Don't take this post wrong, I really, really like netflix. It has saved me tons in the amount I was spending on DVD rentals from the local video store. And when streaming came to the Wii & PS3, I was very excited and happy.
But I do have some gripes. Things they could fix that would improve the service and make it so much better without that much effort.
1) Parental Controls. This is a major gripe on my part. Their controls totally suck. There are videos that are Not Rated and UnRated. Any videos in these categories are only playable if you have the parental control set to "everything". I prefer to have my parental controls set to PG-13, which removes all of the rated R stuff from my browsing selection. But it also removes all NR and UR, many of which are children's TV shows. I would also like the ability to set the parental controls for each activated device, so that I don't have to worry about my kindergartner picking up the Wii remote and selecting a mature video after he's finished watching Caillou. Even better would be to allow selecting a profile when you log on, with each profile able to have their own instant queue.
2) I think there is something seriously wrong with the NetFlix channel. When it first came out, I noticed I was getting several disconnections from Netflix. No problem, I'd just stick in the Disc and use the version off there and I didn't see anymore disconnects. But now that version has been disabled by Netflix, so I have no choice, I have to use the downloadable channel. Since these disconnects break the middle of the movie and the only way to get it to reconnect has been to exit the channel and relaunch it, only to have it happen again. Very frustrating.
3) PS3/Wii search is very limited. You cannot go beyond one page of search results. Which is a problem when there are more than one page full of shows that all start with the same name (like Mystery Science Theater). It's a nice feature that was added, and long overdue. Now go back and do it the right way.
4) Could really use the subtitles.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Earmarks
Congressional leaders like Harry Reid don't want to lose their earmarks. "It's less than 2% of the budget" they exclaim. "It's only symbolic".
2010, there was 2.38 trillion in revenue, 2.184 mandatory +1.368 discretionary = 3.552 trillion in expenditures. We have to cut the budget to 67% of the existing budget to balance it, or increase revenues to 150% of their existing amounts, and that's assuming a budget freeze at the existing levels.
Right. It's only symbolic. So if they can't even cut a measly 2% out of the budget, how in the world are they going to be able to cut 33% of the budget just to make it balance?
But earmarks are an important part of the congressional process. They can get senators/congressmen to support bills by adding the congressmen's earmarks into it, and those earmarks help get the congressmen reelected.
That's the gist of what the earmark defenders are saying. To this I say that I have another word for it -- bribery. There are so many things wrong with that process. First of all, if the bill isn't good enough to support, figure out a way to make it better -- not by adding earmarks, but actually making it a better bill that more congressmen can support. Those politicians are there to represent all of us, to do what's best for ALL americans, not just the ones in their own states, or more specifically, the ones that donated enough money to the congressmen to get them elected and are now being paid back by the earmarks. Second, if they didn't have earmarks, then the congressmen wouldn't hold out on supporting a bill they'd otherwise support just so they can get their earmarks into it. Third, those earmarks are specifically to make the congressmen look good so they can get reelected -- why are we allowing them to fund their campaigns with tax dollar money? Sure, it's very indirect, but it's still what is happening. Just because you're used to using earmarks to help get a bill through the senate, Harry Reid, doesn't mean you should CONTINUE to do it. It's a bad process, get rid of it.
All the more reason we need to limit all the terms, but I've already blogged about that.
2010, there was 2.38 trillion in revenue, 2.184 mandatory +1.368 discretionary = 3.552 trillion in expenditures. We have to cut the budget to 67% of the existing budget to balance it, or increase revenues to 150% of their existing amounts, and that's assuming a budget freeze at the existing levels.
Right. It's only symbolic. So if they can't even cut a measly 2% out of the budget, how in the world are they going to be able to cut 33% of the budget just to make it balance?
But earmarks are an important part of the congressional process. They can get senators/congressmen to support bills by adding the congressmen's earmarks into it, and those earmarks help get the congressmen reelected.
That's the gist of what the earmark defenders are saying. To this I say that I have another word for it -- bribery. There are so many things wrong with that process. First of all, if the bill isn't good enough to support, figure out a way to make it better -- not by adding earmarks, but actually making it a better bill that more congressmen can support. Those politicians are there to represent all of us, to do what's best for ALL americans, not just the ones in their own states, or more specifically, the ones that donated enough money to the congressmen to get them elected and are now being paid back by the earmarks. Second, if they didn't have earmarks, then the congressmen wouldn't hold out on supporting a bill they'd otherwise support just so they can get their earmarks into it. Third, those earmarks are specifically to make the congressmen look good so they can get reelected -- why are we allowing them to fund their campaigns with tax dollar money? Sure, it's very indirect, but it's still what is happening. Just because you're used to using earmarks to help get a bill through the senate, Harry Reid, doesn't mean you should CONTINUE to do it. It's a bad process, get rid of it.
All the more reason we need to limit all the terms, but I've already blogged about that.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
How to solve identity theft
The largest problem with identity theft is CREDIT. The credit bureaus started using our social security numbers, as did banks, hospitals, school system, etc. etc. It was all based on the premise that only we would know our own SSNs and the associated name. Obviously in the information age that is no longer true. So our method of determining the credit worthiness of a person we don't know hinges entirely on an invalid premise, that the SSN + Name is a way to establish positive identification and authentication.
The solution is relatively simple. Publish everybodies SSN and Name simultaneously. Doing so will force banks, credit bureaus, hospitals, and even the government to find another means for authenticating the identity of the person. No longer will it be assumed that just because you have the SSN that the information is reliable. It will make it worthless to have an SSN and a name. So what would be the new way to positively identify someone?
