At the bottom of this article I've placed a link to a youtube video featuring Sheldon Schafer going over why he's qualified to represent us. Notably, he mentions his scientific background quite a bit.
He mentions that he, as a scientist among other reasons, is qualified to evaluate good science vs. bad science and the issues that in our modern era need a scientist to understand the complexities present therein.
It turns out, I learned first hand why this is important.
As a conservative, I tend to lean towards having the government not branch too far into some things. One thing that had been (only slightly) troubling me was why was the government getting involved in the HDTV broadcast mandate. After February 19, 2009, full-power television stations in the USA will broadcast in digital only (source).
So I brought this up with Sheldon, and his first question/statement to me was "Surely, the government should regulate the electro-magnetic spectrum." ...and he's right ...the importance of the electro-magnetic spectrum cannot be overstated ...and further, since we have a finite number of frequencies available, we need regulation to ensure the public's right to the public airwaves. If the government didn't regulate this, we wouldn't get to enjoy our modern conveniences like TV, radio, cordless phones, wireless internet and cel. phones. Without regulation the frequencies these things operate on would be a wash with garbage. So, like roads, rivers and airways, these things need regulation.
This was something I already knew to be true, but conceded, that yes, in fact, the government should be able to regulate these things. So, there was no conflict, just a "why bother" question left in my head.
So, then he goes on to tell me something I didn't know, and have verified with an acquaintance of mine at a television studio. Watt for watt, digital broadcast is more energy efficient. My source at the television station told me that their amplifier (before gain produced by the antenna array) is designed to output between 50-100 kilowatts, and broadcasting that strength digitally saves between 75 and 100 kilowatt hours per month. As of now, the mandated date only applies to full power stations at this time ...these number at around 1800. (the 7,100 low power and Class A stations are being encouraged to convert, but have no mandated date at this time) Also of note, the station my acquaintance works for is a low power full-power station ...full power UHF goes all the way to 5.5 megawatts worth of broadcasting power. I have tried and failed to find the average broadcasting power across these 1800 stations, so let's assume that the average is the median of 2.7 mega watts, meaning their savings (if all other variables, and there are a lot of them, are equal) would be 2,700 kilowatt hours a month across the country.
To put it into perspective, I calculated the cost of the last 100 kilowatt hours I purchased, and came up with roughly $380. So, using my many assumptions, this mandate conserves $120,000 worth of energy a year out of the gate. If I get more aggressive with my assumptions, that figure becomes a quarter of a million dollars of conserved energy a year just for the 1,800 full power stations ...it is not inconceivable that down the road, once all stations convert it could be up to half a million dollars worth of savings EACH YEAR ...or in terms of kilowatt hours, over 130,000 kilowatt hours of energy savings.
The FCC is doing a good job of letting us know about the multicasting abilities available in digital broadcast as well as the fact that the frequencies that they are, in a sense, getting back from analog broadcast can be appropriated to civil services. But short of having a source at the television studio, or an extreme level of knowledge regarding how broadcasting works, you can't find information on the net about this energy savings. The FCC Digital TV Consumer Facts Page
...but Sheldon knew. ...right there on the spot, he told me about the energy savings ...which is a good thing for all of us ...not wasting our resources.
...to sum up, he's a scientist who knew on the spot the subtle details of this mandate ...so when similar things come up in Congress in the future, wouldn't it be great if we had a scientist there who knew all about it and could vote based on sound reasoning, not what his donors are telling him to do?
Sheldon's Video
Note that the numbers I used are extrapolated from what little data I had readily available …there are many factors that go into broadcast power, including the initial amplifier signal and the gain produced in antenna arrays, and the Quality of Service (QoS) and Effective Radiated Power (ERP) (which are products of the former variables). Further, the dollar figures are based on consumer pricing in today’s dollars, so are likely to be slightly different for commerce and in the years down the road.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Goliath takes a note from David
I'm taking a quick break before my second post related to David Cay Johnston's work to interject at least a couple of other things while I finish my research for that.
