November 2009

Constitutional Charity

I received feedback on the column I wrote, “Death and Taxes,” in September. Overall the reader agreed with my position, but found herself bothered by my lack of compassion for needy people. In the column I argued we do everything we can to avoid death, but not to avoid taxes. I accept we need to pay taxes to the extent we need to support a civilized society, but I take issue with tax collection for other purposes that are non-essential.

She said we have a duty to “take care of those in need” and this position was prompted by her values. I certainly agree with the desire and need to take care of others, and personally I have given time and money to charitable causes. This issue has always seemed to be a bone of contention between people with one side appearing to lack any compassion and the other giving away everything with no concern for consequences. However, I know I am not without compassion and through my actions I know I help those in need. But, I believe this should be done through charity and is not a role of government.

Fortunately, I believe I found the clarity to express my thoughts better; several weeks ago I read a weekly column by writer Frank Miele of the “Daily Inter Lake” in Kalispell, Montana. In his column, he used the historical example of Davey Crockett, the three-term Congressman from Tennessee in the 1820s who found himself confronted by an angry constituent, Horatio Bunce, about Crockett’s recent vote for a bill to provide $20,000 of federal funds fire victims ravaged and left homeless in nearby Georgetown. Crockett was asked, “Where do you find in the Constitution any authority to give away the public money in charity?” Like most of us, Crockett gave a list of reasons about helping others and doing the right thing, giving charity.

“You gave a vote last winter which shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me,” Bunce said. Upon review, it is obvious, the founding fathers made no accommodation for a constitutional authority of the government to transfer the wealth of one citizen to another through the process of taxation. Modern examples of this would be hurricanes and wildfires. Of course, other more questionable examples abound such as “Cash for Clunkers”, first-time home buyer subsidies, funding shortfalls to the New York unemployment fund, the health insurance reform proposals, and any other federal program providing direct payments and transfers of wealth from one group of citizens to another.

This past summer Tea Parties made headlines, unfortunately they were sensationalized for many wrong reasons. The idea for the Tea Parties was spurned by Rick Santelli on CNBC when he editorialized in outrage over the proposals for government stimulus programs. This outrage was not due to lack of compassion for those in need or lack of concern for America and the economy. It was outrage over the reach of government into individual wealth, no matter how big or small, and the desire to take it and transfer it to others.

Like Davey Crockett I struggle with my personal since of compassion versus constitutional intent. We have a strong document that was meant to create a sound democracy for centuries. Every time it is “interpreted”, ignored, and eroded for social purposes we take away our own liberties and freedoms.

Copyright (c)2009 John R. Nelson. All Rights Reserved.

Dying in the Ukraine..

Yeah, I am way out there, but….. the first time I ever heard about the Ebola Virus was on that crazy late night AM radio show (“Coast to Coast with Art Bell”). Sounded like sci-fi, but was real. For nearly two weeks I have been reading and watching the early signs of outbreak in the Ukraine – it started at 100,000 and is over 2,000,000 cases now. Tonight was the first time I saw a MSM article about it. The first link will prompt your interest, it has a picture of a dying man. this is the same way flu victims were described in 1918 (read the book this summer). The second link is from the web site I check everyday. The third is from Drudgereport.com. About 4 days ago I told Lee I was struggling with fact or fiction, what is real. NBC, ABC, and CBS have not covered this issue. But, it continues to grow. It will be interesting to see if it continues and actually makes the news.

Dying Man

Report on Ukraine

From Drudge (UK paper)

Cable, Cellular, and Lawyers

It is amazing how certain industries seem to survive, regardless of the quality of service they deliver. As a consumer I am pretty easy going, but I do believe in accountability. Basically, I am just old-fashioned, deliver on your word and do what you promise. There are three industries though where this does not to be the case: cable television, cellular telephones, and law.

My experiences with cable and cellular companies began about 20 years ago. This is when I discovered the cable company could promise you an installation arrival time, but that was unrelated to the reality of when they might arrive. Throughout the last 25 years I have planned a day around “getting cable” and found myself at the mercy of the cable company regarding my time. If promised 9:00 am -noon, I have patiently waited and realized at 1:15p no one was coming. What do I do next? Leave? Call? And of course, once cable is installed if it fails or you need upgraded services one will be trapped in automated voice mail systems, in long lines at their offices, or without television.