Maybe that method will be through some biometrics. DNA markers, fingerprints, retinal scans. Maybe it'll be through signatures. I had a program on my Palm PDA (Sony Clie actually) that required me to sign my signature. I'm not sure how they did it, but even when somebody else tried to copy my signature from something I had written down, they still could not get in. I suspect it used timing in that it only authenticated if I signed my signature at the same rate. It was also amazingly forgiving. Sometimes my signature wasn't very good and it still let me get in. But I challenged lots of people to try to break in and nobody was able to. So maybe something as simple as that. There are issues to consider, as somebody could have a stroke, or lose an eye, lose their hand, etc. That's why DNA becomes so appealing, since you will always have it and you will generally know if somebody tries to steal it. As a side bonus, it'll stop people from spitting on you since that would risk identity theft. LOL!
The security my bank USED to have (so sad they got rid of it) was a device with a number that changed every 30 seconds. You had to know your PIN and enter the number from that device. Thus the security was two-fold -- something you know, and something you have. But the device can easily be stolen. If you did a DNA spit test, you could do something you HAVE and combine that with a PIN # (something you KNOW) and voila, you've just eliminated almost all identity theft.
The holdback right now is that DNA testing takes time. But if the marketplace is demanding something right here right now that has to give DNA results accurately (at least to the 1 in 100,000 level) then you can be sure the current test providers will find a way to reduce that positive identification timeframe.
You wouldn't need to do a spit test for everything. You'd need it for major identifications. For instance, you apply for credit, you'll need a spit test / PIN # to identify which credit information is used. But once you've got the credit card, everyday purchases using the card would not require the spit test.
This also requires giving up some level of privacy, as a national database would need to be tapped into for validating this information. A one way hash to prevent the PIN # from being reverse engineered.
Alternatives would include having a chip ID placed into our bodies for positive ID. Between the two, I'd choose the spit test.
I'm sure eventually the thieves would be able to come up with some way of obtaining what you know and a piece of you...but if it is too hard and too costly, it would have to have a huge payoff to make it worthwhile. Certainly it would be more than the cost of an SSN, which is worth less than $1 on the black market.
This does amount to a certain level of privacy being given up. But privacy is another topic for another day.
The solution is relatively simple. Publish everybodies SSN and Name simultaneously. Doing so will force banks, credit bureaus, hospitals, and even the government to find another means for authenticating the identity of the person. No longer will it be assumed that just because you have the SSN that the information is reliable. It will make it worthless to have an SSN and a name. So what would be the new way to positively identify someone?
Maybe that method will be through some biometrics. DNA markers, fingerprints, retinal scans. Maybe it'll be through signatures. I had a program on my Palm PDA (Sony Clie actually) that required me to sign my signature. I'm not sure how they did it, but even when somebody else tried to copy my signature from something I had written down, they still could not get in. I suspect it used timing in that it only authenticated if I signed my signature at the same rate. It was also amazingly forgiving. Sometimes my signature wasn't very good and it still let me get in. But I challenged lots of people to try to break in and nobody was able to. So maybe something as simple as that. There are issues to consider, as somebody could have a stroke, or lose an eye, lose their hand, etc. That's why DNA becomes so appealing, since you will always have it and you will generally know if somebody tries to steal it. As a side bonus, it'll stop people from spitting on you since that would risk identity theft. LOL!
The security my bank USED to have (so sad they got rid of it) was a device with a number that changed every 30 seconds. You had to know your PIN and enter the number from that device. Thus the security was two-fold -- something you know, and something you have. But the device can easily be stolen. If you did a DNA spit test, you could do something you HAVE and combine that with a PIN # (something you KNOW) and voila, you've just eliminated almost all identity theft.
The holdback right now is that DNA testing takes time. But if the marketplace is demanding something right here right now that has to give DNA results accurately (at least to the 1 in 100,000 level) then you can be sure the current test providers will find a way to reduce that positive identification timeframe.
You wouldn't need to do a spit test for everything. You'd need it for major identifications. For instance, you apply for credit, you'll need a spit test / PIN # to identify which credit information is used. But once you've got the credit card, everyday purchases using the card would not require the spit test.
This also requires giving up some level of privacy, as a national database would need to be tapped into for validating this information. A one way hash to prevent the PIN # from being reverse engineered.
Alternatives would include having a chip ID placed into our bodies for positive ID. Between the two, I'd choose the spit test.
I'm sure eventually the thieves would be able to come up with some way of obtaining what you know and a piece of you...but if it is too hard and too costly, it would have to have a huge payoff to make it worthwhile. Certainly it would be more than the cost of an SSN, which is worth less than $1 on the black market.
This does amount to a certain level of privacy being given up. But privacy is another topic for another day.
Friday, September 3, 2010
Gay Marriage
This is quite a controversial topic.
For the record, I'm not gay. Despite once having a boss that was gay, a boss I enjoyed working with and felt a friendship toward, I still harbor negative feelings for gay people. I'm not going to try to justify them or deny them. It's the way I feel, and I have that right to feel that way. But I'm being truthful so that my bias is known up front.
From that background comes this thought, "Gay and straight people have the same rights and are denied the same rights. I can marry whomever I please from the opposite sex and so can they. They just don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. They complain that they don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Well, I don't have that right either. It just happens to be something I don't want to do anyway.."
