Concerning (This CNN Article)

Dear Massachusetts Attorney General and Boston Assistant Attorney General John Grossman,

Three weeks ago while walking to work I noticed a light bright like sign hung on a street sign in downtown Portland. To me it was obviously some sort of prank/joke. I laughed and enjoy the fact that people do silly things.

Now these light panels have made their way to Boston. A Bostonian saw an odd panel on a street post and reported it to the authorities. That is just fine. However, it is pitifull that those authorities turned what was obviously a prank into a national bomb scare. This national campaign of threating and using fear is atrocious. Now Boston is charging these people with hanging a bomblike like devise to create public panic. It seems clear that Boston authorities are embarrassed that they watch too much 24 and want to push the attention onto someone else. Next time you hang your yard sale sign with shiny duck tap you better hope it doesn’t look too much like C4.

It is flat wrong that these guys are being charged with this crime. I don’t know how people come up with "what a bomb looks like" or intent to create public panic but that certainly was not the case here. This is a waste of taxpayer time and money and a mockery of our justice system. For shame on the Boston Authorities and for shame on the Boston Attorney General’s Office.

Dismayed,

Jed Herzog

In addition to posting this to HighFiveFriday I have written this to the Massachusetts Attorney General’s general email address. I could not find an address more specific to the Boston Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General John Grossman who is prosecuting the case. If you find any of these addresses let me know. I will be glad to send my letter to them. I also encourage you to write and voice your opinion. The general address is ago@ago.state.ma.us.

Define News. As in CNN Headline News or your local nightly news.

Here is my stab at it. Current events and stories that are worthy of public awareness.

With that said, I ask what is this crap being feed to us as News? Three points:

1)

A local morning news show here in Portland runs a special segment called something similar to "New News". This is a segment that runs newer stories. Is that not what News is in the first place, "new". A headline on CNN today "Bush: Iraq crucial in war on terror". Is this news? He has said this three times a day for three years. Yet it is front page. CNN Story

So a never changing situation in Iraq sits atop our news stories for more then 3 years. There must be nothing else "news worthy" going on in the world. How many of you know the details of the Darfur conflict happening in Sudan? You know there is a situation, but do you know what and why and what its effects are?

"According to recent reports by the World Food Program, the United Nations and the Coalition for International Justice, 3.5 million people are now hungry, 2.5 million have been displaced due to violence, and 400,000 people have died in Darfur thus far." source

In my opinion this is the most horrific catastrophe happening in the world today. Read more on Darfur

So, agreeing that this must be a pretty big news worthy story consider this fact. According to Harper

I have noticed a recent increase in the amount of organic food that is available and the interest in this food. I personally believe that organic food is a better choice, so when I have the choice, I buy organic. I believe organic food is a better choice because the over-use of chemicals and pesticides bothers me. Not only do I not want to eat these chemicals, but they are harmful to the environment.

However, I have noticed what I feel is a contradicting view amongst other organic food consumers. This deals with genetically engineered foods. In my experiences, I have found that people who choose to buy organic also choose not to by genetically engineered foods. These foods are often regarded with the same disdain as crops grown with pesticides and chemicals. I couldn’t disagree more. The advancements made in genetically engineered foods can positively effect world hunger and natural resource depletment. In addition, newly engineered strains are more resistant to disease and pests, hence reduce the uses of chemicals and pesticides. So if you buy organic food because you don’t like what chemicals and pesticides do to the environment and/or don’t like ingesting them yourself, then you should embrace engineered food.

On a side note, I recently read an article about pharma crops. This is engineering food to contain antibiotics, vaccines, and other drugs. I am not quite sure what the need for this is. It seems people have no problem taking their drugs in the forms in which they exist today. This article also warned of some dangers associated with pharma crops. As these crops are grown it will be very difficult to keep them from cross-pollinating and contaminating the normal strains. I could also see this being an issue with genetically engineered food. Although I think that these engineered foods will be beneficial, I also realize we are experimenting and testing these new form of agriculture. Along with pharma crops I would not like to see these experiment strains contaminate our food supply.

