with the rights of individuals.
According to news reports, it is illegal for people to assemble in subway stations in San Francisco to protest. The law to prevent these assemblies is a reasonable act. The dangers that would exist if many angry people were protesting on subway platforms would go beyond a mere inconvenience of commuters. It is reasonable to think that people would be injured or killed. Also, the law most likely doesn’t choose sides, it just simple states no protests of any kind. There are plenty of other places in the city for people to assemble to express their grievances without endangering the lives of people.
When BART authorities “learned” that something was planned, it sounds like they did develop a plan to protect commuters and prevent a violation of the law. But, sense the plan they developed involved the violation of everyone’s rights, not just those involved in the protests, they should have sought judicial review. This review would have allowed a public examination of the evidence and a evaluation of the dangers that would be presented if the protest were not preempted. (Courts would have responded quickly to a request from BART due to the nature of the issues.)
I used the word preempted about the plan to negate the protests. The plan that was developed by the BART authorities was based on what might happen, as opposed to what is happening. It is dangerous to image a community that would preempt political activity without judicial review. If political activity was allowed to be preempted communities would walk right in to the issues that were explored in “Minority Report”. It was a movie from a few years ago that arrested people based on what they might do, with convictions and confinement based on action they hadn’t taken.
This action by BART authorities is similar to laws that are being considered on a national level, the so called “internet kill switch.” This law would allow the president or some other authority to kill the internet in part or whole to prevent illegal or dangerous action by individuals or groups. In that law, I supported the law as long as there was a review of the intelligence that suggested great harm was going to happen if the internet was not shut down. Even then, the action should only take place temporarily.
If intelligence provides evidence that an illegal activity was going to happen, present the evidence to a court. If approved by the court, then stand ready to take action when the activity happens, as opposed to cutting everyone’s rights short.
-----
Monday, August 8, 2011
Rick Perry and his call to prayer
Rick Perry may be the most politically dangerous man in America right now.
The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.
Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.
One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.
Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.
Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.
Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.
Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.
This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.
-----
The Texas Governor’s call to prayer at Reliant stadium over this past weekend in Houston isn’t the reason. On his free time he can practice his religion with abandon. His deep faith in his religion isn’t the reason either. There have many religious people that have been public officials, including Presidents, in the past and present.
Rick Perry is a politically dangerous man because of many other reasons.
One is my concern that Perry’s beliefs will direct his decision making process. He would like government to a religious and spiritual guide. He, like strong and vocal groups of Americans, believe that this is a Christian nation. This, despite the fact that John Adams, one of three people that are credited with being the primary authors of the Constitution, and many others that helped create the Constitution, have said it is not. They have said this in writing many times. This government’s primary purpose, and what should be the primary purpose of any government, is to protect the rights of people regardless of their belief. The only time government should take action is when harm will or can happen to an individual. Perry, it seems from all of his campaigning up to this point, thinks that laws should be in place that protects morality. A morality in this case that is based on Perry’s own religious beliefs.
Another is my concern that Perry will attempt to excluded people that do not share his religious beliefs from the public forum. It’s hard to image that the governor will allow freedom of religion in American that isn’t Christian. This will mean more intense pressure will be applied to groups like the Muslims that are already having a difficult time building their own religious houses.
Another is that Rick Perry, if he becomes President, will be a divider. Those that don’t believe that Christian morality should be the guide for government’s action will be side lined. This will cause incredible strife between other religious groups and those that have no faith in a spiritual being. They will be forced to live under the religious mandates of a religion they don’t believe in. This is the very thing our nation finds so abhorrent in religious countries around the world. We call them terrorists when they take over a country and enforce a strict adherence to a religious doctrine.
Rick Perry is dangerous because those that support his campaign with money and infrastructure will demand and expect that their beliefs will become policy. Just one of the groups, The American Family Association, with over 200 radio stations under their control, provided a million dollars to the Houston rally. Another group, the Cornerstone Church lead by John Hagee, sent 700 members to help in the organizing for the Houston Rally. (Another blog will be posted on the Cornerstone Church’s leader John Hagee in the near future as soon as the research is completed.) With that kind of investment and the infrastructure of 200 radio stations and staff, they will expect a return. If you think that they won’t have a say in policy decisions, think again please.
Finally, because Rick Perry believes that the Christian God will deliver us from all the social ills that may befall us. Problems that we face as a nation will not be solved by deep faith but by critical action. To fall to our knees and pray may help us understand our inner selves better but will not provide the solutions. Hard work and cooperation between all individuals will solve our problems.
This blog post may sound anti-religious. It is not. Spiritually is a strong influence in the personal lives of every human. To allow our own spiritually to guide us as individuals is important for personal peace. But, to allow a single spiritually to be forced on all American citizens through government action will only cause dissension and conflict.
-----
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
FAA employees are laid off while Congress is on vacation - tell me this is right!
Congress is on vacation. Senators and representatives went home to be with their families, enjoy the summer and raise some money for their campaigns. They continue to collect their pay checks, their travel expenses are paid, their health insurance is covered and their office expense fund continues to pay for who knows what more.
The members of congress went on vacation while 4,000 FAA workers and thousands more that work on construction projections around the country are laid off or are forced on furlough. The FAA also could lose more than a billion dollars in taxes – just so you can have a good idea of the amount of a billion dollars, here is the number: $1,000,000,000. The amount of loss in tax revenue doesn’t include the unemployment payments that the FAA and construction workers will be collecting.
