This is not about the morality of prostitution but the reality of it. We can never legislate morality. It was tried with prohibition and that failed. Sometimes it is better to tame the problem when eliminating it has failed.
In 48 of the 50 states prostitution is illegal. In one of the states where it is legal, Nevada, it is illegal in 4 out of 16 counties and in at least one city. Male prostitution is illegal in Nevada by a quirk in the law requiring monthly cervical exams. Where it is legal in Nevada, prostitution is only legal in a licensed brothel. Whereas, in Rhode Island, the act of sex for money is not illegal, but operating a brothel, pimping and street prostitution are illegal. So those are the only places we find prostitution in the US?
Of course not it is in every town in some form. Whether it is street walkers, call girls, escorts, massage parlors, or the girls that the bartender or cab driver has the number for. It might just be a woman who gets not so little gifts from her male friends. It has been this way for centuries. The only things these laws have done force the girls to be criminals. As criminals they fear going to the police because even if they are a victim of a crime, they are not likely to be treated fairly. This leaves them open to exploitation and victimization by the people around them. Pimps can rape, beat, and rob the girls at will. To get girls in to the trade some pimps get them hooked on drugs then make them work to pay for them. If a guy gets away without paying, that is rape but what cop and what court will support a prostitute in a case like that. At the lower end of the pay scale, street walkers and massage parlor girls, end up where the law is loosely enforced or willing to look the other way most of the time. This puts them in the area with high crime rates to begin with. So what is a little more violence anyway.
I'm going to avoid discussing male prostitution both heterosexual and homosexual. I'm sure many of the same problems exist especially in homosexual prostitution. I'm also sure there are some unique problems. I just don't know enough to talk about either.
Now let's talk about the clients. The call girls or the escorts as they are called now, tend to have a better clientele but once in a room alone with a man they are as vulnerable as any street walker. The clients can be anyone from a lonely business man or a wandering husband, to a woman hating sociopath. Without being able to readily call the police a working girl who escapes serious injury is not likely to contact the police. Leaving the malefactor to brutalize another. The man looking for a bargain is going to the more dangerous areas, places he is likely unfamiliar with, distracted, and carrying a largish sum of cash. He has victim written all over him.
You have runaways that sadly find the only protection and sense of belonging in a pimp's stable. These girls are psychologically trapped as badly as if they had physical chains. Then there are the kidnapped and exploited, sometimes under age, always working against their will. Just two forms of modern slavery.
There are the massage parlors. While some act as a safe and protective place to work many these days are run by organized crime. They import women from foreign countries, usually illegally, under false pretenses then force them to work as prostitutes. Sometimes not letting them leave the premises at all. While most of these sex sweat shops are Oriental there are Hispanic and Eastern European ones as well. There are also the traveling version of these where they take women from town to town, set up in a hotel for a week or two and move on. Yet another couple of forms of modern slavery.
How about a place with legal prostitution readily available nearby, is this any better? Well not in Las Vegas. Nye county is one of the 4 counties where prostitution is illegal but the last time I walked down the strip I was handed an 8 page flier of entertainers that would come to your room. So even if there are legal venues nearby you still have girls trading on convenience over legality.
So this is an uptight US thing? No. England, where street solicitation, procuring a pimp, and operating a brothel are illegal, has their problems with drugged out street walkers and explicit advertising cards being placed in phone booths. The Netherlands has red light districts and health checks on the licensed prostitutes. There the problem is with unlicensed prostitutes hanging at the edge of the district and undercutting the licensed prostitutes. The unlicensed prostitutes are either trying to stay anonymous or avoid the costs of being licensed and overhead of space in the districts. Sweden has switch to laws that only target the clients of prostitutes. They use surveillance to find the clients but this has the effect of moving the trade to more secluded locations where the possibility of violence is greater.
Why would any woman willingly become a prostitute? There are some beautiful women that have found that they can make large sums of money is a short time with work that is not too taxing. Some may do it because of the flexible work schedule with good pay. For some it just may be a stop gap between normal employment or a short term source of emergency money. For some it is the power they can wield over men. For some it may really be about the sex. For the majority I believe it is either the job of last resort or the only job that they can find that provides a living. Lastly, there are those who are either hooked on drugs or alcohol or have been so beaten down by society that this is the only thing they can do.