So in the meantime...
Ok, I've noticed a couple of things while tracking this congressional race.
First, Colleen Callahan, the democratic candidate, from the outset has been using green as her primary advertising color. Could it be that she was aware of the growing movements collectively referred to as "green"? Things like alternative energy, recycling, conservation, climate change concerns, etc... Could it be that she knows there is growing public concern in these areas and she wanted to align herself with that concern in the voters' subconscious? It's at least a possibility.
Second, Aaron Schock, the republican candidate, just recently hit the airwaves with a new advertisement promoting his energy position. In this ad, he is seen numerous times walking in front of giant wind turbines. Clearly, in his case, he's very upfront about appealing to the public concerns here.
My point is not to deride these two for being conscious of this. Not at all. I support a candidate who is very conscious of this and has it as one of his key campaign points.
My point is that we've had someone all along who has known about everything green ...I mean, he is after all, running as a candidate for the Green Party. Schafer has been promoting alternative energy so much so that the photo on his most printed piece has him in front of ...you guessed it... a giant wind turbine. This piece has been in circulation for months.
Is it possible that Schock took a note from Schafer? Definitely possible, at least.
Perhaps we should think for a moment about what it means if the candidates of the two big parties are taking notes from the underdog. Maybe it means the underdog knows what the voters' concerns are ...and has all along. Maybe it means the underdog is a LEADER with VISION even to his opponents. Maybe it means the underdog is the guy we want representing us.
Would you rather have a candidate who figured out what "plays", or a representative who already KNEW and is in it for more than the "play"?
So in the meantime...
Ok, I've noticed a couple of things while tracking this congressional race.
First, Colleen Callahan, the democratic candidate, from the outset has been using green as her primary advertising color. Could it be that she was aware of the growing movements collectively referred to as "green"? Things like alternative energy, recycling, conservation, climate change concerns, etc... Could it be that she knows there is growing public concern in these areas and she wanted to align herself with that concern in the voters' subconscious? It's at least a possibility.
Second, Aaron Schock, the republican candidate, just recently hit the airwaves with a new advertisement promoting his energy position. In this ad, he is seen numerous times walking in front of giant wind turbines. Clearly, in his case, he's very upfront about appealing to the public concerns here.
My point is not to deride these two for being conscious of this. Not at all. I support a candidate who is very conscious of this and has it as one of his key campaign points.
My point is that we've had someone all along who has known about everything green ...I mean, he is after all, running as a candidate for the Green Party. Schafer has been promoting alternative energy so much so that the photo on his most printed piece has him in front of ...you guessed it... a giant wind turbine. This piece has been in circulation for months.
Is it possible that Schock took a note from Schafer? Definitely possible, at least.
Perhaps we should think for a moment about what it means if the candidates of the two big parties are taking notes from the underdog. Maybe it means the underdog knows what the voters' concerns are ...and has all along. Maybe it means the underdog is a LEADER with VISION even to his opponents. Maybe it means the underdog is the guy we want representing us.
Would you rather have a candidate who figured out what "plays", or a representative who already KNEW and is in it for more than the "play"?
Monday, September 15, 2008
A "present" that's not for you
It's important that we get to know where our potential congress people will fall on the "big" items like abortion, gun control, the death penalty, and universal health care, to name a few. These are all big deals to most of us and we have some pretty strong feelings on. The truth is though, that while important, the votes our congress people will cast on those "big" issues are actually in the minority ...when was the last time abortion or the death penalty was voted on at the congressional level?
Today, I want to address the things that go under the radar, the stuff Congress spends most of their time voting on. Last week, the House voted 25 times, 15 of which were on the passage of various bills, and a couple more on addendums to bills.(source) Not one of these were what I would characterize as "big" issues. ...and there in lies the story.