It will take extreme responsibility and a watchful eye to make sure these new advancements are handled properly. But if you eat organic foods and are concerned about the world’s food supply, I strongly suggest considering engineered foods. I just hope my aspirin corn does not get mixed in with that Viagra corn!

The other night watching TV I saw an advertisement for a new reality TV show. Don’t care, won’t watch it. However the premise of the show made me think a little and hence spawned this rant. The show was called something like The Greatest American

I got to thinking about whom I would choose as the greatest American. It’s a difficult question. I keep coming back to the writers of our Constitution. That may be a cliché answer but that doctrine they wrote was truly amazing and all of the freedoms and the life we enjoy today is due to them. One attribute that these gentlemen posed that few today do is a sense of what should be law. I have written at lease two posts about this but it is a strong issue for me, especially since the vast majority of people don’t understand what I am talking about. Consider a controversial issue such as God in the Pledge, gay marriage, illegal immigrant’s rights, etc. Most Americans have strong opinions on these subjects. Good, I would hope so. Tell others, convince others. However, present them with a law on the subject and they will immediately vote their opinion, never pausing to ask about the legality of the law. Never once asking what the law would do to personal rights. Never once asking how the law would effect other Americans. Never once asking if we even need a law on that subject. This “big picture” sight is what the authors of our Constitution had and why this country is as great and as free (for now) as it is. The Constitution was not written based on their opinions of what was right and wrong. Rather it was written to create and protect people’s freedom. Therefore, I believe the authors of the US Constituion to be the greatest Americans.

Now I would like to know who you believe is the Greatest American….

I would like to continue from the last post by responding to Andrew’s statement “The whole reason we have Government is to protect the common man, right? The common man can’t always be trusted to make the most beneficial decision to themselves and their community, thus there is government intervention to aid common man’s demise.” However I would like to move that response forward and discuss the purpose of government.

I disagree with Andrew. It is the interaction of every common man with every other common man that ensures that the most beneficial decision (for everyone) is made. Remember, just because you feel one decision is best does not mean it is for everyone. The Wal-Mart conflict centers around the plight of the small business vs. discount stores’ cheap commodities. A community, as a whole, may be made better off if it has access to affordable commodities, rather than being forced to do all the shopping at small locally owned businesses. It is only your (or possibly your) opinion that it would not.

Moving on from Wal-Mart I would like to say more on the purpose of government.

My beliefs follow closely to what Adam Smith had to say in Book IV Chapter IX of his master work The Wealth of Nations. Allow me to quote:

“According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to … first, the duty of protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies; secondly, the duty of protecting, so far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice, and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions, which it can never be for the interest of any individual, or small number of individuals, to erect and maintain…”

Paraphrasing:
The responsibility of government’s existence should be and should be limited to three duties:

1. To protect its citizens from other countries.
2. A create and enforce a defined legal system that establishes property rights and personal rights for its citizens.
3. To undertake endeavourers that are too large, costly and grand to be undertaken by the private industry.

I would argue that number three has become obsolete. In the past, infrastructure such as sewers, highways, airports etc. would never have existed unless a government built them. However, today’s private industry has proven its ability to fund any project regardless of scale or grandeur. In fact not only has private industry proven its ability to take on these endeavors, the gains from competition ensure that these endeavors are completed and maintained more efficiently. I feel recent endeavors such as The X Prize proves this fact. What capitalist venture lies before the human race that is larger, more expensive or grander than space exploration?

That leaves two purposes for government

1. An Army
2. Creation and enforcement of a Constitution that includes defined property and individual rights.

Disagree? Then justify any other purposes. Can you justify denying a business the right to open?