For police the tactic of choice to catch prostitutes and their clients these days is the sting. Either the police act as clients looking for prostitutes or as prostitutes looking for clients to catch them in the act of solicitation. For streetwalkers this is effective at driving the trade from one area to another. For the computer savvy, this is done one by one with police answering escort ads or place their own ads on the many sites that cater to escort ads. The higher market prostitutes work through services that screen the clients ahead of time. Thereby, avoiding all but the best and most extensive police efforts. Even in these, sometimes high profile, cases it is usually the people running the service that are prosecuted. These folks stand trial on charges other than prostitution such as money laundering, tax evasion, or running a criminal enterprise.
It is only the middle to lower end of the market prostitutes that tend to be the ones arrested. These are either the true professionals or the desperate. The ones who are likely to be working for years. These are also the ones making smaller amounts of money and can least afford the lawyers to fight the charges and pay the fines. What good does it do to fine someone who is already struggling to survive? What does locking them up do besides fill our overcrowded jail system? How much does it cost the police in man power to catch and prosecute these prostitutes? How does it protect the girls physically and from exploitation? What does it really do to keep us safe? How does it help to prevent the spread of disease? Does it really reduce the amount of prostitution or just move it around?
What I would suggest is the decriminalization of prostitution universally. Regulate brothels both with zoning and for working conditions. Regulate the services, the pimps, to significantly reduce the exploitation and eliminate the abuse of the prostitutes. In the same way we have turned ticket scalping into a legitimate business by calling them ticket brokers. By legalizing the business it is much more likely for the government to be able to collect taxes on the income of these operations.
License and health check prostitutes monthly. Allow those who wish to work independently as long as the operate discreetly. Keep the license fees be low enough and medical exams costs low enough that they are not a barrier to getting and keeping a license. Have the license fees go into an education and aid fund as well as helping to pay for an inspection force. To get a license there should be a health, safety, and personal finance course with annual refreshers. Drug addiction should not be a reason for withholding a license but the opportunity for rehabilitation should be available and strongly encouraged. For prostitutes found working without a license or doing street solicitation should on a first offense be sent to the mandated classes plus community service at an AIDS hospice or treatment facility. Only for chronic offenders should fines and possible jail time be used as a deterrent. Advertising would be strictly regulated. Some of the fund should also be used to help women who want out of the sex trade trade prepare for other jobs.
It is interesting that something much more radical has been done in New Zealand. They eliminated all the anti-prostitution laws. This was done with the support of the Church, Young Women’s Christian Association, trade unions, the business sector and major organizations. This has resulted in less violence and more reporting of violence to the police when it does occur.
Will this eliminate illegal prostitution? No. It will however lower the numbers of prostitutes soliciting on the street significantly. It will eliminate the fear of reporting when they are victimized. Hopefully catching some of the sociopaths before they kill. It will free up a lot of police resources for more serious crimes and to tackle the sex slave trade. What this will do is make the lives of most of the prostitutes better, keep them healthier, and safer. It will lower the spread of sexually transmitted diseases by educating the prostitutes on hygiene and disease transmission. My final hope, and it's a long shot, is with some money management training they might just have a better life.
My main source of data was the 2005 London Assembly's Safer London Committee report Street Prostitution in London
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Friday, September 11, 2009
The Health Care Debate or Debacal
The current debate on health care is sad because this country doesn't have the will to develop a true national health care system. The insurance companies add no value to the system, they install bureaucrats whose goal is to deny coverage to make more money then pay executives too much to keep the profits growing. In a government run system at least the bureaucrats involved will answer to elected officials and we would have some leverage on them. In the current system we have no leverage on the insurance companies. The pharmaceutical companies dictate prices and are beholding to none. Nationalizing health care would bring them to heel.
Oh that's right the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, their political action committees own many in congress and Fox Noise so nothing real will happen.