Have you ever heard the term "Christmas Tree Bill" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill)? It refers to the process of tacking on a bunch of (often unrelated to the main bill) addendums where the main bill is the Christmas Tree and the addendums are a bunch of little "presents" that the congress people give away to the special interests. You see, when a congress person gets campaign contributions, they come with strings attached ...not formally, but the unspoken rule is that the heaviest contributors get more face time with their representatives to push their agendas.
David Cay Johnston (author and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter) calls these people the "political donor class". The class of people who basically decide who gets into congress via their campaign donations. They in turn expect to be heard and get their interests represented in the occasional "present" under a Christmas tree bill. It should not surprise you that the political donor class is among the richest in the US. And chances are their interests are likely aligned with making them richer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, but only on a level playing field ...the playing field is no longer level and we have our Congress to thank for that. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005 the top 1% richest Americans got richer (yearly income) at an average of 209%, the top .01% richer by 650%, and the lower 90% of Americans (you, me, Sheldon, and most of us) actually got poorer by 3%. (Johnston, 2007, p.276).
Another staggering statistic is that Warren Buffett, now the richest man in the US, pays a lesser percentage of income tax than his secretary.(source) Again, we have the law to thank for making this possible. (and who writes the laws?)
EDIT: Just found out Bill Gates is back on top ...apparently shares of Berkshire Hathaway (this *basically* is Warren Buffett derives his wealth) have fallen 15% since February.
These things are possible, at least in part due to those "presents" to special interest groups. Remember Enron? There was a quagmire of bills (state and national), including one in Texas that passed there 142-4 (showing that both republicans and democrats are in on this) that made that all possible. To get the full story read chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch". Enron was masterful in getting Free Lunches from the government that allowed them to just shy of actually write the laws themselves. And in the following year, the average cost of a kilowatt on the west coast went from $30 to $600 ...wrecking many peoples' lives ...then when the company went bust, more lives, so many lives of the lower level employees who had their retirement locked up in Enron, and then all the investors.
I call out the Enron debacle because we've all heard about it, and it eventually fell apart (publicly). But they aren't the only ones, not by a long shot.
Among several others, there are two big classes of "presents" these special interest groups seek. The first class is around bending/breaking/eliminating certain taxes, which sounds good but usually benefits the interest group while shifting the burden on to the public ...I might have to write an entire post about this class alone. The second class is the "privatizing" class ...an example above is the Enron case where they "privatized" the electric utility. All "privatizing" does in these cases is remove laws and regulations that allow them to charge whatever they want ...again I have to suggest reading chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch" to get a grip on the cases where market rules work in the opposite direction (like utilities and health care).
Again, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, and love how the market works ...when it's allowed to work that is. Every time a law is written to help the market do it's job, the truth is it helps someone beat the market. Adam Smith says (paraphrasing) that the (truly free) market will set the lowest price possible that keeps the business in business. If a special interest group is lobbying for something in the law, like privatization of some scarce resource, chances are this is a case where the market would work in their favor. After all, they wouldn't want to pass law that lowers their prices (and thus profits) would they? Honestly.
Getting back to my point, I'd like to remind you that this is the stuff our congress people spend most of their time voting on. They are, for all intents and purposes, paid to advance the interests of their political donors. This is yet another good reason to vote for an independent/third party candidate. Such candidates are gonna come with quite a bit less baggage and commitment to vote for these special interest groups. A candidate (like Schafer) who accepts no donations from any special interest group or company is going to be free to vote for the PEOPLE he represents, not the $2,000,000 worth of favors owed to the political donors.
As I wrap this up, I want to mention (again) David Cay Johnston. He's no conspiracy-cook. He's a Pulitzer Prize winner, New York Times bestseller, and investigative journalist for the New York Times. Pretty much all of my info for this post comes from his book "Free Lunch". I have also recently read his "Perfectly Legal" and will quote from that to show you how the donor class is cheating the rest of us via taxes on my next post.