Clemson has five sub shops in Downtown, three of which are national chains. These chains are everyone’s favorite. I, however, much prefer going to the local sub shop. To me, it is about supporting the local guy. Of course, subs are just an example. I feel this way about other commodities. I would rather buy my bread from a local bakery and meat from a butcher, etc (and I would, if there were such things in Clemson). I think the food quality is better; and did I mention that I like to support the local guy?

I am sure this rhetoric is nothing new. You have heard it a thousand times from a thousand hippies. The point of this rant focuses on this:

Wal-Mart just opened in our small town, despite the huge movement to keep it out, involving re-zoning, legislation etc. Even though I am all for the small guy in most cases, I was on the other side of the fence with regard to Wal-Mart. If I were to join the bumper sticker/yard sign crowd I would have made a sign that said, “I support Wal-Mart’s right to open in Clemson”. Acquaintances who are sick of my boycott of fast food chains have argued with me that this stance is contradictory. I don’t think it is.

I have expressed feelings similar to the ones I have about Wal-Mart before in other rants, but felt my message was lost because the example I used was too controversial. It’s not uncommon for people to attempt to force (via laws) others to adopt their ideas. In the long run, it never works. In my opinion this “legislating beliefs” approach is the definition of anti-Americanism (more so than any person opposing a war). You can, and should, try to inform, teach, and convince others that your opinion is right. But the second you try to force your convictions on others through legislation (re-zoning) you have chosen the wrong path. Think about it: If you have successfully convinced people that Wal-Mart is bad, then you should feel comfortable with Wal-Mart opening a store near you. If you were right, then no one will shop there; it will go out of business and close. Mission accomplished. However, if people wish to shop there then it is their choice, and who the hell are you to pass laws denying them that right?

I hope more people buy from the local guy. It is a better choice, in my opinion. However, I do not think that Wal-Mart is evil and I support Wal-Marts right to open in any town in America. People, make your own choices. Inform others, but do not pass laws forcing them to conform to your opinion.

P.S. Due to my fast typing I found out that “Wal-Mart” is in my word processor’s spell check dictionary. Coffeeman’s Bakery was not.

Where are you from? Down North? Up East?

Next time someone is giving you directions and they tell you to go North, pay attention. They will point up towards the sky. Vice versa, when they tell you to go South they will point downward. Why? North is not up, South is not down. Most likely it is because of the typical world map. I was recently given a world map by an educational software vendor. I hung it on my cubicle wall and looked at it with some coworkers. It was very similar to the map below. Examine it. I think most would agree that this is your every-day run-of-the-mill world map.

View a larger image

When I looked at the map that was given to me and then this one above, I saw nothing odd. It looked like any other world map I have seen. Then my coworkers and I took notice to where the equator lined up on the map. It cuts the map in half right? Nope. In fact the equator lies somewhere around here:

View a larger image

So I said, "Okay they just cut the Southern 20% of the map off. Antarctica is boring." But that wasn

I have just spent a week in Orlando, Fl. Even though I was there on business I was able to fit in plenty of leisure time. I visited the attraction parks (Disney, Epcot, Universal, Seaworld) and ate at the ridiculously nice restaurants (fish guaranteed fresh that day hand picked by a fish monger, and prime center cut filets). It occurred to me that Orlando is very similar to Vegas. Both cities (at least the parts that tourists see) strive for complete fantasy. Things are taken to such luxurious extremes that the ridiculous is the status quo.

It then occurred to me that many foreign tourists come to the United States and only visit Vegas or Orlando. Could you imagine their impression of what it is like to live in the US?

It makes me reflect on my travels of the past and my goals when traveling in the future. If you really want to have any idea about the culture or country you are visiting, you better not be in a tourist trap or even a very touristy town. See you in June, Italy.

I want to address two topics in this post. I will start by presenting my opinion on a current and very controversial topic. I feel strongly in my beliefs on this topic but know that many people will disagree. I hope you read it with an open mind and examine the issue not the emotions. As I said, my opinion is strong on this topic but it is not the important issue in this post. Rather my second proposition is the one that I want people to walk away thinking about.

