josephcmiller2

Return of the Gatekeepers

2012-01-20T10:00:00.001-08:00

The entertainment companies will not stop until they have the power to shut down websites they don't like. Entertainment companies are running a failing business model and need a new way to prop it up. For 50 years TV companies could tell America what to watch and when to watch it. They reveled in that power.

You see, laws already exist to protect copyrighted content and have it permanently removed from websites. This new law is not designed to duplicate that. The new law would give the power to the entertainment companies to shut down entire websites instead of just removing any contested content. Why would they want to do this?

The big entertainment companies have lost control over what America watches because they are competing with a large volume of independently created content. They can't make you watch their content if you're watching something else.

When they have the power to shut down entertainment websites then they can use that leverage to force companies like YouTube into "profit-sharing agreements." These agreements will be not only to create new income streams but also to shape and manipulate what content is preferred and promoted without even having to pay for the advertising.

To bring it all home, the big picture here is not for the entertainment companies to control their own content but to control how and when and where you can access independently created content. This will return their status to the gatekeepers of American entertainment. Their purpose is to increase their own viewership with a business model mandated by the United States Government.

Homelessness in the US - 1 Million People

2011-10-09T08:20:00.000-07:00

I was shocked and taken aback when recently I heard that over 1 million Americans are homeless every year. The first time I heard it I didn't believe the number. But in recent weeks I've heard this number repeated over and over. How can the richest country in the world accept that a million people don't have a place the eat or sleep every day?

This number was unacceptable to me so I had to find more information. The National Coalition for the Homeless reports the number of people homeless at one time is around 750,000⁽¹⁾. No matter, three-quarters of a million people without a place to live is still gigantic.

The National Coalition for the Homeless details how it compiles the information it collects. Homelessness includes children who live in a house with another family, perhaps relatives or close friends⁽²⁾. The numbers also include children in the middle of a move from one place to another.

The National Coalition for the Homeless reports data from the Department of Education that 92% of children included in the homeless count lived either with family or friends, in motels or other housing, or in some kind of public or private shelter⁽¹⁾.

These numbers are quite encouraging. The vast majority of people who need help are receiving it. Their families and their communities are stepping up to the plate and reaching out to them. Many of these families are simply in transition while they are looking for more permanent housing. Very, very few people are actually sleeping in a car or on the street itself. We have not turned our back on those in need, even though there is always more we can do.

The National Coalition for the Homeless reports more than 30% of the counted homeless have some kind of substance abuse problem and 26% suffer from serious mental illness⁽²⁾. These are serious issues and there are a lot of outreach groups trying to help people who need it. Some of these groups report they need more financial assistance and cooperation from those who need help is also an obstacle. Many or most who are reported as chronically homeless, which is people who aren't simply in transitional or temporary housing but constantly find themselves in that position, have serious mental illness or drug addictions⁽³⁾. There is data that suggests more can be done to improve this and that interventions can effectively reduce these numbers.

We have government programs designed solely to help people obtain housing. One of the largest programs, HUD, has a stated mission to "create...quality affordable homes for all."⁽⁴⁾ With a budget of $50 billion⁽⁵⁾, I had a difficult time finding anything on their website that suggests they build any homes at all.

As a big fan of any organization that creates new things, I went to a proven organization with a track record of building homes, Habitat for Humanity. It's reported that Habitat for Humanity builds homes in the US for an average of $46,600⁽⁶⁾. At that price, if the entire budget of HUD for just one year were given to Habitat for Humanity, they could build 1.07 million homes and have 300,000 more homes than homeless individuals. Since many people classified homeless are families not individuals, and most people classified as homeless actually have a place to live, this would probably create nearly a million vacant homes.

So you can count every person in a given year who at one point or another is temporarily in the middle of a move or some kind of transition or even short-term in a shelter and come up with a staggering 3.5 million Americans with around 1 million children⁽¹⁾. Or you can realize that for most Americans needing help, their families and communities are reaching out to them and that an independent organization such as Habitat for Humanity can create far more homes than a government agency ever will.

