Category Archives: Politics

An “It’s Earlier Than You Think” News Sandwich

About 100 state legislators met at Mount Vernon last weekend to discuss the possibility of having an Article V Convention for Amending the Constitution. According to Garret Humbertson at Red Millennial (HT Bosch Fawstin), there has been interest among state legislators in having a convention for some time. But if you’re like me, you’ve heard about this procedure only recently, thanks to Mark Levin’s latest book, The Liberty Amendments. Levin and others have come to the conclusion–with which I agree–that Washington has become so corrupt, so statist in its basic orientation, that the only practical, nonviolent means of steering the country away from totalitarianism is a convention initiated by the state legislatures. Apparently an application for a convention must be passed by 34 state legislatures. With legislative representatives from 32 states traveling to meet at Mount Vernon over the weekend, it sounds like such a convention might soon become a reality.

It’s great to see so many people fed up with our out-of-control government; and it’s especially good to see them wanting to take practical action to fix the problem. I wonder, however, whether most of those involved are intellectually armed to the extent necessary to do what really needs to be done. For example, the article at Red Millennial names “term limits” and a “balanced budget amendment” as two issues around which they hope to form a bipartisan consensus. Term limits may be the right way to go, especially given the pervasiveness of cronyism among the career politicians. But term limits are merely procedural. A balanced budget amendment may help curb our government’s excessive spending; but it may also just encourage politicians to increase taxes to fund that spending.

I look at it this way: The assembled legislators say their goal is to propose amendments that can attract bipartisan support. Practically, they have to do this, because they need 34 state legislatures to apply to have the convention, and then they need 38 legislatures to pass the amendments for them to become effective. This means that the amendments resulting from such a convention, were such a convention to be held today, would likely be a lot worse than any amendments held as ideals by today’s best politicians. And what sort of amendments would those be?

Yaron Brook and Steve Simpson of ARI just published a revealing article over at The Daily Caller discussing Mike Lee’s views on income inequality. Lee, who I had thought was one of the most promising politicians in Washington, turns out to think about the income inequality issue much as our president does. Here is Mike Lee, first quoted and then interpreted by Brook and Simpson:

“For all America’s reputation for individualism and competition, our nation has from the beginning been built on a foundation of community and cooperation.” Our political system is distinctive, according to Lee, not because it recognizes that we are independent individuals, but because it assumes that we are all dependent on one another.

Even though Lee says he opposes government enforced charity and cooperation, Brook and Simpson continue, “if you concede that wealth, success, and prosperity come from ‘community and cooperation’ rather than individual initiative, why shouldn’t government force us to ‘give back’?” Read the entire article here.

If Mike Lee is one of today’s best politicians, and even he holds views incompatible with a consistent defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, then it is too soon for a convention to amend the constitution–particularly a “bipartisan” convention–to do much good.

The good news is that the proper ideas are starting to be heard and have an influence. The Daily Caller piece by Brook and Simpson is an example (I encourage everyone reading this to go over there and comment on the piece, in order to help it have the most impact). Brook also spoke to The New York Meeting last night on income inequality, and I gather there were several politicians in attendance including, if I heard Brook correctly, Senator Ron Johnson. Brook will also be speaking on the same topic this evening in Washington, D.C.

Until our politicians can address issues like income inequality as Brook does, no amendments they propose will be able to inoculate us against totalitarianism. Let’s hope that Brook’s and others’ efforts to educate politicians and the public pay off sooner rather than later.

4 Comments

Filed under Politics

A Sanction-of-the-Victim News Sandwich

As someone who has been an outspoken critic of the NSA and the third-party doctrine that purports to make their intrusive data-collecting legal, I was heartened to read that several of the major technology companies–Google, Microsoft, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, Twitter, AOL and LinkedIn–are calling for the United States to lead a worldwide effort to limit online spying. The companies are advocating “new surveillance principles…includ[ing] limiting governments’ authority to collect users’ information, setting up a legal system of oversight and accountability for that authority, allowing the companies to publish the number and nature of the demands for data, ensuring that users’ online data can be stored in different countries and establishing a framework to govern data requests between countries.”

Most notably, the companies urge that indiscriminate bulk data collection be forbidden. The Times’ authors describe the tech industry as a “powerful interest group” that could have a tremendous influence on this debate. Let’s hope so. It is great to see businessmen stand up for their and their customers’ rights for a change!*

I hope the healthcare industry will do the same. There is so much bad news about Obamacare right now, that it’s difficult to decide which story to include here as single item of “bad news.” There’s this story, in which the Financial Times reports that the new Obamacare exchange health care plans will exclude top hospitals, “including two world-renowned cancer centers.” Just to show you how far the medical care industry needs to go before it can get to where the tech industry is, note that the Financial Times says that “some hospital administrators” are worried about this development and “see the change as an unintended consequence of the ACA.”