My first topic is my opinion on homosexual marriage; my second topic is why my opinion is arbitrary and you just wasted your time reading it.

Homosexual Marriage,
Correct me if I am wrong, but the only argument that I have ever heard against homosexual marriage concerns the “sanctity of marriage”. A lot of people consider marriage a very sacred bond that they define as a union between a man and a woman. There are two ways to get married; in the eyes of your church and in the eyes of the law. When talking about the sanctity of marriage, by definition, you can only be referring to marriage in the eyes of the church. The new laws that seek to allow homosexual marriage only apply to marriage in the eyes of the law. No one is suggesting that we should force churches to marry homosexuals. Considering the religious views of most denominations, churches probably should not marry homosexuals. They have the right not to. These laws are simply stating that legally, homosexual couples should have the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage and all of the advantages of marriage.

Food for thought:
If we should not allow homosexual couples to marry because it devalues the sanctity of marriage why do we allow a heterosexual couple that are Satanists to get married in a court of law? These satanic heterosexual couples have been able to marry for decades. Now don’t misinterpret. I am not making any implication or connection between homosexuals and satanists. I don’t think there are similarities. Rather I am taking an extreme case to push a point. It seems in the eyes of religion, (and I think most of the Religious Right will agree to this) blatant and deliberate worshipping of Lucifer is far worse than homosexuality, yet they have the right to marry without any argument from the religious right. The point is they have been marrying for years without devaluing the sanctity of marriage because they do so in the eyes of the law not in the eyes of your church. Period.

The Meat (and this following point addresses a lot more than just homosexual marriage):
As I stated before you just wasted your time. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what my opinion on homosexual marriage is. It doesn’t matter what your opinion on homosexual marriage is. It doesn’t matter what the Pope thinks, it doesn’t matter what George W. Bush thinks, it doesn’t matter what the majority of Americans think. Only one thing matters and many many people have forgotten this. In fact I very seldom hear anyone mention it but … the assessment that matters is that of the Constitution of The United States of America (which embodies the spirit of the United States).

When our Forefathers settled this country they wrote a Constitution to govern it. They were brilliant writers and wrote a brilliant Constitution. I want to address two aspects of the Constitution that I feel make it so brilliant; it’s openness and foresight.

These Forefathers knew what it was to be discriminated against. They had experienced not having the right to practice their religious beliefs or be represented in the government. That is why the United States was founded. Accordingly, when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights they did so with great care to make sure that everyone that lives in this country will live free and never be discriminated against.

Many people, especially the Conservative Right and the people who would disagree with the beginning of this post, love to point out that our Founding Fathers were very religious, very Christian and not ashamed to show it. These Forefathers spoke of God a lot, they prayed a lot. I agree and that is what makes my point so strong. They were very religious and Christian. Yet they only mention religion twice in the Constitution, both times banning its role in government (legal) issues (religion was mentioned once in Article IV when it states “… no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States” and again in the first Amendment when it states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …”.) Our Forefathers did this very deliberately. They acted out of an understanding of what it’s like to be discriminated against, they knew it was wrong, it should never happen again, to any one, for any reason. They also did this because they had foresight. They knew that without provisions in the Constitution that Americans (human nature) would soon forget and would start pushing their views (some of religious merit) on others, they would slowly start using religious arguments in government, and would start discriminating against others that were not in the majority.

For instance, here only 200 hundred years later. People think that in order to pledge allegiance to this great country in which we live everyone should have to declare their belief in God. People believe that our legal system is one and the same/based on the Christian Ten Commandments. People think that marriage is an exclusive right granted and governed by their religious beliefs.

Wait… Don’t yell at me yet… Bravo, Bravo, to all of the people above. For this Constitution that I have spoken of grants you the rights to believe and proclaim these opinions.