I know for a fact Sheldon has read both of these books. He can quote from them. Again, as evidenced by this, Sheldon is here for US, the PEOPLE. We need to stop the tilting of the playing field to the super rich and the corporations. And Sheldon understands how it's being done, and owes no favors to those who would see it continue happening.
I'd like to close with a quote from "Free Lunch": "We need to vote out officials, even ones we like for some emotional reason, when they work against our interests."
Further Reading:
"Perfectly Legal" David Cay Johnston
"Free Lunch" David Cay Johnston
My favorites from "Free Lunch":
Chapter 14 - about stickin' to people with school loans
Chapter 15 - about stickin' to people with home loans
Chs. 17-19 - about stickin' to people who use utilities (everyone)
pp.240-242 - about corruption in congress
Today, I want to address the things that go under the radar, the stuff Congress spends most of their time voting on. Last week, the House voted 25 times, 15 of which were on the passage of various bills, and a couple more on addendums to bills.(source) Not one of these were what I would characterize as "big" issues. ...and there in lies the story.
Have you ever heard the term "Christmas Tree Bill" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_tree_bill)? It refers to the process of tacking on a bunch of (often unrelated to the main bill) addendums where the main bill is the Christmas Tree and the addendums are a bunch of little "presents" that the congress people give away to the special interests. You see, when a congress person gets campaign contributions, they come with strings attached ...not formally, but the unspoken rule is that the heaviest contributors get more face time with their representatives to push their agendas.
David Cay Johnston (author and Pulitzer Prize winning investigative reporter) calls these people the "political donor class". The class of people who basically decide who gets into congress via their campaign donations. They in turn expect to be heard and get their interests represented in the occasional "present" under a Christmas tree bill. It should not surprise you that the political donor class is among the richest in the US. And chances are their interests are likely aligned with making them richer. Don't get me wrong, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, but only on a level playing field ...the playing field is no longer level and we have our Congress to thank for that. In the 30 years between 1975 and 2005 the top 1% richest Americans got richer (yearly income) at an average of 209%, the top .01% richer by 650%, and the lower 90% of Americans (you, me, Sheldon, and most of us) actually got poorer by 3%. (Johnston, 2007, p.276).
Another staggering statistic is that Warren Buffett, now the richest man in the US, pays a lesser percentage of income tax than his secretary.(source) Again, we have the law to thank for making this possible. (and who writes the laws?)
EDIT: Just found out Bill Gates is back on top ...apparently shares of Berkshire Hathaway (this *basically* is Warren Buffett derives his wealth) have fallen 15% since February.
These things are possible, at least in part due to those "presents" to special interest groups. Remember Enron? There was a quagmire of bills (state and national), including one in Texas that passed there 142-4 (showing that both republicans and democrats are in on this) that made that all possible. To get the full story read chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch". Enron was masterful in getting Free Lunches from the government that allowed them to just shy of actually write the laws themselves. And in the following year, the average cost of a kilowatt on the west coast went from $30 to $600 ...wrecking many peoples' lives ...then when the company went bust, more lives, so many lives of the lower level employees who had their retirement locked up in Enron, and then all the investors.
I call out the Enron debacle because we've all heard about it, and it eventually fell apart (publicly). But they aren't the only ones, not by a long shot.
Among several others, there are two big classes of "presents" these special interest groups seek. The first class is around bending/breaking/eliminating certain taxes, which sounds good but usually benefits the interest group while shifting the burden on to the public ...I might have to write an entire post about this class alone. The second class is the "privatizing" class ...an example above is the Enron case where they "privatized" the electric utility. All "privatizing" does in these cases is remove laws and regulations that allow them to charge whatever they want ...again I have to suggest reading chapters 17-19 in "Free Lunch" to get a grip on the cases where market rules work in the opposite direction (like utilities and health care).