From that background comes this thought, "Gay and straight people have the same rights and are denied the same rights. I can marry whomever I please from the opposite sex and so can they. They just don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. They complain that they don't have the right to marry a person of the same sex. Well, I don't have that right either. It just happens to be something I don't want to do anyway.."
But then I got thinking about it. What if the government only recognized marriage between classes of people. The rich could only marry the rich, the poor could only marry the poor. Or the Asians could only marry the Asians and the blacks could only marry the blacks. That would be pretty regressive, but that is our history. We used to have laws that restricted our freedoms on whom we could marry due to their race.
But let's get to the real heart of the matter. The simple reason why gay marriage is opposed is because us straight men don't want to see other men kissing or holding each other in public. It's disgusting. And if gay marriage is allowed, then those public displays of affection may become more frequent.
Back in the times of the thirteen colonies, it was disgusting to see interracial public displays of affection. In fact, that's still the case today with some people. Being truthful to myself, I can acknowledge that I've had those same feelings. I don't like seeing dark skinned and light skinned people kissing each others. It grates against me internally. But I would not deny them that right. Just as it grates against me to see two unattractive people kissing in public too.
I remember a movie a friend and I watched "What's eating Gilbert Grape." At the time, we both liked the actor Johnny Depp and figured that movie would be another good one. One of the actresses was cast to be very unattractive, repulsive even. I remember when it got to the "make out" scene where it showed all the couples french kissing we both knew what was coming up and it was like "oh no, Oh No!" and sure enough, they showed that very unattractive couple french kissing and knew it would take a long time to forget that scene. It still gives me shivers.
These feelings are all rooted together, stemming from the same source. I'd say that less public displays of sexual attraction would be one way to solve this, but I know that would never happen. Guys like showing everybody they can who they are trying to mate with. It's a primal urge to establish your territory and put other guys on notice to stay away from your woman. I'm not saying guys "own women" but that is how guys feel about it.
The main complaint by gay people is that there are privileges afforded to married people that gay couples cannot have. For instance, the ability to visit an unconscious partner in the hospital, medical insurance coverage, inheritance rights, and so on.
So I think, what would it be like if the world were opposite of what it is today? What if same sex marriage was the only acceptable form. My attraction is to females. It repulses me to think of being in the arms of another man. How could I deal with that? I could maybe pretend, even try it out, but deep down I know it just isn't the way I want to be. So I could cohabitate with my opposite sex sweetie, but I wouldn't be able to put her on my insurance policy. I wouldn't be able to hold her hand in public without getting glares from same sex couples. I'd have to file my taxes separately from her as single. And not being able to see her at the hospital after an accident because I had no way to prove the relationship would be hard. And just the stigma of not being in the "traditional family unit" would be dispiriting.
Well, that's how gays feel. I'm sure I haven't covered the full depth of the feelings, but it's enough to somewhat understand their view.
What about the government's interest in marriage? Marriage, though often associated with religious groups, is technically a civil contract tying the finances and privacy together of two people. The benefit to society is that when there are two adults in a family, it offers more protection and a better environment to the children. It's just common sense, two people thinking of the families future is better than one.
So taking all of this into account, here's what I've come up with.
And I know this will raise the ire of many, but it is the most logical thing I could think of. And it makes sense to do this as well. Do away with the civil marriage.
By not having the government recognize marriage, many things will have to change. First, people in families will need the laws altered to give them the same rights that they had when they were married. An interesting article I read talked about a similar issue. Single people do not have the rights that married people do, regardless of sexual orientation. By eliminating marriage, these privileges will have to be reassigned.
Now just for clarity, I said to do away with civil marriages. However, religious marriages would still be allowed, with the religions allowed to specify who can be married and who can't. They are private organizations, they have that privilege for their private ceremonies. There are already religions which fully accept all sexual orientations freely, so it is likely that they would have their own marriage ceremonies (assuming they don't already have ones). All other religions will be able to marry as they currently do. It allows all of us to practice our religious beliefs without interfering or imposing them on others.
I know there is also some fear from religious groups that if we start condoning gay marriage then our cities may end up like Sodom and Gomorrah. That's one of the beauties of this approach. It allows the religions to condemn other religions that permit gay marriage, thus showing that they oppose gay marriage and therefore they themselves should be spared the fire and brimstone and how much superior their religion is to the other one and so on. Remember, Lot was spared because he did not approve.
The government is neither taking a stand for or against gay marriage. So the government and its elected leaders cannot be held responsible for the decisions of the churches that permit gay marriage. In this neutral stance, it leaves the MORAL decision of gay marriage up to the churches, as it should be.
One issue that remains is how to promote the much healthier family unit (already shown in studies to be a better way to raise children and apparently one of the justifications as to why there is marriage today). I believe there should be "family contracts". In these family contracts, anybody can be added. All benefits that we currently see in marriage would likely be given to the entire family in the family contract. So the family contract would tie together the finances of those in the family -- debt for one is debt for all. Inheritance automatically goes to those in the family contract as outlined. HIPAA restrictions on privacy could be lifted for those in the family contract. Kids born into the family could be automatically added to the contract. And people in the biological family can be specifically excluded (like disinheritance). Responsibilities would be spelled out, which family members are responsible for the well being of the others. And that's all optional -- the family contract can be customized to fit each family. That's gotta make the lawyers smile, thinking of all of the additional contracts people will be making. It'll be like having a mandatory prenuptial agreement. It spells out the exact benefits, duration, and conditions of the family contract. Insurance for family coverage would apply to all of those in the family contract. Taxes would be paid based on the family instead of on individuals. And you could only be in one family contract at a time. In this way, government would recognize families instead of married couples, thus there is no recognition of gay marriage, only of groups of people willing to assume the financial risks of being a family in order to improve their overall status.