Cellular telephones were supposed to make my life easier. I bought my first phone in 1988, a Panasonic Transportable, about the size of a dictionary and weighing a couple of pounds. The idea was I would not have to stop at a pay phone to call ahead, reschedule, or stay in touch with my family. As much as it was a novelty at that time, with my $1.50/minute charges, it was a business tool to serve the purpose of making phone calls. However, the phone dropped calls. Every two to three years for the last 20 years I have bought a new phone, always hoping that the latest model would not drop a call. But, the same problems continue today, dropped calls and lousy connections. I learned and never make critical calls on a cellular phone while moving. I have paid thousands of dollars to various companies, after considering all of the mergers, and yet the most basic service piece, making a call, has not been satisfactorily delivered.

Furthermore, the cellular companies have continued to miss the mark as buying a phone is not about telephone service, but cameras, MP3 players, and texting. I just want to make a call. At the same time each of us is personally robbed everyday we use our phone. We are forced to listen to voice mail system prompts that run up our charges. The next time you make a call to a cellular phone, pay attention to how long it takes to wait for the voice mail announcement to complete and leave a message. Or, call your voice mail to retrieve messages. Why can’t I skip the message? After years I know the routine and what to do. But, I am convinced this system is designed to collect a few minutes more from each of us, resulting in millions of profits for the cellular companies.

Attorneys are often the target of jokes and attacks. Most likely this stems from the perception of the lack of quality in the service they deliver. Unlike any other industry I know, this is a professional industry where a non-refundable payment is required before service is rendered. Regardless of the quality of service delivered, your non-refundable retainer has been captured. You have no mechanism to question the quality of service or the process that was used. I am convinced that attorney’s know they deliver the shoddiest services because of this payment process.

Are these rants? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe we are all entitled to a respectful relationship with the vendors and service providers whom we engage. However, when monopolies begin to exist, there is no competition, or there is no process for client satisfaction the quality of service degrades rapidly.

When Should Citizens Fear Their Government?

I recently bought a bumper sticker, “I love my country, but fear my government”. With shocking reality I realized I have more in common with the granola-eating, hemp-wearing, Volvo-driving hippies of the 1960’s counterculture than I do with the citizen conformists I thought I was like. The First Amendment guarantees our right to associate and assemble freely. However, I believe our government is now taking steps to significantly erode this freedom, among other civil liberties, at all levels, federal, state, and local.

Naomi Wolfe, author of “The End of America,” makes a compelling case for fascist America as she compares the Bush Administration’s “War on Terror” actions and passing of various legislative pieces to the dictatorships in 1930’s Europe. Personally, I have always been bothered by “The Department of Homeland Security”, domestic wiretapping and surveillance laws, and the overreaching methods of TSA at airports. I had a letter published in another newspaper about the “SS” like methods in use following 9/11 and thereafter found myself on TSA’s watch list. This seemed like more than a coincidence to me. Vigilance is important, but giving up liberties for the perception of safety is the biggest mistake anyone society can make.

In October 2008, for the first time ever, the United States Army stationed troops domestically. The guise of this deployment is to provide a federal response to assist with disasters, terrorism, and crowd control. During Katrina, the private security force “Blackwater” was enlisted to police and enforce martial law. Blackwater has forces stationed at the headwaters to the Great Lakes and on the California border. Each state allows the Governor to call on the National Guard to assist with disasters, or more importantly enforce martial law. In all of these instances our citizenry is allowing civil rights to erode in the name of perceived safety. Do you trust Blackwater?

When the G20 met in Pittsburgh my concern was raised again. Local police in battle regalia carried military assault weapons to use against American citizens. Of more concern Pittsburgh police used an audio cannon manufactured by American Technology Corporation, a San Diego-based company, to disperse protesters outside the G-20 Summit , the first time its LRAD series device has been used on civilians in the U.S. This weapon is funded to local police departments nationwide by grants from the Department of Homeland Security; thus there is no record of which police departments are in possession of this weapon, what training they have undergone, or ability to monitor their plans to deploy these weapons.

With the H1N1 virus creating an atmosphere of unknown possible outbreaks states have seized the opportunity to modify legislation to create quarantines, martial law, take property, and criminalize failure to follow department of health orders; Massachusetts’ Senate approved bill S.2028 (Pandemic Response Bill) is the most appalling example. Nationally, police and military have trained for roadside checkpoints, and the city of Boston has tested an RDIF tracking system for vaccinations. In October police chiefs endorsed spying on neighbors and the Department of Homeland Security and FBI issued circulars to business owners alerting them to watch for possible purchases of certain chemicals and report these purchases as possible terrorism.

Regardless of political view, the erosion of our civil liberties from both sides of the aisle and all levels of government is obvious. Slowly, we are becoming like the countries of Eastern Europe. Am I the only one that sees this resemblance? Sadly, we appear to be willingly giving up our civil liberties in the name of safety.