Welcome To Josh's Blog O' Thoughts: Politics

If you haven’t heard about the transition to Digital Television (DTV) by now, you've been living under a rock for the past couple years. My previous article, The Easy Guide To The Digital TV (DTV) Switchover explains what the transition is all about. If you are unsure about what the transition is, or how it affects you, you need to read that article.

Previously, the FCC and congress had mandated that all analog TV transmissions cease on February 17, 2009. At that point, people who were receiving analog transmissions over the air and had not appropriately prepared for the transition would lose television service. The hard cutoff date had also forced TV stations to prepare for the transition as well.

However, a bill recently passed (February 4, 2009) by both the Senate and the House will push the hard cutoff date back to June 12, 2009. The bill is currently awaiting the President's signature, but since he introduced the bill, it's almost certain that he will sign it. The thought process behind the bill is that the additional time will allow the remaining people to become prepared for the transition. Well I've got news for them: it's not going to work.

The Nielsen group estimates that there are still over 6 million people watching analog TV. Will this additional time get these people prepared? Probably a few, but in the end, it doesn't matter what date you pick for the cutoff, there are going to be people that are just not prepared. To be honest, with all the warning messages circulating around, if these people haven't prepared by now, they probably don't plan on becoming prepared by June either. Maybe they don't watch that much TV or they just don't care. Doesn't really matter what the reason is, there will still be lots of people unprepared in June.

You might be thinking: "This is great! I'm not prepared yet and now I have an extension!" Wrong! While the new bill does delay the hard cutoff date to June 12, the revised version of the bill (the version that passed) includes a provision stating that any local broadcaster that is fully prepared for the transition may shut down their analog signal BEFORE June 12! I can't imagine that there are many stations that aren't prepared already since they have been operating under the assumption that February 17 was the cutoff date. That said, I would imagine that a LOT of these stations would choose to cease their analog transmissions at the original cutoff date of February 17 to avoid the operating expense of transmitting two signals. I know all of my local stations are still switching on February 17.

So congress and the FCC have been saying for well over a year that the hard cutoff date is February 17, 2009. They have hammered that date into our skulls so many times with the onscreen messages and infomercial-like TV spots. And now, just 11 days from the transition date, there's a bill passed that states the DTV transition date has been pushed back to June 12, 2009. Undoubtedly, this will get media coverage. However, I doubt that the fact that individual stations have the choice to cut over early will get the coverage it needs. So come February 18, you might find yourself without TV when you thought you had until June 12.

And we thought it was confusing for people before! Way to go law makers!

Since I missed it in January, I thought I'd go ahead and post the list of the most popular posts in 2007. So here they are:

1. Is This Hunting Or Fishing? - Contains link to a video of people bow hunting for Asian Carp. Also includes some information on the problems created by this invasive species.

2. What? Worms Are Bad For The Ground? - Information about invasive species of earthworms and how they can damage forest vegetation.

3. Pay-Per-Channel Television Service - My musings on how great it would be if cable/dish providers would allow us to choose only the channels we wanted and then charge us for just those channels.

4. Are The Sun's Rays Weaker? - Questioning the ability of the sun to burn us due to the carbon-laden air. The resulting comments are very informative.

5. Chris Dodd Might As Well Give Up - I hate to say it Chris, but I was right. You lasted little longer than 1 or 2 caucuses/primaries and what do you have to show for it? A bunch of wasted time, money, and resources. You were never a contender.

Well, there you have the top 5 of 2007. Enjoy.

In relation to my last post about the current state of Compact Fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, I thought I'd share this article.

In the new energy conservation bill that has been passed by Congress, is a plan to completely phase out incandescent light bulbs from the market by 2014. The policy will really go into effect in 2012 and it's likely that some manufacturers may drop their incandescent lines sooner than that.

The whole reason is ENERGY. CFLs and other emerging technologies such as Light Emitting Diodes (LED) are much more efficient. CFLs use roughly 20-25% the electricity that an equivalent incandescent uses.

I cover all the other benefits and reasons to purchase CFLs since I just did that in a previous post, but I did want to make sure that my readers are aware that the light bulb as we know it is going the way of the dinosaur.

Lately, there's been a lot of talk (especially in the political arena) about energy consumption and Global Warming. Most of this, however, has been aimed at making it less enticing for businesses to pollute or to produce inefficient products. What really needs to happen, is that the American people need to start thinking differently about energy use.