So what would be the purpose of the religious marriage? To spell out the commitments one person makes with another. Specifically, sexual commitments. That's part of what marriage is all about -- saying that you will forgo any sexual contact with someone to whom you are not married. That you will love, honor, and cherish the other person, and you state this in the presence of your deity that you profess to believe in. So the marriage is not dimmed at all. Quite the opposite. A religious marriage would be considered a higher commitment, a testament of the intent of the person to remain faithful. It has no meaning outside of the ones involved in the marriage, so the only purpose would be to truly demonstrate the level of love you have. Isn't that better, since the marriages "to get away from parents" or marriages "for a greencard" or marriages for financial status only will no longer need to be done since the family contracts will cover that.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
How to get Term Limits (or any grassroots bill) passed
Term limits for congress is pretty popular, but has detractors who feel that the experience is lost and that "good people" in congress are also kicked out in addition to the bad ones.
Personally I think these are non-arguments. Yes, good politicians will be kicked out, and if they are truly good, then they will have no problem being elected into other positions. That's all the more reason to have them kicked out since we need to have them in other areas as well. And yes, the experience of how to run congress is lost. Those who specialize in different committees will be rotated out. And that's fine. The reason that is fine is that those "specialized" congressmen may have the experience and knowledge, but that also leads to corruption since they become TOO familiar with the committees.
What we truly lack right now is a congress that knows how to work together. There are different ideas from all walks of life. No single ideology is perfect for everybody. That's why we negotiate, come up with ways to try out the different ideas and see what works best FOR THE NATION. Instead, what we have are congressmen that get entrenched into the committees where they protect their pet projects that help get them reelected. Then they do favors for other congressmen so that other bills they want passed can get those those committees. It's really become a "scratch my back and I scratch yours" type system. That is NOT good for the nation. It's only good for the congressmen. Sure, I'd like everything in government run how I indicate. But I also know that not everybody has the same feelings. So instead of digging a deep trench and hunkering down, securing positions on the left or right, congress needs to figure out how to negotiate again. And I think all this old blood is going to prevent that from being changed because they LIKE the way they are as was evidenced by the reaction to the recent incumbency losses.
So here's what I propose. Senators are already in for 6 years. I think that's enough. Yep, one term, with 1/3 of the senate replaced each year as is the current voting schedule. That puts each senator in a higher seat of seniority every 2 years. So the most "powerful" committees then are chaired by someone with 4 years of experience behind their belt. The house of representatives should have two allowed reelections. That means they also would be limited to 6 years total service in the house.
So what happens to the "good politicians"
6 years in the state legislature (or 12 depending on how the state's legislature is formed), 6 years in the house, 6 years in the senate, 8 years as a governor, and up to 8 years as president. That's still too many years leading government and not enough experience working in the private sector. But it's a good start to the limitation.
But this has been tried before. Politicians get elected promising term limits and then renege on their promise. How do you get a bunch of politicians who campaign on term limits and then vote against them to stick to their word?
Construct a term limit bill first that passes legal muster and addresses the "problems" that other term limit bills have had. This is done OUTSIDE of congress by we the people. Once a fairly agreeable bill is written, then write up a legal contract stating that the undersigned person has the legal obligation to vote for the bill in the form it is posted and not amend it or alter it in any way. Amendments and alterations to the bill by others in congress who haven't signed the agreement must voted against, we won't accept a watered down or filled with exclusions version. It will also require the person to follow the bill as it is proposed originally, regardless of whether or not it was passed. Allow for collection of donations into a trust fund to be used toward the cause of electing people who support the bill. Anybody who signs the contract who does not follow it will be liable for the full amount donated to their election, plus a large punitive amount. Those will then go back into the trust fund to elect others who will sign the contract, or legally pursue those that signed it and then went back on their word. There would be a website identifying those candidates and politicians who have signed the contract, which would be a benefit for those running for office to show their level of commitment.
Yep, it would be a genuine contract with penalty clauses. If Americans believe in term limits, they'll fund the trust and the whole concept will get passed. If a legitimate problem is found within the bill, then it can be modified by we the people and the politicians can sign an amended contract identifying the new bill in its new form.
In fact, this is a good way to get any popular bill passed that congress seems unwilling to do. Like how about a bill that says congress is subject to the same laws that we are. Originally congress was exempt from certain laws to prevent policemen from detaining them from a vote, for instance. Well, with today's technology the congressmen can vote from his or her jail cell. So requiring them to live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us (like the health care plan) seems like it should be reasonable.
Personally I think these are non-arguments. Yes, good politicians will be kicked out, and if they are truly good, then they will have no problem being elected into other positions. That's all the more reason to have them kicked out since we need to have them in other areas as well. And yes, the experience of how to run congress is lost. Those who specialize in different committees will be rotated out. And that's fine. The reason that is fine is that those "specialized" congressmen may have the experience and knowledge, but that also leads to corruption since they become TOO familiar with the committees.
What we truly lack right now is a congress that knows how to work together. There are different ideas from all walks of life. No single ideology is perfect for everybody. That's why we negotiate, come up with ways to try out the different ideas and see what works best FOR THE NATION. Instead, what we have are congressmen that get entrenched into the committees where they protect their pet projects that help get them reelected. Then they do favors for other congressmen so that other bills they want passed can get those those committees. It's really become a "scratch my back and I scratch yours" type system. That is NOT good for the nation. It's only good for the congressmen. Sure, I'd like everything in government run how I indicate. But I also know that not everybody has the same feelings. So instead of digging a deep trench and hunkering down, securing positions on the left or right, congress needs to figure out how to negotiate again. And I think all this old blood is going to prevent that from being changed because they LIKE the way they are as was evidenced by the reaction to the recent incumbency losses.