The Republican Party have everyone up in arms over non-existent issues like death panels, undocumented workers, and scared of non-existent problems in national systems like Canada and the UK. Our system is far worse than either if you do have health insurance and God help you if you don't.Our current health care system puts us 33rd in infant mortality and 35th in life expectancy. Dead last of industrialized countries. All the countries that are being used to scare the ignorant are ahead of us on both counts. Yet we are told by those same pundits that we have the worlds best health care system. I'm not sure how they are judging it. Certainly not by outcomes. I would much rather be treated by a doctor who gets a bonus for getting me healthy rather than making more money by seeing me more often or doing more things to me.
The insurance companies really do not help the system function. They just leach money out of it. Back before for profit companies had such a large stake in the system hospitals and HMO's were run by nonprofits. Costs were in relation to the cost of delivering the service. There was no shareholders that needed to see a return on investment. The heads of these nonprofits were not high paid executives, for the most part.
To use a car analogy; the wheels have fallen off, the frame is rusted through, and the only way to get a usable means of transportation is to get a new car.
It is time the US use the system that works for the rest of the industrialized world. It will help all the other industries here compete against other companies who do not have to worry about the health care burden of their employees and retirees. For all the fear of "socialism." A national health care system will be a boon to every other capitalistic part of our economy. The savings to companies small and large would be immense. For large companies it would mean that they would no longer have to tie up people in there human resource department helping with claims, enrollment forms, evaluating new contracts each year, and shopping around for new plans to cut costs. For small to medium sized companies they would not have to decide whether or not to provide health care insurance, decide whether or not to subsidize a plan. For employees and single employee businesses it will be one less thing to worry over.
Then there is the cost debate. This will cost trillions of dollars. What are we paying now to the insurance companies? What is the cost of all the unpaid bills when people have to go bankrupt on medical debts? What does it cost hospitals and doctors to have to fill out the correct forms for each insurance company then followup to make sure they get paid? I for one would rather have the government get the money my employer and I am paying to insurance companies for my health, dental, and optical coverage. Possible even a little more to know that no matter what I'm covered. Change jobs no coverage interruptions, unemployed still covered, nothing scary there. I'm sure there are at least a couple of trillion here.
Will there be lines for services? Of course, it's not like there aren't now. People have died in emergency waiting rooms after being there for hours. What there won't be is people having to use the emergency room as a place to get primary health care. I'm betting that after twenty years of a national health care system there will be a lot less need of emergency surgeries of chronic conditions that have gone acute because of regular prophylactic and therapeutic care.
Will undocumented immigrants be getting health care? Yes, it's not like they aren't getting health care now. They are just using the emergency rooms or having to commit fraud. This is not where that issue should be dealt with. You want to get rid of the undocumented put teeth in the laws about housing and employing the undocumented. Don't try to kill them off by denying them health care. That is just mean.
It is time that the US government take over the funding of health care either by nationalizing it or becoming the single payer for health care. There are current examples of both in the country. The Veterans Administration is an example of a nationalized system. Medicare is an example of the US government as the single payer. The VA has had its funding cut so there have been issues lately. The challenge for Medicare has been to root out fraud and over charging. I have heard no one, but the most radical, calling us to close down the VA or ending Medicare because they make us a socialist state. They both work for their constituency and could be used as a model for a system to cover everyone.
Oh that's right the insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, their political action committees own many in congress and Fox Noise so nothing real will happen.
The Republican Party have everyone up in arms over non-existent issues like death panels, undocumented workers, and scared of non-existent problems in national systems like Canada and the UK. Our system is far worse than either if you do have health insurance and God help you if you don't.Our current health care system puts us 33rd in infant mortality and 35th in life expectancy. Dead last of industrialized countries. All the countries that are being used to scare the ignorant are ahead of us on both counts. Yet we are told by those same pundits that we have the worlds best health care system. I'm not sure how they are judging it. Certainly not by outcomes. I would much rather be treated by a doctor who gets a bonus for getting me healthy rather than making more money by seeing me more often or doing more things to me.
The insurance companies really do not help the system function. They just leach money out of it. Back before for profit companies had such a large stake in the system hospitals and HMO's were run by nonprofits. Costs were in relation to the cost of delivering the service. There was no shareholders that needed to see a return on investment. The heads of these nonprofits were not high paid executives, for the most part.
To use a car analogy; the wheels have fallen off, the frame is rusted through, and the only way to get a usable means of transportation is to get a new car.
