Just so the point is clear

Ok, just so the point is clear, I am against any law discrimates between citizens, regardless of how those laws are worded. Keep marriage straight, No on 8.

What? Someone is VP pick for McCain?

Let’s patronize women in the 21st Century because it worked so well in the 20th Century. McCain’s pick for his running mate is one of those things that says, “See, I listen to you women. I know what you want because I’m smart like that.” It is an idiotic move that may have already backfired. For all the phony praise Palin got for her convention speech, in reality, she came off as seeming like she doesn’t really belong there. Her energy was strained and her message was without substance. I noticed very few people talking about the message itself. Most of the praise was about her poise. Joy. It weakens the McCain bid for the presidency.

Patent exhaustion rule upheld

Yet another blow for customers' rights last week via the Supreme Court which just handed down a ruling that upholds Patent Exhaustion regardless of a patent holder's notices or attempts to put limitions on the purchaser. I recommend this more detailed article found at Electronic Frontier Foundation. It provides many links on the topic along with a detailed description.

Infection: Bigotry

As a Californian, I am oddly in the minority on the particular issue of acceptance of "gay marriage". It seems odd to me that so may people are so dead set against marriage between gay partners, particularly when their is no finiancial gain from such a ban. In fact, allowing gay marriage would help the ecomony by providing more jobs for people who are in the wedding industry. It is silly for people to look to the government to tell other people who they can and cannot marry. The Court here recently did its job. Life long conservative and liberial judges alike determined that their is clear discrimation. In fact, even though the vote was 5 to 4 by the judges, the minor opinion wasn't that gay marriage was wrong, but that it is ok, though a matter for the people to decide. I respectivefully disagree with that logic, of course. The rights of the minority must be protected regardless the opinion of the majority. When discrimination is institutionized, the majority will always side with it originally. We look to the courts to correct wrongs in our lawmaking. At one time, the majority felt slavery was acceptable. At one time, it was felt that banning interracial marriage was acceptable. Those laws not only banned blacks from marrying whites, but at one time also banned Asians from marrying anyone at all (even other Asians).

Even if you don't agree with the idea of allowing marriage between same-sex partners, there's no point in preventing them from having the same privileges and status as you. No one is harmed. It is a matter between each couple, and not for society to dictate with bigoted laws. Finally, it will help boost the Californian economy. Being the only state that allows gay marriage and that also allows anyone to marry from any other part of the country will create a new industry of Wedding Tourism. New money will flow into the state as a result of this Court ruling.

It's time to just let this happen. Just let people live their lives without asking the government to interfere just because we have personal beliefs. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. Imagine if gays where the majority and we the minority. Wouldn't we be running to the courts to protect our rights to marry if laws where passed to prevent breeders from joining in marriage? Every right we take hold back from a minority is ultimately a right taken away from everyone, including ourselves.

Current Cell Phone Cancellation Fees Legislation

I wrote this to my Representitive in the U.S. House of Representitives. I recommend everyone send something similar to their Rep This is in response to a recent article reported by AP.

Rep *** *****,

I voice my opposition to the current cell phone cancellation fee legislation going through Congress right now. The bills in their current configurations represent a free pass to the cell phone companies to get out of taking responsibility for their egregious actions in charging hellaceous amounts for cancellation of their service.

I agree with the following statements.

"If this plan goes through, the nation's largest cell phone carriers get a get-out-of-court-free card," said Chris Murray, senior counsel for Consumers Union, the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports magazine. "We have long opposed limiting consumers' rights to sue, and that seems to be what we're doing here."

"The consumer protections are an inadequate fig leaf to justify federal pre-emption," said Patrick Pearlman, a lawyer with the consumer advocate division of West Virginia's Public Service Commission. "The FCC is not an adequate policeman."

"It's Christmas in May for the companies," said Pamela Gilbert, an attorney with Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, a Washington-based law firm working on one of the class-action lawsuits against the industry. She said if the FCC agreed to the proposal, it would save cell phone companies hundreds of millions of dollars. The people left holding the bag are the millions of people who paid illegal ETFs (early termination fees) and now will never get their money back," she said.

We do not need to punish these cell phone companies for taking advantage of American consumers, per se. However, we just need to prevent them from continuing to do so, with reasonable reconciliation to those consumers who have already been ripped off or forced to maintain plans by the industry.

Do not give the cell phone carriers a get-out-of-jail card. Hold them accountable for their actions and prevent them from abusing fellow Americans.

Any new bill about this topic should maintain State authority to decide how to regulate billing for services. It should also establish a national prohibition against any cancellation fees what-so-ever.

Sincerely,

Matthew Lorono

Politics 2008 (Part 1?)

I'm going to cover a couple of topics here.

Just some quick opinions about Props 98 and 99 for the June 2008 ballot here in California. Prop 98 is a load crap from special interest groups trying to sneak in their agendas guised as something beneficial. It is supposedly about emanate domain, but it's more about reduction of a city population's rights to affordable housing. Prop 99, supported by Democrats, is an over reaction to use of emanate domain. Emanate domain, of course, is the power of government to force the sale of a property for the benefit of the general population. It is useful for building large scale projects, to improve city structure and for urban renewal. Both 98 and 99 will make it very difficult for cities to conduct this sort of activity. 98 is especially bad because it has a bunch of special interest riders attached to it. I'm voting NO on both. I will wait for a better emanate domain prop to come along that addresses the issue of urban renewal.