So here's what I propose. Senators are already in for 6 years. I think that's enough. Yep, one term, with 1/3 of the senate replaced each year as is the current voting schedule. That puts each senator in a higher seat of seniority every 2 years. So the most "powerful" committees then are chaired by someone with 4 years of experience behind their belt. The house of representatives should have two allowed reelections. That means they also would be limited to 6 years total service in the house.
So what happens to the "good politicians"
6 years in the state legislature (or 12 depending on how the state's legislature is formed), 6 years in the house, 6 years in the senate, 8 years as a governor, and up to 8 years as president. That's still too many years leading government and not enough experience working in the private sector. But it's a good start to the limitation.
But this has been tried before. Politicians get elected promising term limits and then renege on their promise. How do you get a bunch of politicians who campaign on term limits and then vote against them to stick to their word?
Construct a term limit bill first that passes legal muster and addresses the "problems" that other term limit bills have had. This is done OUTSIDE of congress by we the people. Once a fairly agreeable bill is written, then write up a legal contract stating that the undersigned person has the legal obligation to vote for the bill in the form it is posted and not amend it or alter it in any way. Amendments and alterations to the bill by others in congress who haven't signed the agreement must voted against, we won't accept a watered down or filled with exclusions version. It will also require the person to follow the bill as it is proposed originally, regardless of whether or not it was passed. Allow for collection of donations into a trust fund to be used toward the cause of electing people who support the bill. Anybody who signs the contract who does not follow it will be liable for the full amount donated to their election, plus a large punitive amount. Those will then go back into the trust fund to elect others who will sign the contract, or legally pursue those that signed it and then went back on their word. There would be a website identifying those candidates and politicians who have signed the contract, which would be a benefit for those running for office to show their level of commitment.
Yep, it would be a genuine contract with penalty clauses. If Americans believe in term limits, they'll fund the trust and the whole concept will get passed. If a legitimate problem is found within the bill, then it can be modified by we the people and the politicians can sign an amended contract identifying the new bill in its new form.
In fact, this is a good way to get any popular bill passed that congress seems unwilling to do. Like how about a bill that says congress is subject to the same laws that we are. Originally congress was exempt from certain laws to prevent policemen from detaining them from a vote, for instance. Well, with today's technology the congressmen can vote from his or her jail cell. So requiring them to live under the same laws they pass for the rest of us (like the health care plan) seems like it should be reasonable.
Monday, August 23, 2010
Illegal immigration in America
What is the difference between an illegal immigrant and a legal one?
An approved application.
We currently restrict immigration to a fixed number of people per country. Why? The first Europeans and many others who come to America didn't have that kind restriction.
So to solve the problem of immigration, why don't we lift the restriction on the number of immigrants who can come into America. Doesn't that solve the problem? No?
The reason it doesn't solve the problem is because the problem is not about them being here illegally. The debate by anti-immigration people is often accompanied with "I don't have a problem with those who came here legally, they haven't broken the law!" as they try to make themselves out to not be anti-immigration.
Illegal immigrants have broken a law, but not a criminal law. They have broken a civil law. Just like the last time you sped on the freeway but didn't get caught -- you broke a civil law. You are not a criminal, and neither are they for entering the country without waiting for that lottery opportunity and paying for the privilege. So what is the real opposition?
A brief look a the history of immigration law reforms helps shed some light on the matter. Generally, most of the reforms are related to either xenophobia, or the workers coming in and depressing the local wages because they are willing to work for less. None of those immigration policies really stopped the flood of low wage workers. What happened is that US citizens had to make their own businesses, or become more educated to compete, gaining skills that the immigrants did not have and thus also increasing wages. Where it used to be possible to get a decent paying job without having completed high school, now we have to obtain a college level education. Is that not a good thing? Now the college education really isn't enough. We are losing our edge in the world because other countries are becoming more technologically skilled and better educated, some surpassing us. So what should we do? How about...get smarter, work harder? No, I guess that's not the easy way out. The easy way is to sit back and complain about how these foreigners are all taking our jobs instead. We are becoming lazy, becoming too used to government solving our problems.
Remember the last part of the inscription on the statue of Liberty? "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Those don't sound like the cream of the crop. Those sound like the unsavory, worst people that no other country else wants. And those unsavory people became our heritage of strong people who had to fight for everything they had. Why did that change? When did the golden door require payment to pass through? These foreigners want the same opportunity that your ancestors were granted. Why do you deny them?
By keeping them undocumented, we make them more apt to become criminals. Hit-and-run? Because he was illegal. High speed chase? He was illegal. Witnessed a crime but didn't come forth? Because he was illegal. Had to steal someone's identity so he could work? Because he was illegal. Because of their status as an illegal, they are more likely to do more illegal stuff. They have a fear of police, and a fear of being caught and deported. That doesn't help. You change that one piece of paper, and you change all of that behavior.
A problem comes from the burden on our system. This is because we've gone away from our heritage of providing everyone with opportunity (everybody starts on the same footing, with nothing but the stuff they brought), and instead have embraced that of providing everybody with equal results at the expense of others (need a government handout? Now there' books detailing how many different handouts you qualify for). This push toward a government-provides-for-all is not good for us.