Footnotes

I Donate to My Cause - Not Yours

2011-03-01T16:46:00.000-08:00

In the February 9, 2011 Standard Laconic, Pat Morgan argued that North Carolina should not deny government assistance to anyone testing positive for drugs. He argues that those receiving welfare benefits who are on drugs would be much worse off if they did not receive such benefits.

Helping those who are on drugs to better themselves is a noble cause and not one that I would tell anyone is unworthy. And if this is something Pat Morgan is passionate about, then he should support it vehemently. There are many causes that I am passionate about. I want to help the poor, families having trouble buying food, and those struggling in education.

Sadly, I have a limited budget, like most Americans. I can't donate nearly as much as I want to for these causes. Most of my donations end up going directly to my church, which has excellent programs to support many of these things that I care about.

But I never ask for government to make you donate to my causes. If the things that I am passionate about are justified, I may be able to make an argument to convince you to send a donation as well. But I would never ask anyone to make you donate to these things. Because if I make you donate to the things that I care about, then you may not be able to donate to the things that you care about.

This is the situation that Pat Morgan believes you should be in. He sees providing welfare for drug addicts as a better cause than any cause you currently support. He believes it so much that he wants the government to take from your limited budget and give it to this cause. It should supersede any other donations that you are making, enforceable through the tax code.

The assumption is also that whatever government assistance is provided is done so in an efficient way, without fraud, that will produce results. But a government program or a law is incapable of dealing with such a complex issue. No government program can determine if assistance is helpful or wasteful. Only people can do this. That's what makes voluntary donations so much more effective than mandatory donations. People can donate to the programs that they can see are obtaining the outcome that they most desire - not that Pat Morgan wants.

This is the problem with most government well-intentioned assistance programs. If Pat Morgan knows of some unlimited funding source, he should access this to support all of the causes that everyone cares about. Most families have to make a decision about what they will forgo in order to donate to the things that they value most. But any government social program removes some money from all of our budgets, leaving the things we care about hanging.

Don Davis Sues Campaign? or Voters?

2011-02-21T08:14:00.000-08:00

You all voted wrong, you just don’t know it yet. Well, that’s what Don Davis is trying to say. You see, when you lose an election in your district for the State Senate seat 45% to 55%, it obviously means that your constituents just didn’t know how to vote properly. Don Davis has done a lot of hard work get to the State Senate and he obviously deserves the position, whether the voters think so or not. Former Senator Don Davis is so serious about this charge, he wants a court to declare that indeed you did vote the wrong way.

The 2008 election was to bring a shiny New Economy and retire our broken system that led us into a deep recession. 2 years later, people don’t seem to be doing any better than they were before and many are worse. That’s explanation enough for the 2010 election. The people tired of business as usual, and the Democrats got shellacked. Don Davis would have been better off running as an Independent than a Democrat.

It still wouldn’t have mattered. Don Davis’ ideology was just too different for the 2010 mood. He’s in favor of a lot of government intervention including everything from plastic bags at certain stores to outdoor time at child care centers to making the state fund local political campaigns. This may have sounded good to people in 2008, but today it strikes a raw spot.

Half of the election mood was soreness over Obamacare. Many people probably don’t know Davis’ position on this, but since he’s a Democrat, he gets blamed anyways. I asked him about his position on this at a Meet and Greet event in Hookerton before the election. I wanted to know why North Carolina hasn’t joined the other 26 states suing to stop Obamacare. He answered that he thought Obamacare would be good for some people and anyways it’s up to Attorney General Roy Cooper to file any lawsuits. And I answered, “But you’re my representative. What are you going to do?” Sometimes I think candidates forget that they represent their constituents and not the Democrat or Republican parties.