Again, I'm all "yey capitalism" and such, and love how the market works ...when it's allowed to work that is. Every time a law is written to help the market do it's job, the truth is it helps someone beat the market. Adam Smith says (paraphrasing) that the (truly free) market will set the lowest price possible that keeps the business in business. If a special interest group is lobbying for something in the law, like privatization of some scarce resource, chances are this is a case where the market would work in their favor. After all, they wouldn't want to pass law that lowers their prices (and thus profits) would they? Honestly.
Getting back to my point, I'd like to remind you that this is the stuff our congress people spend most of their time voting on. They are, for all intents and purposes, paid to advance the interests of their political donors. This is yet another good reason to vote for an independent/third party candidate. Such candidates are gonna come with quite a bit less baggage and commitment to vote for these special interest groups. A candidate (like Schafer) who accepts no donations from any special interest group or company is going to be free to vote for the PEOPLE he represents, not the $2,000,000 worth of favors owed to the political donors.
As I wrap this up, I want to mention (again) David Cay Johnston. He's no conspiracy-cook. He's a Pulitzer Prize winner, New York Times bestseller, and investigative journalist for the New York Times. Pretty much all of my info for this post comes from his book "Free Lunch". I have also recently read his "Perfectly Legal" and will quote from that to show you how the donor class is cheating the rest of us via taxes on my next post.
I know for a fact Sheldon has read both of these books. He can quote from them. Again, as evidenced by this, Sheldon is here for US, the PEOPLE. We need to stop the tilting of the playing field to the super rich and the corporations. And Sheldon understands how it's being done, and owes no favors to those who would see it continue happening.
I'd like to close with a quote from "Free Lunch": "We need to vote out officials, even ones we like for some emotional reason, when they work against our interests."
Further Reading:
"Perfectly Legal" David Cay Johnston
"Free Lunch" David Cay Johnston
My favorites from "Free Lunch":
Chapter 14 - about stickin' to people with school loans
Chapter 15 - about stickin' to people with home loans
Chs. 17-19 - about stickin' to people who use utilities (everyone)
pp.240-242 - about corruption in congress
Friday, September 5, 2008
What makes a qualified representative?
There are several pre-requisites for being a member of the house of representatives(source).
The individual must have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years. They must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.
And lastly, (firstly in the constitution, lastly in my order), minimum age: 25.
This is the way the law is written and thus should be applied (in other words I'm not advocating changing it or anything). However, I think we should at least take a look at the spirit of the law for our own knowledge sake. First, the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Average life expectancy was actually tiny then compared to today's standards. The CDC doesn't have data for average life expectancy prior to 1900, so let's make the faulty assumption that life expectancy raised not one bit in the 112 years between the ratifying of the constituion and the CDC's first data. ...in 1900 the average life expectancy was 47.3 years of age from birth(source). ...again we're making a faulty assumption, and it may have been lower. But my point is this ...in 1788, 25 was over the hill ...or at the very least considered very mature ...times have changed and a 25 year old sometimes isn't even out of college yet ...or maybe held a job for a year or two ... also, keep in mind, the 25 year requirement was the lowest they put in the document.
...this is not an age discrimination piece, my point is as follows:
The framers wisely knew that we needed experienced individuals making the decisions for this country ...people who have lived their life as a citizen and in their wiser years use that wisdom as a service to their country. I think it's no coincidence that those great early years of our country knew no lifelong politicians ...they knew citizens who knew life as a citizen and who then went on and served their country.
Let me sum up the last paragraph just a bit more succinctly. Be skeptical of the person who seeks being a politician as their career. Look for someone who seeks their office to serve their country after being an average citizen (like YOU and ME) for their entire career. These people, naturally, will represent us better.
And once again, Sheldon Schafer, comes out shining from this point of view:
First, Sheldon is no spring chicken (sorry Sheldon). But this is a GOOD thing. We don't want naivete, we want wisdom (the type that comes from being around on this planet for awhile).