I know there is a huge push for a nationalized language. It is more efficient for the government and businesses to operate in one single language. So from a financial perspective, it makes sense. And it is from that alone that I think we should require government to provide services in English only, with exclusion for those services where the majority do not speak English (such as immigration services), or teaching ESL, or anywhere that it can be proven that it is more efficient to provide the service in additional languages. Although, it is far more beneficial to do away with many of these government services altogether anyway.
Illegals come and get paid a wage free of taxes because they are undocumented. They get abused with below minimum and even nonpayment of wages and can't report it. Employer's don't have to pay the social security and medicare on those illegals, which makes it appealing to employers. But there are few employers that actually do that. Some illegals end up having to fake a SSN so that they can work. An experience I had at work involved helping a company verify the social security numbers of its workers. Nearly every number failed the verification system, and most were latino names. All had given him SSNs. So let's look at the impact on the system. Those Latinos were having taxes withheld, and social security and medicare withheld. It was under a false number, a number the social security administration knew was illegal. Did the SSA reject the money sent to them saying they cannot properly credit an invalid account? No, of course not.
The laws are written such that you cannot terminate employment on somebody for not providing an SSN. The SSA has stated that a no-match letter is not grounds for terminating employment.
Why would that be? Well, let's look at the end result. Lots of money coming in for social security and medicare, which would not be able to be claimed when those Latinos retired because they were invalid numbers. No tax return can be filed, so all taxes withheld stay in the treasury.
Hmmm, from the viewpoint of a money manager in government, that would sound like a sweet deal. They would just need to make sure that employers who hired illegal workers could demonstrate that they had made a reasonable attempt to obtain the number and had withheld all applicable taxes. Because if they didn't withhold the taxes, then obviously the employer knew the worker was illegal...and more importantly, the government did not get the excess taxes. See what the government's interest is in all of this?
This is what I think we should do. Citizenship for the US should be easy to get, but come with a major string attached -- No more of this dual citizenship stuff. If you are a dual citizen of, say, the US and Canada, then you need to choose one. Your loyalty can only be to one of the two countries, especially if we were at war. Figure out which one it is and have the other citizenship removed. If you give up your US citizenship, you give up all government perks associated with it. Citizenship in the US means you would be willing to die protecting your country, even if it is in a war against the country you emigrated from.
But if you want to come to the US to work and send something back home but not be a US citizen, I propose that a visa (the right to work card, not the credit card) be granted for anyone who wants to work here. No more limitation on the number of cards, only on specific people (like known criminals) you want to keep out of the country. Opponents of the visas say that the cheap labor coming in and stealing American jobs is bad for us. So the visas are limited and what happens instead? Those companies hire illegals who are still taking American jobs and now there is no contribution to the government. Or those companies outsource or relocate outside of the country and send the dollars there instead. If your job is at threat of being taken by somebody else with equal skill who will do it for less, then you have to make yourself more valuable to compete, and that's better for everyone. I think that's one of the reasons America progressed so quickly in the world. We had to advance (and did not have the restrictions other countries had) in order to survive. Plato said that Necessity was the mother of all invention, and if we are challenged as Americans we will rise to the challenge just as in times past...or we will take our place in the footnote of history.
What about our borders? Secure the borders? Absolutely. Those who want to bring harm to our country are able to do so more easily through unsecured borders. By allowing people to enter the country legally (and therefore subject themselves to being documented) we can focus on keeping the bad elements out, such as those wanting to import illegal drugs (also a topic for another day) or those who have been deported due to criminal activity. Do we have to secure the borders first? That is something the conservative talk show hosts like to push, but I don't think that's necessary. There really isn't as much need if you aren't trying to keep out desperate people who just want a chance to make a living. So it could be done at the same time, or even after passing good immigration reform.
An approved application.
We currently restrict immigration to a fixed number of people per country. Why? The first Europeans and many others who come to America didn't have that kind restriction.
So to solve the problem of immigration, why don't we lift the restriction on the number of immigrants who can come into America. Doesn't that solve the problem? No?
The reason it doesn't solve the problem is because the problem is not about them being here illegally. The debate by anti-immigration people is often accompanied with "I don't have a problem with those who came here legally, they haven't broken the law!" as they try to make themselves out to not be anti-immigration.
Illegal immigrants have broken a law, but not a criminal law. They have broken a civil law. Just like the last time you sped on the freeway but didn't get caught -- you broke a civil law. You are not a criminal, and neither are they for entering the country without waiting for that lottery opportunity and paying for the privilege. So what is the real opposition?
A brief look a the history of immigration law reforms helps shed some light on the matter. Generally, most of the reforms are related to either xenophobia, or the workers coming in and depressing the local wages because they are willing to work for less. None of those immigration policies really stopped the flood of low wage workers. What happened is that US citizens had to make their own businesses, or become more educated to compete, gaining skills that the immigrants did not have and thus also increasing wages. Where it used to be possible to get a decent paying job without having completed high school, now we have to obtain a college level education. Is that not a good thing? Now the college education really isn't enough. We are losing our edge in the world because other countries are becoming more technologically skilled and better educated, some surpassing us. So what should we do? How about...get smarter, work harder? No, I guess that's not the easy way out. The easy way is to sit back and complain about how these foreigners are all taking our jobs instead. We are becoming lazy, becoming too used to government solving our problems.