Also, California Supreme court has just overturned two bigotted laws regarding those who can marry. It's about time. The idea that the government still has the right to dictate who can marry is still possessed by many. I just hope more people understand the issue now than before, so that our state constitution doesn't get raped by bigotry in an attempt to make gay marriage illegal.

Drug Pushers

I used to be in favor of allowing drug companies the right to directly advertise their products to consumers. However, the more time that goes by, the more I realize the misguided ideology of this line of thinking. History now bares witness to the facts that reveal several truths about this matter.

Pharmaceutical companies do not do nearly the research that they need to in order to determine the effectiveness of their drugs before they start selling them to customers. Also, when such research is not favorable, they delay the release of the information to the public in order to drive more sales. The most recent example of this is Vytorin (and its component Zetia). These drugs were proven to reduce bad cholesterol. However, a dangerous assumption was made that this inherently also reduced the risk of heart attacks. The fact is that the drug does not reduce the risk of heart attacks. The drug companies of Schering-Plough Corp. and Merck & Co. marketed this nearly useless drug for two years after they knew it did not work for the purpose it was intended, according to AP in their article.

Pharmaceutical companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars on marketing campaigns. This is taking money way from research and development. In my opinion, it is also likely the major reason that drug costs are raising drastically since the band on drug advertisements was lifted.

Advertising drugs directly to the public encourages self-diagnosis. People are trying to be their own doctors. Advertising, along with the establishment of the Internet has given hypochondriacism new life and even legitimacy. Self-diagnosis is very dangerous.

Given these reasons, I am now in favor of re-establishing the restrictions on advertising for proscription drugs. This will help reduce the chances that corporate greed will take advantage of Americans. It will help reduce the cost of drugs. It will help provide for more R&D funding into new treatments. And, it will help reduce dangerous hypochondriacism and self-diagnosis.

California Ballot Jan 2008

Proposition 91, Transportation Funds: This bill puts limits the California state budget. It's yet another prop that is trying to put unnecessary controls on the state budget that causes much of the budgetary issues this state suffers from. I'm voting No.

Proposition 92, Community Colleges Funding: This bill attempts to force the state to fund our schools. It sets up a new bureaucracy as part of this effort. What the heck? The legislature needs to do this, not some new bureaucracy. I'm voting NO!

Proposition 93, Change of Term Limits: This reduces the total number of years Representatives and Senators can serve in the state legislature, but allows more freedom as to where those individuals can serve their time. I am against term limits. The people should be able to vote for whoever they want for as long as they wish. However, this is at least 1/2 a step in the right direction. I'm voting a very marginal yes.

Proposition 94, 95, 96, and 97, Indian Gaming Agreements: Allows four specific Indian tribes in Southern California to grow their casino operations. In exchange, they will share more of their revenues with the state and other Indian tribes. The problem is that these bills make these new rules without taking the other tribes in to consideration. The other tribes aren't too happy about that. I'm voting an ambivalent no.

Local measures A and B are here in Santa Clara county where a private developer wishes to take a publicly owned property for private one-time profit, instead of keeping the property public and developing it for the common good. Can anyone say "Land Grab"? I'm voting a big, fat NO! The local commercials have old people saying how nice it would be to have affordable housing. But the plan will actually stuff hundreds of senior citizens into small apartment complex, while the bulk of the property is turn into massive high end homes sold to the very wealthy. Total scam. The property could be developed to provide hundreds of real houses to senior citizens and still have plenty of property left over for public use. So, No and No!

Economy America

It seems a lot of Americans really don't understand economy nearly as much as they've been told they do. Many seem to confuse economy with government, falsely believing that Free Market is intrinsic to Democracy. Of course, many Americans are under the false belief that America's economy is Free Market. America has a Mixed Economy based on Free Market principles, it does not have a pure Free Market.¹

Although government and economy work together, one particular type of government does not require one particular type of economy. It is possible to have a free society yet have an economy based on the sun worship. That's not an ideal mix, but it's not outside the realm of possibilities.

Free Market has its place in our country. It is necessary to regulate that Free Market to prevent abuses. Anti-trust, monopolies, rigging or hording of necessary supplies are examples of possible abuses that hurt both the individual and the market overall. However, redundancies in a Free Market can also lead to inefficiencies. Examples of these are if a city privatizes services such as water piping, garbage collection, electricity routing, and other infrastructure services without a central contract giving one entity the sole right and authority to provide such services. For example, it is OK to have more than one source for water, but it is bad to allow one property to be serviced by 4 separate pipes that bring that water in from the outside. In such as case, the city is responsible to regulate infrastructure services efficiently to prevent wasteful redundancies that can drain the overall resources of the city.

More on this some other day. :)

Please don't impale the president, mr. president!

I'm not sure if this is a true story, but it is pretty funny.