Most people think about the cost of gas because they can easily see the cost vs output, but people do not think as much about other energy uses such as home lighting. This is because you get a monthly electric bill that simply lumps together all the electric use of your house. With a car, you know all the gas is used by your car. On the electric bill, it's easy to look at it and think that a large part of the bill is due to things you "need" like a refrigerator or air conditioning.

While an air conditioner can constitute a large part of your electric bill in peak summer months, it's worth noting that people often overlook the effect of household lighting. Lighting can be a very large part of your monthly bill, especially in the dark winter months.

As I drive around looking at new houses, I notice that some of the more popular trends these days include more outdoor lighting (soffit lights, accent lights, spot lights, etc). Most don't really serve any purpose other than to highlight the house. If people thought about how much it cost to actually run these lights, they may reconsider having them.

The old rule of turning a light off when you leave a room still applies. The fewer lights on in your house, the more electricity and money you will save.

Last Friday night, I watched 20/20 on ABC. The program was an hour-long special by John Stossel on what is wrong with the American health care system. His view was not that the problems were related to the fact that there are millions of people without health insurance, but rather, that our problems stem from the fact that so many people DO have health insurance.

Surprisingly, a lot of what he presented in his program mirrored a lot of the thoughts I have posted in previous blog articles:

Doctors Should Give a Satisfaction Guarantee
What Happened To Competition?

In my blog posts, I complained about how nobody shops around for health care services. We simply do what the doctors tell us regardless of cost. Most of the time, the doctors don't even give you an idea of what the cost of a procedure might be. Stossel said the same. He said that people with insurance are more likely to have procedures/tests done without thinking about costs because "insurance will pay for it". And when customers don't care about costs, prices go up. Why? Because they can. Health care providers are in business to make money and anyone who thinks they are just good Samaritans is completely wrong.

My posts had suggestions of have a "menu" of prices for different procedures and tests. According to Stossel's report, some private clinics already do this. They do it because they have to. They don't take insurance because of all the paperwork headache, and since their customers are no longer using insurance, they are more likely to shop around. Thus competition has caused them to advertise their prices and to lower prices in response to more competition in the market.

Although a lot of the information in the program mirrored my own posts, it was still refreshing to see that some of this stuff DOES, in fact, exist.

A while back I griped about the lack of free market competition in the medical industry. Well, it occurred to me the other day that this goes ever further than I originally posted about.

Not only do doctors like to recommend and perform procedures without giving us the option to "shop around", but they often get paid for not doing anything at all? Have you ever gone to the doctor with a problem that the doctor did not resolve? You still had to pay full price for your visit/procedure/operation didn't you? How about you've gone to the doctor with an ailment and they couldn't even diagnose it? Or they keep telling you what they think it is, but they must be wrong because the cures for those things aren't working?

I think perhaps it's time that doctors started offering satisfaction guarantees. If they can't fix you or figure out what's wrong with you, you shouldn't have to pay full price. Maybe a discounted rate would be available. Even the cheapest discount stores offer some sort of satisfaction guarantee (even if it is just a return policy).

One of the big political issues for the next election appears to be the rising costs of health care for normal Americans. Well, perhaps if we start running the medical industry as a business where we are the customers and the "customer is always right", perhaps costs would go down. Perhaps doctors would realize they no longer have the right to charge us for incomplete solutions. They'd probably work a little harder to resolve our issues in a timely manner because it would mean happy customers. Now, the incentive just doesn't seem to be there.

Now that this blog has been up for a few months, I've decided it's time to take a look at the most popular articles I've posted. Then we can see what really interests people. So, here are the top five articles so far:

1. Is This Hunting or Fishing - Covers the Asian Carp invasive species of fish that is taking over American waterways. Includes a link to a video of people bow hunting these fish as they jump out of the water.

2. What? Worms Are Bad For The Ground? - Most worms found in North American soils are not-native, invasive species which can wreak havoc on forested areas.

3. Are The Sun's Rays Weaker? - Conjecture about CO2 in the air "blocking" some of the burn-causing rays from the sun. Definitely read the comments here, as one of my readers made some very informative posts about the subject (and about how this conjecture is bunk).

4. Chris Dodd Called Me - The second post in my adventures with the Chris Dodd For President campaign. The first first post, Chris Dodd Might As Well Give Up, came in at number 7 on this list, but is mentioned here because the second post makes more sense after reading the first.

5. Hypermiling Isn't As Great As It Sounds - After first learning what hypermiling is, I posted this article about some of the dangers of taking hypermiling too far.

Well there's your top five for now. In another few months, I'll probably post a new list.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, the environment is the issue I am primarily concerned with for the 2008 presidential election. Many of the candidates have come out and stated that the environment is an important issue to them, and they will work to correct the things that have led us to global warming. Hillary Clinton is no different. She has jumped on the environmental bandwagon with everyone else. But does she really care?