Remember the last part of the inscription on the statue of Liberty? "Send me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shores. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door." Those don't sound like the cream of the crop. Those sound like the unsavory, worst people that no other country else wants. And those unsavory people became our heritage of strong people who had to fight for everything they had. Why did that change? When did the golden door require payment to pass through? These foreigners want the same opportunity that your ancestors were granted. Why do you deny them?
By keeping them undocumented, we make them more apt to become criminals. Hit-and-run? Because he was illegal. High speed chase? He was illegal. Witnessed a crime but didn't come forth? Because he was illegal. Had to steal someone's identity so he could work? Because he was illegal. Because of their status as an illegal, they are more likely to do more illegal stuff. They have a fear of police, and a fear of being caught and deported. That doesn't help. You change that one piece of paper, and you change all of that behavior.
A problem comes from the burden on our system. This is because we've gone away from our heritage of providing everyone with opportunity (everybody starts on the same footing, with nothing but the stuff they brought), and instead have embraced that of providing everybody with equal results at the expense of others (need a government handout? Now there' books detailing how many different handouts you qualify for). This push toward a government-provides-for-all is not good for us.
I know there is a huge push for a nationalized language. It is more efficient for the government and businesses to operate in one single language. So from a financial perspective, it makes sense. And it is from that alone that I think we should require government to provide services in English only, with exclusion for those services where the majority do not speak English (such as immigration services), or teaching ESL, or anywhere that it can be proven that it is more efficient to provide the service in additional languages. Although, it is far more beneficial to do away with many of these government services altogether anyway.
Illegals come and get paid a wage free of taxes because they are undocumented. They get abused with below minimum and even nonpayment of wages and can't report it. Employer's don't have to pay the social security and medicare on those illegals, which makes it appealing to employers. But there are few employers that actually do that. Some illegals end up having to fake a SSN so that they can work. An experience I had at work involved helping a company verify the social security numbers of its workers. Nearly every number failed the verification system, and most were latino names. All had given him SSNs. So let's look at the impact on the system. Those Latinos were having taxes withheld, and social security and medicare withheld. It was under a false number, a number the social security administration knew was illegal. Did the SSA reject the money sent to them saying they cannot properly credit an invalid account? No, of course not.
The laws are written such that you cannot terminate employment on somebody for not providing an SSN. The SSA has stated that a no-match letter is not grounds for terminating employment.
Why would that be? Well, let's look at the end result. Lots of money coming in for social security and medicare, which would not be able to be claimed when those Latinos retired because they were invalid numbers. No tax return can be filed, so all taxes withheld stay in the treasury.
Hmmm, from the viewpoint of a money manager in government, that would sound like a sweet deal. They would just need to make sure that employers who hired illegal workers could demonstrate that they had made a reasonable attempt to obtain the number and had withheld all applicable taxes. Because if they didn't withhold the taxes, then obviously the employer knew the worker was illegal...and more importantly, the government did not get the excess taxes. See what the government's interest is in all of this?
This is what I think we should do. Citizenship for the US should be easy to get, but come with a major string attached -- No more of this dual citizenship stuff. If you are a dual citizen of, say, the US and Canada, then you need to choose one. Your loyalty can only be to one of the two countries, especially if we were at war. Figure out which one it is and have the other citizenship removed. If you give up your US citizenship, you give up all government perks associated with it. Citizenship in the US means you would be willing to die protecting your country, even if it is in a war against the country you emigrated from.
But if you want to come to the US to work and send something back home but not be a US citizen, I propose that a visa (the right to work card, not the credit card) be granted for anyone who wants to work here. No more limitation on the number of cards, only on specific people (like known criminals) you want to keep out of the country. Opponents of the visas say that the cheap labor coming in and stealing American jobs is bad for us. So the visas are limited and what happens instead? Those companies hire illegals who are still taking American jobs and now there is no contribution to the government. Or those companies outsource or relocate outside of the country and send the dollars there instead. If your job is at threat of being taken by somebody else with equal skill who will do it for less, then you have to make yourself more valuable to compete, and that's better for everyone. I think that's one of the reasons America progressed so quickly in the world. We had to advance (and did not have the restrictions other countries had) in order to survive. Plato said that Necessity was the mother of all invention, and if we are challenged as Americans we will rise to the challenge just as in times past...or we will take our place in the footnote of history.
What about our borders? Secure the borders? Absolutely. Those who want to bring harm to our country are able to do so more easily through unsecured borders. By allowing people to enter the country legally (and therefore subject themselves to being documented) we can focus on keeping the bad elements out, such as those wanting to import illegal drugs (also a topic for another day) or those who have been deported due to criminal activity. Do we have to secure the borders first? That is something the conservative talk show hosts like to push, but I don't think that's necessary. There really isn't as much need if you aren't trying to keep out desperate people who just want a chance to make a living. So it could be done at the same time, or even after passing good immigration reform.
Saturday, August 21, 2010
The birth of a new law
I think most people have experienced it themselves or had a close friend that has had this happen...
It happens to me all the time. As a computer professional, I often help out other people. Many times "it doesn't work" suddenly works when I do it. And I've had it happen to me as well. I went to demonstrate something that didn't work to show how it was broken and, sure enough, it worked just fine.
I had that experience today. A client couldn't install one of the products I had written. So the client tried to show me and it worked. The client felt foolish, but I tried to reassure him that he wasn't. I've witnessed this phenomenon often enough that I know it exists.
I think this is a common effect with automobiles. Something goes wrong and you take it to the mechanic. And it works just fine. It only happens when the mechanic isn't around.