It is time the US use the system that works for the rest of the industrialized world. It will help all the other industries here compete against other companies who do not have to worry about the health care burden of their employees and retirees. For all the fear of "socialism." A national health care system will be a boon to every other capitalistic part of our economy. The savings to companies small and large would be immense. For large companies it would mean that they would no longer have to tie up people in there human resource department helping with claims, enrollment forms, evaluating new contracts each year, and shopping around for new plans to cut costs. For small to medium sized companies they would not have to decide whether or not to provide health care insurance, decide whether or not to subsidize a plan. For employees and single employee businesses it will be one less thing to worry over.
Then there is the cost debate. This will cost trillions of dollars. What are we paying now to the insurance companies? What is the cost of all the unpaid bills when people have to go bankrupt on medical debts? What does it cost hospitals and doctors to have to fill out the correct forms for each insurance company then followup to make sure they get paid? I for one would rather have the government get the money my employer and I am paying to insurance companies for my health, dental, and optical coverage. Possible even a little more to know that no matter what I'm covered. Change jobs no coverage interruptions, unemployed still covered, nothing scary there. I'm sure there are at least a couple of trillion here.
Will there be lines for services? Of course, it's not like there aren't now. People have died in emergency waiting rooms after being there for hours. What there won't be is people having to use the emergency room as a place to get primary health care. I'm betting that after twenty years of a national health care system there will be a lot less need of emergency surgeries of chronic conditions that have gone acute because of regular prophylactic and therapeutic care.
Will undocumented immigrants be getting health care? Yes, it's not like they aren't getting health care now. They are just using the emergency rooms or having to commit fraud. This is not where that issue should be dealt with. You want to get rid of the undocumented put teeth in the laws about housing and employing the undocumented. Don't try to kill them off by denying them health care. That is just mean.
It is time that the US government take over the funding of health care either by nationalizing it or becoming the single payer for health care. There are current examples of both in the country. The Veterans Administration is an example of a nationalized system. Medicare is an example of the US government as the single payer. The VA has had its funding cut so there have been issues lately. The challenge for Medicare has been to root out fraud and over charging. I have heard no one, but the most radical, calling us to close down the VA or ending Medicare because they make us a socialist state. They both work for their constituency and could be used as a model for a system to cover everyone.
No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Is the Pledge of Allegiance the Right Oath?
The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
I would argue that the Pledge of Allegiance is the wrong oath to have Americans swear often. I know the most recent arguments have been over the words "under God." My complaint is not those words. It has been common practice to swear oath to deity since ancient times. If you do not believe in God this is one of the times you have to bend to the will of the majority that does hold the belief in deity. Our constitution supports the ideas of freedom of religion and the freedom from religion. That does not give the minority the right to force its beliefs on the majority just as it does not give the majority the right to oppress the non-deity or multi-deist minorities. It is just not worth arguing about two words you can just skip when you say it. My problem is with the priorities inherent in the oath. I much prefer the early part of the military oath or the federal oath of office.
The Military Oath
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
The US Federal Oath of Office
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of (OFFICE) of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Optionally "So help me god"
It is obvious that these are both based on the constitutionally mandated presidential oath of office. They both place the constitution as the point of the oath where the current pledge of allegiance place the flag as the point. While any flag that drapes a coffin of our troops, police, and others, is certainly a haloed one. There are many others that by where and when they were carried or flown are also due respect and honor. But a vast majority of flags are just empty symbols to be flown in respect and pride for our country. They can be made by near slaves in foreign countries with no respect for any of the freedoms that the constitution that we enjoy. If one of this majority of flags is burned or otherwise demeaned it is actually protected speech under the constitution.
It is the constitution, the bill of rights, and other amendments that is what makes this republic and the flag used to symbolize it important. It is the ideas and ideals embodied in that document that makes this country great. I believe the current pledge misplaces the place holder for the soul of the country. Even a generic print out of the constitution is subject to use as a target of free speech but it is the ideas and ideals expressed in that document that should not be usurped or tread on. They are haloed by the blood of too many patriots to let the cynical or the power hungry trample on.