According to reports, the lawsuit is complaining that Louis Pate’s advertising stated that it was paid for by Pate and alleges that some of it was paid for by the Republican Party. As if anyone can tell the difference? Most people in Greene County have never even heard of Pate. They didn’t vote for him because he bought ice cream for his grand children or even because he was a republican, he won because he was not a democratic incumbent. Adding the word Republican all over his campaign messages probably would only have helped him gain a better advantage. The painful truth is that Don Davis’ base didn’t see anything worth turning out to vote for, and anyone in the middle easily swung to the Republicans. The message that the American people have received over the last two years is that while many Republicans may not be right of center, practically all Democrats at the state and federal level are surely left of center.

Ultimately, Don Davis is acting like a sore loser and the role is well beneath him. Sometimes voters do make mistakes. Many voters have claimed they made mistakes in the 2008 elections. That’s why in the United States of America, we have regular elections. If the voters did make a mistake in 2010, it’s no big deal. Don Davis just needs to come out swinging in a couple more years and he’ll regain his former position.

Really, what troubles me about Don Davis is not the 2008 or the 2010 elections. We live in an area that is one of the poorest in the state. Don Davis has achieved success much greater than a large portion of our community. I don’t begrudge any of this against Mr. Davis, I congratulate him. I really think Don Davis has a lot to offer our local community on a more personal level by helping those less fortunate to one day rise above and enjoy the same kind of success that he has experienced. He can implement of bunch of state programs as a Senator, but this can never come close to the impact of one-on-one work with the actual people. I would go so far as to say that this would be a greater position of honor and dignity. I’m sure that Don Davis is quite capable of providing the kind of leadership our community certainly needs.

Perdue's Budget Cuts Teacher Jobs

2011-02-17T12:34:00.001-08:00

Governor Bev Perdue's proposed budget will eliminate teacher jobs by forcing cuts at the County level, avoiding having her name associated with these job losses.

Governor Bev Perdues proposed budget takes serious fiscal action to correct North Carolina's projected deficit, which is what is needed to correct our state's more than $2 billion budget shortfall.Governor Perdue has promised not to teacher jobs or teacher assistants in her plan. However, she has moved some education costs such as buying school buses and workers compensation to the Counties so the state won't have to pay this any more. This will almost certainly result in lost teachers' jobs but Perdue would be able to blame the Counties and claim immunity.

The education portion of the budget is about 21% so it seems almost certain that education budgets must be cut to balance it. However, today in the news are protests in Wisconsin over teacher jobs that are scaring politicians across the country. Ultimately, Governor Perdue just doesn't have the courage to put her name on the teacher job cuts she knows are coming.

The budget proposed by Governor Perdue is ultimately a bill that will cut teacher jobs, but Perdue can blame the Counties and attempt to save her political image. This plan is likely to raise a stink in each of our 100 Counties and leave Governor Perdue smelling like a rose.

What is a Free Market?

2010-11-21T17:22:00.000-08:00

I recently read an opinion article that included description of a free market, and I was quite shocked. It explained that a free market would make a person “responsible for building and maintaining his own roads” and “dig [his] own well and septic tank as well as build [his] own personal wind turbine to produce [his] own electricity.” I don't think anyone could be in favor of a market that was basically every man for himself. But this depiction doesn't describe anything that has to do with a free market.

Any market is made up of individuals interacting with each other and making choices. Often we talk about a market as some sort of entity of its down driving around willy-nilly and sometimes causing mayhem. But there is no such animal. That would be like saying if you live in North Carolina then there is only one way of life or one way of thinking. Our market is actually millions of people working together to find the best way to get what they want by giving something to someone else.

Wait – How can a market function with everyone running around just trying to get what they want? Well, most people realize that whether you pay for something with taxes or if you purchase it from a business, there is no such thing as a free lunch. This is what drives someone to open a burger restaurant or start a car wash or just provide their labor as an employee so that they can provide a product or service to others. In turn, they will receive compensation in the form of money that they can use to get what they want. It takes some people longer than others to figure it out, but eventually most people realize that the best way to get what you want is by giving.