I may agree with you, I may not; this is not the issue here. What is this issue is the people that think our legally recognized pledge of allegiance (which we require all immigrants applying for citizenship to repeat) should contain a line that declares a belief in a God. What is at issue is the people who think we should blatantly display Christian documents at the entrances to our courts which symbolically proclaim that in this country, with freedom of religion, you will be judge by Christian standards. What is at issue is people who think that laws should be passed so that we can legally discriminate against people who are homosexual, not allow them to marry even in the eyes of the law, because they are different from the majority and some religions do not agree with them.

Pay attention This next part is the point.
When considering an issue do you ever stop and ask yourself “what is my belief, what is the belief of this country and the Constitution it was founded on?” Do you ask these questions separately? You should. To me that is the true test of being an American: the ability to see a bigger picture than yourself and your opinion. To be able to say to yourself “a lot of people live in this country, a lot of people are different from me and we all deserve the same freedoms, regardless of my opinion”. That is what makes this country great; it is what makes it different and better than the rest. Most importantly it is the reason you can have your opinion.

I meant for the this post to have this impact on you; remember the freedoms of this country and what they mean, remember the Constitution and what it says. The democratic values that we enjoy in this country are not there as a means to enfource our opinion but rather elicit decisions that benefit the whole. I started this entry talking about homosexual marriage, so let me return to that subject briefly and as an aside. In the United States’ past we have discriminated against many people. We have discriminated based on Race, Sex, Age and probably many other attributes. Each and every time we have tested those practices with the Constitution and found them illegal. At those times there were people that believed we should continue with our discriminatory practices. To us those people seem to be from a different era and much unlike ourselves. We are not racist or chauvinist and we are not prejudiced to the elderly or the young. Yet here again we have a group of people being deprived of the same legal rights endowed to everyone else. This time we are discriminating against people of different sexual orientation. Trust me the Constitution and America has been asked to discriminate many times before, it will recapitulate its answer again. This country, based on freedom and equal rights, will refuse to discriminate on any basis. We extend our freedoms to all, even homosexual couples. That is what makes us the United States of America. Will you stand for equal rights and freedom or will you be one of those people that the future will fail to comprehend, just like those who fought to keep African-Americans or Women subclass Americans?

In Conclusion:
Yes we all have the right to vote and have our opinions heard. They are heard and are acted upon. However, these elected official’s major decisions, the ones that affect the character of this country, are governed by the Constitution and I for one am glad. The Constitution is a doctrine that, rather than based on emotional views, is a guideline that will align decisions to benefit the welfare of the whole and protect the freedoms of each and every one of us. I hope we all stop, reflect, comprehend and embrace these ideals. Too many people feel strongly about a topic (the answer to “what is my belief?”) but never consider or care about “what is the belief of this country and the Constitution it was founded on?”

That’s why I am fed up, why aren’t you?

I, for one, am becoming annoyed by the media and public complaining about gas prices. We all like to pay less for more but sometimes things have to come back to reality. I believe gas prices are not too expensive but instead have been too cheap and possibly could still be too cheap. A number of points on this issue:

1) Every gas price that you hear quoted in the media today is the nominal price of gas. The media and public will then compare these nominal prices with past prices. Comparing nominal prices to historical prices is inherently flawed because it fails to adjust of the effects of inflation. Throughout the history of the United States we have experienced inflation (inflation increased dramatically after the fall of the Gold Standard which started with FDR in 1933 and finally collapsed with the end of the Bretton Woods system under Nixon in 1971). Inflation is defined as a persistent increase in the average price level in the economy. By definition this means not only that prices have increased over time but also wages. It is unfair to say that a $.89 McDonalds burger in 2002 1 is more expensive than the $.15 burger in 1956 2. For one, because per capita income was $2,016 in 1956 compared to $30,941 in 20023. However, if you adjust these burger prices for inflation you find that the $.15 burger in 1956 is equivalent to $.97 in 2002 dollars4. All of a sudden we realize that the burger has actually gotten cheaper by about $.08. The same applies for gasoline!