In a civilian oath there is no reason to swear to obey orders so that must be dropped along with the reference to the UCMJ. Making the words, "So help me God" optional would likely satisfy the non-believers and multi-deists. Using the word affirm will allow those whose religious view does not allow them to swear oaths easily to be able to say this. We must retain "one nation, indivisible" to hopefully remind people of secession is not an option. We fought a bloody civil war to decide that issue. While the word "liberty and justice for all" are redundant in view of the constitution it is a thought that cannot be repeated too often.
So with this oath I would encompass the spirit of the existing pledge, the thoughts of our founding fathers, and the unity of the nation as history has reforged it through war. I know that this change will not happen. Too many people seem to think that every flag is haloed, that this is a mono-theistic state or even a christian one, and that the pledge as it stands is sacrosanct. Just as we seem stuck on the use of a warrior poem, "The Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem. Ignoring a much prettier in thought and more melodic piece "America the Beautiful." We will be stuck with the twisted up side down logic embodied in the "Pledge of Allegiance" for some time to come.
It is obvious that these are both based on the constitutionally mandated presidential oath of office. They both place the constitution as the point of the oath where the current pledge of allegiance place the flag as the point. While any flag that drapes a coffin of our troops, police, and others, is certainly a haloed one. There are many others that by where and when they were carried or flown are also due respect and honor. But a vast majority of flags are just empty symbols to be flown in respect and pride for our country. They can be made by near slaves in foreign countries with no respect for any of the freedoms that the constitution that we enjoy. If one of this majority of flags is burned or otherwise demeaned it is actually protected speech under the constitution.
It is the constitution, the bill of rights, and other amendments that is what makes this republic and the flag used to symbolize it important. It is the ideas and ideals embodied in that document that makes this country great. I believe the current pledge misplaces the place holder for the soul of the country. Even a generic print out of the constitution is subject to use as a target of free speech but it is the ideas and ideals expressed in that document that should not be usurped or tread on. They are haloed by the blood of too many patriots to let the cynical or the power hungry trample on.
In a civilian oath there is no reason to swear to obey orders so that must be dropped along with the reference to the UCMJ. Making the words, "So help me God" optional would likely satisfy the non-believers and multi-deists. Using the word affirm will allow those whose religious view does not allow them to swear oaths easily to be able to say this. We must retain "one nation, indivisible" to hopefully remind people of secession is not an option. We fought a bloody civil war to decide that issue. While the word "liberty and justice for all" are redundant in view of the constitution it is a thought that cannot be repeated too often.
My Suggestion for a New Pledge of Allegiance
"I do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and to the Republic formed by it, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all." Optionally "So help me God."So with this oath I would encompass the spirit of the existing pledge, the thoughts of our founding fathers, and the unity of the nation as history has reforged it through war. I know that this change will not happen. Too many people seem to think that every flag is haloed, that this is a mono-theistic state or even a christian one, and that the pledge as it stands is sacrosanct. Just as we seem stuck on the use of a warrior poem, "The Star Spangled Banner" as our national anthem. Ignoring a much prettier in thought and more melodic piece "America the Beautiful." We will be stuck with the twisted up side down logic embodied in the "Pledge of Allegiance" for some time to come.
Saturday, September 5, 2009
Get this Straight Obama is a Politician
As we get further into his administration I'm finding that each of his actions are being scrutinized by every side with colored vision. Some people think his is trying to take complete control of the government. No folks, that was Bush and Cheney. Some people see him as a spineless sellout. No that was Clinton, the Republican's Democrat. Even if they tried everything to tank his administration. President Obama is a non-confrontational politician trying to confront the most negative opposition in recent history.
The current debate over his address to students is ridiculous. If he stays to the stated agenda it is nothing more than a study hard, get good grades, and stay in school. No more propaganda than the first Bush's stay off drugs message in September 1989 and certainly less than Regan's 1988 address to middleschoolers on taxes.
Many people can not see clearly though their own tinted glasses. If you expect evil machinations that is what you see. If you trust this president you see nothing harmful. It is not the actions of this president but your own bias that you are seeing.
The stimulus and the budget controversy was the first case of myopic discussion. Economists who have study the great depression have taught for 70+ years that to prevent a deflation and the depression that when the private sector purchasing dries up the government must spend money. Not cut taxes. Not give banks money to shore up against bad loans. Actually spend money. Our president bowed to pressure and tried to make a compromise. What we ended up with was bad economics and a poor recovery plan. He is a politician and they make compromises.