When buying gasoline, most people choose a station that gives them the best price. But when buying a steak, most people buy from whoever is giving the better quality. When people work at a job that they enjoy and that pays them well, they give more of their attention and dedication to their employer. McDonald's isn't the most successful fast food chain because they take more of your money, they're more successful because they give the most convenience and consistency. When you purchase a Big Mac, they are required to give you a burger, the convenience and the consistency are given freely.

What does this have to do with a free market? Let's contrast the opposite – a restricted market. In a restricted market, the spirit of giving is removed. For example, in the hotly-contested Obamacare bill, health insurance companies are required to allow a child up to 26 years old to ride on their parents' policy. There is no spirit of giving in such a requirement, but you will pay for it with either taxes or premiums, whether you have any children or not. This is an example of taking, not giving and it is a very clear difference.

Free should not be confused with anarchist. Government is desirable and necessary in any market. A well-functioning government provides a guarantee of safety and penalty for fraud. Most countries rife with poverty are home to violence, corruption, or both. No matter how much the governments of these countries try to manage their markets and monetary policy, their conditions will never improve until they are strong enough to rid themselves of violence and corruption.

Believing in the free market is the recognition that anything worth having is worth earning. It is also the understanding that the best way to earn something is to give of yourself first, and then you can receive, and often more than you have given.

License Plate Agency: A Happy Place

2010-10-19T11:22:00.000-07:00

As I approached the counter to renew my tags for this year, the woman on the other side greeted me with an unfeeling, blank stare. She asked if she could help me with about as much enthusiasm as someone asking to be poked in the eye. While handing over some papers, I explained that I needed to renew my tags. She began clicking away at her keyboard and staring into her monitor, but there was still no human reaction from her whatsoever. She turned from her computer and looked upon me with disdain. “You need to have an inspection first. Number four,” she scolded while pointing to the rules. After handing over my inspection papers, she explained that my VIN number had been recorded incorrectly and that the inspection papers would need to be fixed first. I thanked her and walked away.

As I headed toward the inspection station, I pondered why this woman had treated me so coldly. After all, she is basically doing government work. Aren't we told that the government wants to help us? Why didn't this woman seem enthusiastic to help me at all? Doesn't she have a good job? Shouldn't she be living a happy life, doing the government's work? Being a good person? What was wrong here? Even though this particular office is contracted out, it is far from the model of a free-market enterprise. Regulations are strictly in force for their operations, many details dictated by the state. Perhaps the woman had dealt with many unhappy, demanding, frustrating customers earlier that day. There was no one in line when I arrived, but maybe earlier she'd had some unhappy customers. Why should the government have any unhappy customers? Isn't all this license plate renewal stuff supposed to be good for the citizens, in our best interest? What is there to be unhappy about it?

I honestly don't understand it. Here is a woman doing the government's work, sitting in the same place for eight hours a day, five days a week, pushing the same buttons on the same computer. And this woman makes no particular effort to care about me at all, and treats me like an idiot. I could teach my five year old daughter how to do her job. A complete moron could do her job. But there she sits with her government rulebook full of regulations as proof of her superiority. And these regulations are her only concern. No concern for me as a driver, for the safety-readiness of my vehicle, or for me as a customer. What private business in their right mind would turn me away because I misspelled my name? But if I leave one number out of what is obviously the VIN to my car, it is rejected.

After some careful thought, I realized that I am completely wrong about all of this. This woman wasn't cold or disdainful. It was me, projecting my Tea Party feelings of frustration and anger on her. As a conservative I'm just so full of hate that I can't see anything else. This woman obviously has the perfect job which keeps her content. She serves many happy citizens every day because as we all know, the government exists to make us happy.

Government is a great health care administrator

2010-03-07T11:38:00.000-08:00

America: Choice is Freedom

2010-01-30T08:32:00.000-08:00

In 1776, Thomas Jefferson and our other forefathers produced the Declaration of Independence, the foundation of our country, our freedom, and our Choice. As a free nation, we declared certain truths to be self-evident and of the natural order, that we have the inalienable Choice of our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This Choice is what defines American freedom. The Choice of the People is above the choice of any government. The American Government was created to "provide new Guards for [our Choices'] future security." The existence of a government is to solely provide this security, the Choice of the individual People.