Let's do some simple observance to see what she thinks of the environment. I first went to her website to see what it would tell me about her plans for environmental policy. I was greeted with a Sign Up To Support Hillary screen. There was a Skip Signup link, but it was not visible enough that people would notice it at first glance. Seems like a somewhat shady way to gain "supporters".

After getting passed the sign up screen, I was able to get past all the "How I Will End The War" information to find the page on the environment. The page has very little actual information. There is a streaming video (bad choice for dial-up users Hillary), which may tell more, but I didn't care to watch it. The page primarily just states that Hillary plans to start an alternative energy research fund to help find energy sources other than oil. There is about a paragraph about this initiative.

After digging deeper (following another link), you can get some more details about her other proposed environmental policies. This page lists things like:

- Creating a strategic energy fund (already covered).
- Support emissions caps.
- Use 20% renewable energy by 2020.
- Make Federal buildings carbon neutral.

Sounds decent enough.

Now, let's consider what she has done so far during her campaign. I am only going to consider campaign materials that I have received in the mail. There have been MANY paper flyers and informational material sent to my house without request. Yesterday, I received a DVD from Hillary (also not requested). Consider that I am just one household in a massive sea of homes across the country. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of these materials being sent out. Paper is bad enough, but at least it is easy to recycle. DVDs are another story; plastics (what DVDs are made out of) are produced from fossil fuels. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have any DVDs. I love DVDs, but when someone is just making DVDs willy-nilly and mailing them out to thousands of people who, most likely, don't have a way to recycle them, I find this wasteful. Especially for someone "determined" to reduce our dependence on foreign energy. Apparently, being wasteful is ok when it suits her own purposes.

So, Hillary, the next time you want to send me a DVD, make it something I want (i.e. The Office Season 3). That way it won't be another waste of resources.

If you've been keeping up with my blog, you probably noticed my post on why I think Chris Dodd should give up his presidential campaign. Now, I want you to also be aware that I am not affiliated with any political part nor have I been involved in rallies, caucuses, etc.

The interesting thing is that last night I got a call from the Chris Dodd for President Campaign. They asked specifically for me and wanted to know if I had any specific issues that I was most concerned about for the upcoming election. I, of course, responded with the environment. The lady then asked if she could send me some information about Chris Dodd's stance on environmental policy. I declined stating that I would prefer to save paper and look it up myself online.

Now then, is it just coincidence that I got this call from the Chris Dodd campaign? I have not gotten calls from any other campaigns, and I am not affiliated with Chris Dodd in anyway. Or is it more likely that someone in his crew is doing web searches for any information about his campaign and they are then calling the people to try to get their support? That would be my guess.

At any rate, I tried to tell this story to people I work with and everyone's response was "Who's Chris Dodd?" So my opinion still stands: Chris should stop wasting time, money, paper, electricity, and all other resources and drop out of the race. The same should is true for most other candidates as well. Of course that's just my opinion.

Anyway, if you work for the Chris Dodd campaign and you are checking out this blog post, leave a comment so we know you're out there.

I got a flyer in the mail today for Chris Dodd for President. Dodd, a Democrat, showed me with his flyer that he really, really doesn't want to win this election. The flyer DID have one good feature, a big picture of John F. Kennedy on the front side. This picture is at least likely to get peoples' attention when they see it. However, the back side, which was information about his the platform he is running with was far from inspiring.

Apparently, Chris Dodd was in the Peace Corps when he was younger. (Look anywhere you see his name and you're bound to see this fact). His platform appears to be based on "a call to service". He's interested in increasing the number of participants in the Peace Corps and Americorps, but the method which he suggest to do this is the best part. He wants to require ALL high school students to perform MANDATORY service work. Has he ever met a high school student before? Most of them don't have desire to perform service work, and anytime you make something mandatory, people like the idea even less (especially teenagers who hate being ruled). Having people forced into service work might actually be more of a hassle for these organizations as the kids won't be very motivated.

Anyway, to me, this seems like a disaster campaign. Why is he not focusing on the issues currently in the spotlight such as war, energy prices, the environment, and health care? These are the issues that will get you noticed and elected.

Perhaps he understands that since he is not Hillary or Obama, he has no shot anyway so he might as well try some goofy platform. Perhaps he just wants to waste some money. Or maybe he's actually delusional and thinks that this will win voters.

Whatever the case, he (and most other candidates) should take a cue from former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, and drop out before they waste too much time and money.