When the US auto companies came to the government for survival aid. We have one of the last major manufacturing industries left in the country and one of the largest sources of employment looking to collapse. Rather than looking at how many people would be impacted and placing these companies at the head of the line for aid we got a half-baked plan that neither fixes the auto makers nor saves enough American jobs. The management at the auto companies was no better or worse than the management of the failing banks. The both are paid way too much and have perks beyond belief. He is a politician and they make compromises.
The health care controversy is not a debate because people are not trying to debate anything. One side is trying to put into law their idea of what is best for the country while the other side seems to be offering nothing but the status quo. I really wish there was a debate out there. Someone needs to go through the bills and really pull out for public viewing the issues. Not the highly charged and unreal issues that have come up so far. The "Death Panels", the "rationing", and most of the other non-issues that have caught headlines. Let's try to take control of this compromise and get the best solution to the broken health care system we currently have.
It seems that all sides forget that democracy only survives when healthy debate and good compromises do. Everyone need to remove the colored glasses that are obscuring their view of the issues. Take a clear and rational view of health care, the President, and those in Congress. Then take actions that will bring sanity, reason, and thoughtfulness to all the debates. In our own way we all need to be politicians and make informed, rational compromises.
The current debate over his address to students is ridiculous. If he stays to the stated agenda it is nothing more than a study hard, get good grades, and stay in school. No more propaganda than the first Bush's stay off drugs message in September 1989 and certainly less than Regan's 1988 address to middleschoolers on taxes.
Many people can not see clearly though their own tinted glasses. If you expect evil machinations that is what you see. If you trust this president you see nothing harmful. It is not the actions of this president but your own bias that you are seeing.
The stimulus and the budget controversy was the first case of myopic discussion. Economists who have study the great depression have taught for 70+ years that to prevent a deflation and the depression that when the private sector purchasing dries up the government must spend money. Not cut taxes. Not give banks money to shore up against bad loans. Actually spend money. Our president bowed to pressure and tried to make a compromise. What we ended up with was bad economics and a poor recovery plan. He is a politician and they make compromises.
When the US auto companies came to the government for survival aid. We have one of the last major manufacturing industries left in the country and one of the largest sources of employment looking to collapse. Rather than looking at how many people would be impacted and placing these companies at the head of the line for aid we got a half-baked plan that neither fixes the auto makers nor saves enough American jobs. The management at the auto companies was no better or worse than the management of the failing banks. The both are paid way too much and have perks beyond belief. He is a politician and they make compromises.
The health care controversy is not a debate because people are not trying to debate anything. One side is trying to put into law their idea of what is best for the country while the other side seems to be offering nothing but the status quo. I really wish there was a debate out there. Someone needs to go through the bills and really pull out for public viewing the issues. Not the highly charged and unreal issues that have come up so far. The "Death Panels", the "rationing", and most of the other non-issues that have caught headlines. Let's try to take control of this compromise and get the best solution to the broken health care system we currently have.
It seems that all sides forget that democracy only survives when healthy debate and good compromises do. Everyone need to remove the colored glasses that are obscuring their view of the issues. Take a clear and rational view of health care, the President, and those in Congress. Then take actions that will bring sanity, reason, and thoughtfulness to all the debates. In our own way we all need to be politicians and make informed, rational compromises.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Campaign Finance Reform is Needed NOW
The current system for federal election financing is leading to the political situation we are currently seeing in the congress. The politicians are more concerned about financing the next election than serving the voting public. Over their term in office the elected officials have to raise incredible sums if they wish to fend of challenges.
The estimated cost of a senate run is $10,000,000. Which means a senator has to raise $190 every hour of every day they are in office. This is why an estimate half of the senators are millionaires. Saves time if you already have a few million seed money. A run for congress is much more variable but is said to be between $400,000 and $800,000. Which means that the congressmen have to only raise $23 to $46 every hour of every day they are in office.