You don’t need the equivalent of an Edward Snowden to reveal the true agenda of big government in medicine: the history and very nature of socialized medicine tells us to expect developments like this. And yet hospital administrators, people who should know the industry, and who have already been dealing with government intervention in it, see this as an “unintended consequence”? And then there’s the woman who heads government relations for the Mayo clinic, who says she’s concerned that NOW “the full spectrum from primary to top speciality care, [is becoming] commoditized.” Can someone please tell this woman that the whole reason Obamacare was passed in the first place is because a bunch of politicians whined that health care was too much of a commodity, and that the government needed to come in and fix that? Of course what she means is that, now with additional government involvement in the health care industry, costs have increased even more, making top quality healthcare something fewer and fewer will be able to afford.

And then there’s this story, in which an Obamacare Architect admits that if we’d like to “keep our doctor,” then we’ll just have to pay a lot more to do so. And this story, about the errors in the Healthcare.gov website forms, errors so significant and pervasive that one in four Americans who enrolled at the website in October and November may not even have health insurance come January 1!

Thankfully there is one segment of the health care industry that seems to be waking up to the truth about Obamacare–right here on the left coast! Richard Pollock of the Washington Examiner reports that “An estimated seven out of every 10 physicians in deep-blue California are rebelling against the state’s Obamacare health insurance exchange and won’t participate….” Apparently California doctors just learned in September of this year that their compensation rates for caring for exchange patients would be pegged to California’s Medicaid program–a program that has one of the lowest compensation rates in the country. To expect doctors who live in a state with one of the highest costs of living to accept one of the lowest compensation rates for their work is unconscionable. It’s no surprise that some doctors are considering not just refusing to participate in the exchanges, but, according to Dr. Theodore M. Mazer, a San Diego ENT doctor interviewed by the Examiner, they are also considering retiring early. Moreover, the Examiner reports, many doctors have been listed as participants in Obamacare plans on exchange websites without their permission! Covered California, which alleges that 85% of doctors will be participating in the exchanges, could not be reached for comment on the accuracy of that figure, or of the doctor listings on the exchange web sites.

Kudos to the doctors in California who are standing up for their rights and boycotting the exchanges. Shame on Covered California for concealing doctors’ compensation rates until the last minute, for trying to manipulate doctors into participating without giving them that information and for, apparently, lying about which doctors are participating in exchange plans. This is the sort of behavior that would get a private company brought before an alphabet-soup agency for investigation, fines, etc. I hope California’s doctors won’t let them get away with it.

*FYI, I’ve submitted a much shorter version of my forthcoming law review article on the third-party doctrine to a major blog for publication. As soon as it’s published, I’ll let everyone know. I hope it can have some influence on the debate as well.

Leave a comment

Filed under Medicine, Politics, Technology

A Webcam News Sandwich for December 7, 2013

A new web-based application, aptly named Handy, which works on the Chrome browser, allows you to navigate within YouTube recipe videos by making hand gestures in front of your web cam. This means you actually have some hope of following along and cooking the recipe as you watch the video. I remember reading about this hand-gesture technology a while ago, and it’s great to see that it can now be put to a very practical use.

The site currently doesn’t work on iOS devices, unfortunately, but the people at Wired.co.uk tested it on a Mac laptop and it worked just fine. That means I’ll need to find another excuse not to try a new recipe.

Perhaps my excuse not to try new recipes is because I’m nauseated at the prospect of my webcam being used for nefarious purposes by an overreaching government?

According to a Washington Post article published yesterday, the FBI can now use malicious software to gather information about a suspect’s computer use–web sites visited, physical location of computer while browsing online and, ominously, the software can even be used to activate the webcam on the computer without the suspect’s knowledge.

It seems from the article that judges and magistrates have been reluctant to grant permission for webcam activation, which is as it should be. A valid warrant, according to the Fourth Amendment is supposed to “particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized,” and it seems impossible to know this with respect to a portable webcam. In addition, since most of us are not in the position of granting random 24-7 webcam access to third parties, there would be no way to argue that, per the third-party doctrine, we have no reasonable expectation of privacy in what our webcams witness. (See this News Sandwich for more on that issue.) We can only hope that the FBI and other government agencies are not abusing this technology, and that judges continue to be reluctant to grant permission to deploy it. Yeah, right.

Is your heart racing after reading the above? Soon your webcam will be able to detect that, too. Over a year ago The Oxford Times reported that a company called Oxehealth created software that could “detect heart rate, breathing rate and oxygen saturation, using the camera in an ordinary laptop.” Apparently our skin reflects light differently according to differences in these variables. The accuracy is comparable to that of monitoring devices, like finger sensors, that must be in physical contact with the patient. With Oxehealth’s software, the webcam can be a yard or more away. Oxehealth recently appointed a new chairman according to this press release, and so is still on track for making their technology a commercial reality.

Maybe one day I’ll install it on my computer and learn how to control my heart rate, etc., while I read the day’s news?

2 Comments

Filed under Politics, Technology