He has spent 35 years as an educator ...he has taught over half a million students in that time. He spent a couple years in the US Peace Corps. He has gone to Haiti for mission work ...the conditions in Haiti, btw, are horrible, thus his trip, he felt a need to serve his fellow humans who hadn't been as lucky as him. And a number of community volunteer tasks that I know exist, but lack the details for at the time of this writing.
This is the description of a man who, dare I say it, ENJOYS serving his country and the people (read: YOU and ME) that he represents.
And one last point before I let you go. There is an implicit requirement of all elected officials for this country. That requirement is the requirement of being INCORRUPTIBLE. Lifelong politicians are not known for this trait. Someone who is making their living from being a politician is going to be more open to this by the very nature of the need to feed themselves. Those who would seek to corrupt (whether those would be individuals or faceless properties of a system) will have a hard time doing so to a man who has already made his living.
...for crying out loud, Sheldon Schafer is essentially, instead of retiring after a lifetime of service, going on to want to serve MORE ...think about it ...this ought to make his intentions clear to us ...he wants to SERVE this COUNTRY and YOU and ME.
The individual must have been a citizen of the United States for the past seven years. They must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they represent.
And lastly, (firstly in the constitution, lastly in my order), minimum age: 25.
This is the way the law is written and thus should be applied (in other words I'm not advocating changing it or anything). However, I think we should at least take a look at the spirit of the law for our own knowledge sake. First, the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. Average life expectancy was actually tiny then compared to today's standards. The CDC doesn't have data for average life expectancy prior to 1900, so let's make the faulty assumption that life expectancy raised not one bit in the 112 years between the ratifying of the constituion and the CDC's first data. ...in 1900 the average life expectancy was 47.3 years of age from birth(source). ...again we're making a faulty assumption, and it may have been lower. But my point is this ...in 1788, 25 was over the hill ...or at the very least considered very mature ...times have changed and a 25 year old sometimes isn't even out of college yet ...or maybe held a job for a year or two ... also, keep in mind, the 25 year requirement was the lowest they put in the document.
...this is not an age discrimination piece, my point is as follows:
The framers wisely knew that we needed experienced individuals making the decisions for this country ...people who have lived their life as a citizen and in their wiser years use that wisdom as a service to their country. I think it's no coincidence that those great early years of our country knew no lifelong politicians ...they knew citizens who knew life as a citizen and who then went on and served their country.
Let me sum up the last paragraph just a bit more succinctly. Be skeptical of the person who seeks being a politician as their career. Look for someone who seeks their office to serve their country after being an average citizen (like YOU and ME) for their entire career. These people, naturally, will represent us better.
And once again, Sheldon Schafer, comes out shining from this point of view:
First, Sheldon is no spring chicken (sorry Sheldon). But this is a GOOD thing. We don't want naivete, we want wisdom (the type that comes from being around on this planet for awhile).
He has spent 35 years as an educator ...he has taught over half a million students in that time. He spent a couple years in the US Peace Corps. He has gone to Haiti for mission work ...the conditions in Haiti, btw, are horrible, thus his trip, he felt a need to serve his fellow humans who hadn't been as lucky as him. And a number of community volunteer tasks that I know exist, but lack the details for at the time of this writing.
This is the description of a man who, dare I say it, ENJOYS serving his country and the people (read: YOU and ME) that he represents.
And one last point before I let you go. There is an implicit requirement of all elected officials for this country. That requirement is the requirement of being INCORRUPTIBLE. Lifelong politicians are not known for this trait. Someone who is making their living from being a politician is going to be more open to this by the very nature of the need to feed themselves. Those who would seek to corrupt (whether those would be individuals or faceless properties of a system) will have a hard time doing so to a man who has already made his living.
...for crying out loud, Sheldon Schafer is essentially, instead of retiring after a lifetime of service, going on to want to serve MORE ...think about it ...this ought to make his intentions clear to us ...he wants to SERVE this COUNTRY and YOU and ME.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