Since they need to sleep, eat, and legislate that means that they need to raise more money in much less time. So when a company or special interest group want to donate large sums or buy many ticket to that fund raising dinner the politicians take notice. Now what happens if a bill comes up that the campaign contributor doesn't like? They talk about not contributing as much next time or maybe even backing an opponent. Our legislators have egos, bigger than most since they sought high public office. They don't want to lose especially just because of lack of funds. I hope that they won't vote directly counter to the best interests of the country or their constituency but they are going to look for a way to keep their backers happy without angering too many people back home. This is not the scenario for developing the best legislation for the country.
We have seen the influence of money on the health care debate, the auto industry bailout, the financial industry bailout, military appropriations, and a host of other things before congress. This is not something new to our generation it is just the magnitude of the influence that has seem to grow in my life time. President Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex and for 50 years it fed off the cold war. The military contractors set the model that it seems every corporation, trade association, and special interest group is using to sway the congress. We need to take back our representative government. It is currently of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
My suggestion is that raising funds for campaign should be limited to just the 3 months prior to the election and limit the amount of personal funds that the candidate can spend. This would serve three purposes limiting the length that the politicians are campaigning, reduce the amount of money needed to campaign, and open the process to more candidates of lesser means. We should be selecting our representatives for their knowledge and judgment not their bank accounts. Reducing the length of campaigns would free the elected to spend more time dealing with the issues. Reducing the money needed to campaign will limit the influence of corporations and well funded special interest groups. For our democracy to continue to flourish we need to take back our representation and make this country once again "... of the people, by the people, for the people..."
The estimated cost of a senate run is $10,000,000. Which means a senator has to raise $190 every hour of every day they are in office. This is why an estimate half of the senators are millionaires. Saves time if you already have a few million seed money. A run for congress is much more variable but is said to be between $400,000 and $800,000. Which means that the congressmen have to only raise $23 to $46 every hour of every day they are in office.
Since they need to sleep, eat, and legislate that means that they need to raise more money in much less time. So when a company or special interest group want to donate large sums or buy many ticket to that fund raising dinner the politicians take notice. Now what happens if a bill comes up that the campaign contributor doesn't like? They talk about not contributing as much next time or maybe even backing an opponent. Our legislators have egos, bigger than most since they sought high public office. They don't want to lose especially just because of lack of funds. I hope that they won't vote directly counter to the best interests of the country or their constituency but they are going to look for a way to keep their backers happy without angering too many people back home. This is not the scenario for developing the best legislation for the country.
We have seen the influence of money on the health care debate, the auto industry bailout, the financial industry bailout, military appropriations, and a host of other things before congress. This is not something new to our generation it is just the magnitude of the influence that has seem to grow in my life time. President Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex and for 50 years it fed off the cold war. The military contractors set the model that it seems every corporation, trade association, and special interest group is using to sway the congress. We need to take back our representative government. It is currently of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
My suggestion is that raising funds for campaign should be limited to just the 3 months prior to the election and limit the amount of personal funds that the candidate can spend. This would serve three purposes limiting the length that the politicians are campaigning, reduce the amount of money needed to campaign, and open the process to more candidates of lesser means. We should be selecting our representatives for their knowledge and judgment not their bank accounts. Reducing the length of campaigns would free the elected to spend more time dealing with the issues. Reducing the money needed to campaign will limit the influence of corporations and well funded special interest groups. For our democracy to continue to flourish we need to take back our representation and make this country once again "... of the people, by the people, for the people..."
Open Letter to President Obama about Attorney General Holder
Please do what you can to bring the criminals of the previous administration to justice. You and the Attorney General seem unwilling to do so at this time.
May I take this opportunity to remind you both of your oath of office. You both swore to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic." The prior administration executed the greatest attack on the constitution in history. If even half of what is coming out in the news is true so many laws were violated that there should be no problems convicting many people. While economic recovery and health care are important, the rule of law and upholding the constitution are more important to the long term continuation of this grand experiment.
The Attorney General has chosen not to investigate the writers of illegal and unconstitutional policies. The enablers of those policies. Those who executed those policies even though they should have known better. While this is the political expeditious route it is not in the best interest of the country long term. These criminals will be available to the next administration who wishes to go beyond the law and the constitution with the expertise and practice on doing so.