It is our Bill of Rights which spells out in detail this right to Choice. The rights of the People guaranteed, apart from the responsibilities given the Government in the rest of the Constitution. This Bill of Rights guarantees us the choice to our faith, the choice to our speech, the choice to press and publication. The People are given the right of choice to bear arms, so that we may provide our own protection to our Life and our Liberty. This freedom of Choice is to be free from hindrance of our Government, so we are guaranteed due process and protection against unreasonable searches and self-incrimination. And the rights not specifically given to our national Government are reserved for our States and our People.

These freedoms are Choices. We have the freedom to speak, but we are not required to do so. We have the freedom to arm ourselves, but we are not required to carry a gun. Our Government provides protection for these choices through our many laws. The idea is that these Choices will be protected, except where they may infringe upon the Choices of other People. The freedom to choose is of the Natural Law. It is self-evident regardless of political persuasion or religious ideals.

It is these Choices that we the People wish to protect. It is when these choices are disregarded or diminished that we, the People, become most angry.

It is widely accepted that the American health care system needs quite a bit of work. But the causes, extent of the problems, and how to address these problems make for extremely polarizing debate. Most Americans welcome the benefits of the reform that is currently being debated. Provide a way to insure those with pre-existing conditions. Prevent insurance companies from dropping coverage at will. Limit health expenses and reduce costs. Provide easier, more affordable ways to get health insurance. Change the medical environment that encourages cost explosion. Who wouldn't want these things? Why are half of Americans against these changes for their own benefit?

In our current system, we do not have a lot of choice over our own health care. It is the insurance companies' choice if we get coverage and how much we get. It is the health providers' choice how much it will cost. It is our government's choice how the insurance companies and the health providers operate and in which States. These are the things which we reject. These are the things that must change. Choice must be returned to the People.

With the plan presented by the Congress, this choice has been reduced, ignored, even trampled upon. Politicians are having a hard time giving benefits away, and many do not understand why. We the People demand the Choice, it is our right and our freedom. For anyone else, including (or especially) the Government to take the choice away from the health care system, only to give it to themselves instead of the People, is a violation of our Declaration of Independence and our Bill of Rights. When the Government is ready to return the Choice to the People, they will have my full support, and the support of many others.

Note: For those who thought that this would be an article about abortion, I want to address the confusion about abortion and choice. Let me be clear. Abortion is the complete negative, the opposite of choice. For 92% of women who have abortions, it was their choices which led to their pregnancy. The science that a baby not yet born is in fact a living, unique person, with their own DNA, is indisputable. For the other 8% of women who were victims of rape, incest, or health conditions, it was not their choice to be in their position. That choice was removed from them and it is a grievous evil. It was also not their child's choice to be created, that opportunity is not provided to any of us. But to remove the choice of life from a living child is also a wrong, against the Natural Law, which cannot make up for any other wrong. For this reason it is important that all of us do whatever we can to help those women around us who are in desperate need. These are not problems which can be solved by laws or governments, but by People.

It's a good thing Ruby Tuesday has a salad bar

2009-08-12T17:12:00.000-07:00

It really does look pathetic sitting on the plate. It's falling halfway off the bun, and the lonely potato is missing the necessary butter and sour cream. I hold my breath and check it, but no luck. Without the ketchup I ordered. I mull over the dim lighting, the soft colors in the wannabe elegant decor. Surely this burger isn't special enough to not need ketchup.

2 minutes later we get a spoon (for my wife) and an apology that the condiments will be coming. Three bites of food already down the hatch, but the server has left to drop off condiments to another booth. After several more apologies in passing, finally some ketchup. But what will I put it on? After all this time the cheeseburger is no more.

The server reappears, apologizing that he had to take care of a party that walked in. Fine. Since the party is so important, I told him that they could leave him a tip, but I wouldn't. And I signed the receipt in front of him. The kitchen staff that dropped off the plate was right on when he explained, "More food."