The Media and public keep stating how gasoline is at its record high. From the Consumer Price Index complied by the US Bureau of Labor and Statistics I gathered the average monthly US city price of gasoline per gallon from 1978 (first available date) to April 20045. I then adjusted the prices into 2003 dollars, compensating for inflation. According to this data the average gas price for April 2004 was $1.875. The all time record high occurred in March 1981 when gas cost $2.8093 per gallon of gas. The average price of gas since 1978 has been $1.7637. Feel free to look at all of these prices and data at http://www.clemson.edu/~jaredh/gas.htm. What this means is that gas prices are quite far from their record high. In fact they are only slightly above their average price. This is expected for April since gas prices are seasonal and always spike as we enter the summertime. Compare the average for 2004 (smoothes at the seasonal spikes) of $1.7585 and we are below the historical average price of gasoline per gallon!!!!!!!

So why all the belly aching? Well I believe it is because gas prices have been too low for the past few years. Consider that the all time record low since 1978 was $1.1195 (adjusted for inflation of course )and occurred just a few years ago in Feb. 1999. The reason gas prices were this low is because President Clinton, in an effort to help Al Gore get elected in the 2000 presidential race, tapped our nation’s emergency oil reserves to artificially lower the price of gas6. I feel it quite dangerous to spend our emergency reserves to play politics and to simply cause slight effects on gas prices. Especially considering that most of the oil the US depends on is provided from countries that the US has strained ties with. If we were forced into a conflict with one of these countries we would not only lose that oil source but we would be forced to use more oil because of the military efforts (tanks, fighters, and battleships use a lot more gas when in war than they do when in storage). Therefore, our emergency reserves should be just that, reserved for an emergency.

2) My second complaint regarding these complainers concerns the War on Terror and the War in Iraq (trust me I separate them for good reason, more on that in another rant). An overwhelming majority of Americans and American leaders supported the Bush Administration when they decided to declare a War on Terror and A War on Iraq. I am not arguing that choice. I am asking, what did you expect? The War of Terror is a War that is predominantly focused on Muslim nations and more importantly oil abundant Muslim nations. The war on Iraq has led to fear and instability in the entire Middle East. How naive it would be to think the US could invade or at least threaten these countries and yet expect that the prices of an export that predominately comes from these countries remain unaffected.

3) My third insight comes from a practice that I partake in but I find few others do. I like to stop sometimes and ask, “What about the rest of the world?” On this topic I hear all of the American complaints about high gas prices. So I ask “what are gas prices around the world like?” Well please, have a look here, http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global_gasprices/price.html. All of a sudden these high gas prices in the US look pretty nice. England is paying ~$5.55 per gallon, German ~$5.29, Italy~ $4.86, and Japan ~$3.84. On the bright side, if you want cheaper gas prices you can always enjoy the standard of living in any of these resorts Thailand, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. They are all cheaper than the US average.

In conclusion, I feel that gasoline prices are not too high. They have been artificially low and now as they return to normal they seem high. The media sensationalizes this story reporting of record highs while knowing that the data they are reporting are nominal prices, which are misleading and blatantly false. I know many news channels are aware of this because I have emailed them and told them (believe it or not I have not gotten a response). Considering we are at War and sitting pretty sweet compared to the rest of the industrialized world, I think everyone should calm down, stop believing the hype of the media, and write me a thank you letter. After all, if gas prices were that high would you not expect more of an effect on travel?7

That’s why I’m fed up, why aren’t you?

(1)I called McDonalds
(2)http://www.fiftiesweb.com/pop/mcdonalds.htm
(3)http://www.usc.edu/schools/sppd/research/casden/research/data_folder/us_pcinc.pdf
(4)http://www.westegg.com/inflation/
(5)http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet
(6) http://www.iht.com/IHT/BK/00/bk092500a.html
(7) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/175364_memday28.html