Since we need to amend the Constitution anyway . . .

Perhaps we ought to follow the example of the government of Taiwan, and carve out two new branches of government.   In addition to three branches of government matching the American branches of the Executive, Judicial and Executive, the Taiwanese have two additional branches of government: 1. The Control Yuan is an investigatory agency that monitors the other branches of government . . . No member of the Control Yuan can hold another public office or profession while serving in the branch (according to Article 103 of the constitution), and members must be able to perform absent of partisan control or influence.  Wouldn't it be helpful to have such an independent branch of government to root out corruption and prohibit pork? 2. The Examination Yuan is in charge of validating the qualification of civil servants in the Republic of China.  Wouldn't it be interesting to see whether which of the candidates currently campaigning for President of the U.S. could pass a civil service test or, better yet, the U.S. Foreign Service Examination.

Continue ReadingSince we need to amend the Constitution anyway . . .

Does LEED certification really mean a building is energy efficient?

The U.S. Green Building Council has gotten a lot of attention through promotion of its LEED standard.  I am personally aware of several organizations that have focused intense PR campaigns on claims that their buildings have been modified, usually at considerable expense, so that they are LEED-certified and thus more energy efficient.  Here's the claim as to the meaning of LEED certification on USGBC's website:

LEED, or Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, is an internationally-recognized green building certification system. Developed by the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) in March 2000, LEED provides building owners and operators with a framework for identifying and implementing practical and measurable green building design, construction, operations and maintenance solutions.
Consequently, buildings that are LEED certified are understood by the general public as indicating that a building is especially energy-efficient. Today I read a disturbing article in Mother Jones (not yet available online): "Leeding us On."  The article focuses on allegations made by Henry Gifford, a New York City energy efficiency consultant, who calls LEED "a joke." Here's an excerpt: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingDoes LEED certification really mean a building is energy efficient?

Low bar fail on political gift-giving

Look what passed as necessity for Condoleeza Rice:

In 2008, Rice historically became the first U.S. Secretary of State to visit Tripoli since 1953. She and Gaddafi are reported to have enjoyed a private dinner, during which a State Department report indicates the Libyan leader also showered his visitor with an estimated $212,000 worth of gifts -- including a diamond ring in a wooden box, a lute and an accompanying DVD, and a locket with Gaddafi's own picture inside.

Also included among the gifts: "Wonder-Womanesque wristbands" and an autographed copy of his revolutionary Green Book with an inscription that expressed his "respect and admiration," according to The New York Times.

There are, of course, strict rules about the acceptance of gifts by public officials but when it comes to foreign leaders, diplomatic concerns take priority, as "non-acceptance would cause embarrassment to donor and U.S. Government."

[More . . . ]

Continue ReadingLow bar fail on political gift-giving

Internal conflict of interest, illustrated

It often occurs to me that each of us has intense conflicts of interest between our present self and our future selves. My present self wants to over-eat, fail to exercise, ignore needed house repairs, and I would generally prefer to prepare less rather than more for anything I do. None of these things would be good for my future self.  My present urges seem much more important than my future concerns, so it takes focused effort to keep my priorities straight.  Today I found a cute cartoon to illustrate this recurring internal conflict that we all experience. On a large scale, of course, society tends to live in the present, exhausting the earth's resources, rather than living sustainably, which can would usually require extra effort and planning. Thus, as a country we are collectively engaged in a massive conflict of interest pitting our present selves against our future selves. 40% of the world's agricultural land is seriously degraded, much of the damage done by human activities. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingInternal conflict of interest, illustrated

Telecommunications industry working overtime to misrepresent net neutrality

I don’t believe that money is speech, but I’ve repeatedly seen that money motivates dishonest speech, much of it uttered by paid “experts.” This money-motivated dishonesty is a recurring problem regarding many issues, including the topic of this article, net neutrality. On August 8, 2011, I was pleased to see that the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published my letter to the editor on the topic of net neutrality.  Here’s the full text of my letter:

Maintain neutrality We pay Internet service providers to move data from point to point. We don't pay them to steer us to selected sites (by speeding up access times) or to discourage us from using other sites (by slowing down or blocking access). Nor do we pay them to decide what applications we can use over the Internet. I should be free to use Skype even if it competes with the phone company's own telephone service. Giving Internet users this unimpeded choice of content and applications is the essence of "net neutrality," and it has inspired unceasing innovation over the Internet. The Senate soon may vote on a "resolution of disapproval" that would strip the Federal Communications Commission of its authority to protect Americans from potential abuses. If it passes, net neutrality would be at serious risk. Congress is under big pressure (and receiving big money) from companies like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, who want to become the gatekeepers of the Internet. They would like to carve up the Internet so that it would become like cable TV, with tiered plans and limited menus of content that they would dictate. Phone companies should not be allowed to dictate how we use the Internet. I urge Sens. Claire McCaskill and Roy Blunt to support net neutrality by voting against the resolution of disapproval. Erich Vieth • St. Louis
I wrote this letter as a concerned citizen.  I have long been concerned about net neutrality.  I have seen ample evidence that increasingly monopolistic telecommunications companies have no qualms about forcibly assuming the role of Internet gate-keeper.  As for-profit entities, their instinct is to limit our Internet choices if it would make them ever greater piles of money. Call me a pragmatist based on America’s television experience; telecommunications companies want to control how we use the Internet much like cable TV companies shove users into programming packages in order to maximize profit. On August 18, 2011, I noticed that the Post-Dispatch published an anti-net-neutrality letter. Here is the text of that letter: [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingTelecommunications industry working overtime to misrepresent net neutrality