If history has taught us anything it is that we cannot leave these crimes unpunished no matter the short term cost. This is not something to play politics with. If there was collusion by some Democrats they should pay the price too. A great man must step beyond the short expedients of politics and grasp for the core values this country is supposed to uphold. Most of the criminal acts of the Nixon administration went unpunished. Only a few expendable supernumeraries were ever punished. This is where Richard Cheney and his compatriots learned how to manipulate information or sacrifice those loyal to them to avoid detection during the George W. Bush administration. If they escape prosecution in 20-30 years a new administration will be worse. I'm not sure how many more times our democracy can survive these kinds of attacks on the constitution and the rule of law.
I know you are an avid scholar of Lincoln let me end with a quote from him. "... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." You could give this country that new birth without the physical blood of Gettysburg.
May I take this opportunity to remind you both of your oath of office. You both swore to "protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic." The prior administration executed the greatest attack on the constitution in history. If even half of what is coming out in the news is true so many laws were violated that there should be no problems convicting many people. While economic recovery and health care are important, the rule of law and upholding the constitution are more important to the long term continuation of this grand experiment.
The Attorney General has chosen not to investigate the writers of illegal and unconstitutional policies. The enablers of those policies. Those who executed those policies even though they should have known better. While this is the political expeditious route it is not in the best interest of the country long term. These criminals will be available to the next administration who wishes to go beyond the law and the constitution with the expertise and practice on doing so.
If history has taught us anything it is that we cannot leave these crimes unpunished no matter the short term cost. This is not something to play politics with. If there was collusion by some Democrats they should pay the price too. A great man must step beyond the short expedients of politics and grasp for the core values this country is supposed to uphold. Most of the criminal acts of the Nixon administration went unpunished. Only a few expendable supernumeraries were ever punished. This is where Richard Cheney and his compatriots learned how to manipulate information or sacrifice those loyal to them to avoid detection during the George W. Bush administration. If they escape prosecution in 20-30 years a new administration will be worse. I'm not sure how many more times our democracy can survive these kinds of attacks on the constitution and the rule of law.
I know you are an avid scholar of Lincoln let me end with a quote from him. "... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." You could give this country that new birth without the physical blood of Gettysburg.
A More Reasoned Coffee Shop WiFi approach
With the coffee shops came free WiFi and the hoards of laptop toting folks followed. With the current downturn in the economy, the laptop folks are not leaving nor are they buying enough to support them being there. Some shops in NYC are taking to banning laptops during the busiest parts of the day. Other shops are rethinking their laptop policies. Most of the new policies are either draconian bans, dropping WiFi, or manually enforced.
I would suggest them taking a lesson from the hotel industry. In some hotels whether you have to pay for Internet access or not they make you sign up for it once a day. Until you do you are routed to an internal self-promotional web page. I would suggest that the same approach should be a boon to the coffee shops offering free WiFi.
Once each hour user’s WiFi would be redirected to a self-promotional web page that reminds WiFi users that the Internet connection is for paying customers and have they purchased anything lately. Then giving them the ability to sign back in. Of course the timeout could be adjusted long during low traffic periods or shorter when seats are at a premium. For institutions where simple reminders are ineffective, they could choose to enforce the policy by linking the registers to the monitor and make the WiFi user enter their receipt number to continue using the Internet.
I would think that these approaches would be less alienating to the shop’s clientele. These techniques would be much better than dropping WiFi service or having face to face confrontations of employees and laptop users who have overstayed their welcome.
I would suggest them taking a lesson from the hotel industry. In some hotels whether you have to pay for Internet access or not they make you sign up for it once a day. Until you do you are routed to an internal self-promotional web page. I would suggest that the same approach should be a boon to the coffee shops offering free WiFi.
Once each hour user’s WiFi would be redirected to a self-promotional web page that reminds WiFi users that the Internet connection is for paying customers and have they purchased anything lately. Then giving them the ability to sign back in. Of course the timeout could be adjusted long during low traffic periods or shorter when seats are at a premium. For institutions where simple reminders are ineffective, they could choose to enforce the policy by linking the registers to the monitor and make the WiFi user enter their receipt number to continue using the Internet.
I would think that these approaches would be less alienating to the shop’s clientele. These techniques would be much better than dropping WiFi service or having face to face confrontations of employees and laptop users who have overstayed their welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)