And then I got to thinking, what is this phenomenon called? There has to be a name for it. I searched around, but was unable to find anything. Maybe my internet searching skills need to be upgraded. It is like a variation of Murphy's Law. Since it happens only when observed, my immediate thoughts turned to the observer effect - that by watching it impacts the outcome. Not quite the same thing. This is something that needs a name.
I do believe it should be a "Law". Like Murphy's Law or the Law of Attraction -- not really laws that pass scientific muster, but giving them the "Law" title adds a bit of humor to it. Elevating it to the same status as the law of gravity gives it a false sense of always applying.
"The Law of Observation" has a nice ring to it, but a quick internet search shows a few different versions of Law of Observation already attempted to be defined by others with a different definition. One saying that it relates to whether or not something happened because it wasn't observed (for instance a tree falling in the forest, does it make a sound), one relating to the way things changed based on how you feel from having observed something (negative / positive), and a third very humorous one stating that the probability of being observed while doing something stupid is proportional to how stupid the act is. Personally, I think this third one should have full claim to that title, so I'll gracefully bow out of using that one.
I found a humorous website full of Laws of the same caliber. None matching the law I'm describing.
In fact, I need a good description for it. So here goes: The problem will disappear when the technician is there but will reappear when when the technician leaves. Scientifically, this could be stated as: The visibility of the problem is inversely proportional to the proximity of the technician. Hmmm, the plain version sounds easier to understand, I'll leave it at that.
There's two meanings to it.
Alright, I think that's a good definition. Now just need a good name for it. Technician's Law. Searching the web I find one post that already refers to it, but the person posting is describing an actual law in Israel for ensuring technicians come during the time they scheduled. Nothing humorous, fairly targeted and little room for confusion. I think I can use the same title :)
There, coined and official.
It happens to me all the time. As a computer professional, I often help out other people. Many times "it doesn't work" suddenly works when I do it. And I've had it happen to me as well. I went to demonstrate something that didn't work to show how it was broken and, sure enough, it worked just fine.
I had that experience today. A client couldn't install one of the products I had written. So the client tried to show me and it worked. The client felt foolish, but I tried to reassure him that he wasn't. I've witnessed this phenomenon often enough that I know it exists.
I think this is a common effect with automobiles. Something goes wrong and you take it to the mechanic. And it works just fine. It only happens when the mechanic isn't around.
And then I got to thinking, what is this phenomenon called? There has to be a name for it. I searched around, but was unable to find anything. Maybe my internet searching skills need to be upgraded. It is like a variation of Murphy's Law. Since it happens only when observed, my immediate thoughts turned to the observer effect - that by watching it impacts the outcome. Not quite the same thing. This is something that needs a name.
I do believe it should be a "Law". Like Murphy's Law or the Law of Attraction -- not really laws that pass scientific muster, but giving them the "Law" title adds a bit of humor to it. Elevating it to the same status as the law of gravity gives it a false sense of always applying.
"The Law of Observation" has a nice ring to it, but a quick internet search shows a few different versions of Law of Observation already attempted to be defined by others with a different definition. One saying that it relates to whether or not something happened because it wasn't observed (for instance a tree falling in the forest, does it make a sound), one relating to the way things changed based on how you feel from having observed something (negative / positive), and a third very humorous one stating that the probability of being observed while doing something stupid is proportional to how stupid the act is. Personally, I think this third one should have full claim to that title, so I'll gracefully bow out of using that one.
I found a humorous website full of Laws of the same caliber. None matching the law I'm describing.
In fact, I need a good description for it. So here goes: The problem will disappear when the technician is there but will reappear when when the technician leaves. Scientifically, this could be stated as: The visibility of the problem is inversely proportional to the proximity of the technician. Hmmm, the plain version sounds easier to understand, I'll leave it at that.
There's two meanings to it.
- The technician won't see the problem when you try to show it
- The technician sees the problem and fixes it and shows you that it is working
Alright, I think that's a good definition. Now just need a good name for it. Technician's Law. Searching the web I find one post that already refers to it, but the person posting is describing an actual law in Israel for ensuring technicians come during the time they scheduled. Nothing humorous, fairly targeted and little room for confusion. I think I can use the same title :)
There, coined and official.
 |
| Technician's Law: The problem will disappear when the technician is there but will reappear when the technician leaves. |
Friday, August 20, 2010
Really, just thoughts
I frequently get these ruminations in my head about current events. And I tell people. And they don't care. Everybody has their own opinions. So why would you be interested in mine? No clue.
But I wanted a place to post these thoughts. Get them out of my mind. It's that "I'm too busy to have this thought occupying my mind any more." So I figure if I post them and get them out of my mind, great :) Do I expect my thoughts to change the world? No, of course not. I'm one person amongst billions, why would my thoughts matter? They don't. I have no expectations for the posts I blog here.
But if you stumble across these and you see a flaw in my thought process and want to post a logical disagreement or ask for clarification, the comments are available for you. This isn't a full time job and I only check the comments once in a while, so be patient if you don't see your comment or a response appear right away.
But I wanted a place to post these thoughts. Get them out of my mind. It's that "I'm too busy to have this thought occupying my mind any more." So I figure if I post them and get them out of my mind, great :) Do I expect my thoughts to change the world? No, of course not. I'm one person amongst billions, why would my thoughts matter? They don't. I have no expectations for the posts I blog here.
But if you stumble across these and you see a flaw in my thought process and want to post a logical disagreement or ask for clarification, the comments are available for you. This isn't a full time job and I only check the comments once in a while, so be patient if you don't see your comment or a response appear right away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)