I hope the 535 members of congress are enjoying their time off. I doubt that the 4,000 FAA workers are enjoying their vacation because they don’t have a pay check. No health insurance if anything happens to them or their kids. There might be a few mortgage payments missed. This time of year, kids that are going to college need to purchase books. Sorry kids, congress went on vacation and didn’t pay their bills.
The fight that went on with the debt limit is similar to the fight that is happening with the FAA financing. Some members of congress would like to stop federal payments to rural airports. The payments help keep the cost of commuter flights to major hubs down to something that is affordable. Those members think that it would save about a billion dollars – remember that number from above? That is the amount that the United States has lost in tax revenue because 535 people thought it was more important to go on vacation then to keep 4,000 people employed. It is fair to debate the continuation of subsidizing rural airports for the commuter flights. So, can’t that portion of the funding bill for the FAA be separated from the overall bill?
There is a group in congress that will not compromise on anything to get their way. Kids play like that when they are raised as spoiled little brats. The members of this group are mostly backed by the Tea Party. Instead of a compromise to keep people working and keep collecting taxes, the no-compromise group would not even consider short term legislation to keep people on the job for another month while they sorted it all out.
I hope that the members of congress who allowed this to happen are enjoying their iced tea on the porch during the hot summer. If it is too warm for them outside, they can step inside of their homes and country clubs with the air conditioning on high. That should relieve them of any memory of 4,000 people that are out of work.
If you want to make change, work for it. But, to force change while honest, hard working people are suffering is wrong.
-----
The members of congress went on vacation while 4,000 FAA workers and thousands more that work on construction projections around the country are laid off or are forced on furlough. The FAA also could lose more than a billion dollars in taxes – just so you can have a good idea of the amount of a billion dollars, here is the number: $1,000,000,000. The amount of loss in tax revenue doesn’t include the unemployment payments that the FAA and construction workers will be collecting.
I hope the 535 members of congress are enjoying their time off. I doubt that the 4,000 FAA workers are enjoying their vacation because they don’t have a pay check. No health insurance if anything happens to them or their kids. There might be a few mortgage payments missed. This time of year, kids that are going to college need to purchase books. Sorry kids, congress went on vacation and didn’t pay their bills.
The fight that went on with the debt limit is similar to the fight that is happening with the FAA financing. Some members of congress would like to stop federal payments to rural airports. The payments help keep the cost of commuter flights to major hubs down to something that is affordable. Those members think that it would save about a billion dollars – remember that number from above? That is the amount that the United States has lost in tax revenue because 535 people thought it was more important to go on vacation then to keep 4,000 people employed. It is fair to debate the continuation of subsidizing rural airports for the commuter flights. So, can’t that portion of the funding bill for the FAA be separated from the overall bill?
There is a group in congress that will not compromise on anything to get their way. Kids play like that when they are raised as spoiled little brats. The members of this group are mostly backed by the Tea Party. Instead of a compromise to keep people working and keep collecting taxes, the no-compromise group would not even consider short term legislation to keep people on the job for another month while they sorted it all out.
I hope that the members of congress who allowed this to happen are enjoying their iced tea on the porch during the hot summer. If it is too warm for them outside, they can step inside of their homes and country clubs with the air conditioning on high. That should relieve them of any memory of 4,000 people that are out of work.
If you want to make change, work for it. But, to force change while honest, hard working people are suffering is wrong.
-----
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Israeli Chamber Orchestra played Wagner Tuesday evening
Richard Wagner’s music was played in Germany on Tuesday evening Israeli Chamber Orchestra. Wagner was an 18th century composer that had a dramatic influence on opera and music overall. But, during his lifetime he wrote anti-Semitic essays that said Jews had no place in German society. Hitler hijacked Wagner’s music to advance Hitler’s vile cause.
Many refuse to support any public playing of Wagner’s music, especially after World War II. They would like to banish his music to the trash bin of history in hope that Wagner’s music, along with his views, would be forgotten. But, his influence on music is so dramatic that Wagner’s concepts are used by many composers since he published and preformed.
Wagner’s music can’t be disassociated from one of history’s most inhumane periods. His music was played in nearly every corner of Germany society all while millions of people were killed in the most horrific way. Most of those that died were Jews, but so did millions of other people. The desire to banish his music because of the ugly memories is understandable. Who would want to be reminded of that period in our history?
If we refuse to play Wagner because of his vile cultural views and its association with the Nazis, we then elevate Wagner and his music to cult status in the underground world of racial hated. The only people that will play his music will be those that use it to gain support for their cause. The truth is, if we look deep into the views of every artist, we are sure to find something that we disagree with. Should we stop playing them also?
Openly presenting Wagner’s beautiful music can be a source of enjoyment for many people. But, it should be done with a clear understanding of the composer’s personal views. With open discussion about Wagner’s music, his life and his philosophy, we can use art to instruct not to destroy. It will balance those that would like to glorify Wagner’s and Hitler’s depraved views.
Many people have worked hard to help all of us remember the terror that existed during World War II. Their purpose is to hang in the open the events leading up to Hitler’s reign and its result on the world. By understanding the past in this way we can be on guard to prevent the past from becoming the future.
Playing Wagner’s music coupled with open discussion of his view points is just one way of keeping the evils of history fresh in the public memory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)