Lobbyists

"Can you explain to me why we need lobbyists?" said a co-worker the other day over lunch.

I have been constructing further thoughts around my response that day "Go read your constitution".

So, what exactly did I mean by that. Looking up the 1st Amendment, here is the relevant passage:

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Many would take umbrage to this expansive use of 1st Amendment in support of lobbyists. No, I don't either.

How exactly do you petition your Government? It is not what it used to be. Back at the creation, the Federal government only had enumerated powers. All others were vested in the various State governments and further delegated to your local government at the town and county level. It is a whole lot easier to petition your local government.

Today, how exactly do you petition your Federal government?

Well, we elect them don't we? Yes, we do. Electing our House of Representatives is still the closest to our 'will'. And recent election cycles have confirmed that - it is still dynamic. As geographically diverse as our nation is, each of our reps is able to tackle a few issues of local interest into the deliberations of the federal government. As they deliberate more, they have far less chance of meeting with their constituents. Technology may yet change this dynamic. Not sure Twitter alone can solve this problem.

And now let's focus on ourselves. In our lives, we have competing priorities. And most of us struggle to balance those. There are priorities of the heart and the priorities of reality. Which ones do you want your representative attend to. Do we always know what is good for us? (Few amongst us care about and active about only the priorities of the heart. Most of us cannot afford to do that.)

Even if we want to lobby for our causes or priorities, we have limited opportunities to do that. Ultimately, we have to get on with our lives. The act of lobbying in itself is not our daily life. it is someone else's.

"Lobbyist"

ORIGIN mid-16th century

The verb sense derives from the practice of frequenting the lobby of a house of legislature to influence its members into supporting a cause.

 The best interest is self-interest. There is no altruistic motive in our existence. We express our self-interest when we vote; only that our choice is limited to available candidates representing a basket of those interests. To influence your 'best possible candidate' to weigh-in a legislation of your interest, you have to lobby. I bet there were lobbyists even in the days of the Caesars.

Now a days, every cause has a lobbyist. (Media tells us and) most of us think lobbying is done by big corporations. Biggest, monolithic lobbyist is in fact the AARP. Followed by the AFP and other trade unions. In fact, all corporations face expense pressure to reduce all expenses, including their lobbying expenses.

What is that corporations need to lobby? Well, tax laws, environment laws, etc. Every single one of these laws have a direct impact on a company's profitability. And by extension its ability to hire or keep its employees. Yes, ultimately it affects us.

More often than not, majority tend to display an animosity towards their employer. When media tells us that the big, faceless corporation is lobbying, we agree - they must be working against us.

It is funny, that majority don't object if United Auto Workers lobby or if the Spotted Owl Society lobbies. It is just the big corporations that we loath. And the last time I checked, an awful lot of people work for these big corporations. (Our hatred towards the employer we so depend on to make ends meet - that's just another topic for a different day).

I don't think a common man has any net gain from the lobbying activities. Since every one gains something, it costs us the tax payers an awful lot of money to satisfy all these lobbyist and the interests they support. And that is a net negative.

Lobbying excesses have to be punished by law. We have seen great example of that - Jack Abramoff. And many others.

However, we have to be cautious about restrictions on lobbying. It is about really the only way you can lobby your government for redress of your grievances. Eliminate that, we would loose a great deal.

Most of us don't know what it is to not have the freedom of speech. Most of the world is only now getting its liberties.

You have to zealously protect freedom of speech even if it requires us to tolerate lobbying.

And he turns out to be a RINO

It did not take him long. He claimed he was going to be the 41st vote against the healthcare reform debate. And they made sure (Dems, that is) that he would not cast that vote. But they had nothing to fear.

Turns out, he is a RINO. Of course, you know who I am talking about - Senator Scott Brown. He is obviously looking for his re-election in 2 years. And of course all the union and special interest negative ads. He announces that he is going to vote FOR the 2,000 page monstrosity called 'financial services reform'. Really, Scott!

This is a big let down. Well, he can count on at least one vote he is not going to have next time around.

Gates Gate - a year hence

Gates gate - the fracas about arresting Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA by a white police officer. They took almost a year to complete their investigation - like there was much to investigate. And the report is an example of the hollow-ness of the Cambridge elite.

We have become a nation of wusses. According to the investigating committee - "there were missed opportunities on both sides". Apparently, the police have the burden of explaining what they are doing. Well, a police officer responding to a 911 call about a burglary should "arrest" the burglar - he can check the credentials after that and read the miranda rights.

Media portrays this as a teachable moment about 'race relations'. Really. In 2009, in a nation (predominantly white) that elected its first black President, in a state with its first black Governor, in a(n elite) city with a black mayor, a routine arrest some how has racial overtones. Come on, isn't there any limit to this nonsense.

Law abiding - only some of the time

Most Americans consider themselves Law abiding citizens. But that is really not the case. There is one law they routinely break - the Speed Limit.

100% of everyone I know, speeds. It does not seem to enter into anyone's conscience that the speed limit is part of the local law and statutes. Speeding clearly violates the local law.

And there is a real consequence of this brazen violation of the law - too many accidents and at times, innocent lives lost.

I have written about this before. Most people, decent people, routinely make fun of speed limits and driving within those limits. I do not quite understand how trivial it is for some of them.

You can not be a law abiding citizen if you choose which laws you want to abide by.

We live in a democracy. And the laws are made on our behalf by the representatives we elect. If we do not like the law, use the political process to change the law. But not break the law.

Shipping & Handling

What exactly does 'Shipping & Handling' constitute? Shipping is quite understandable - cost of shipping via UPS or FedEx or even USPS. But what exactly is 'Handling'? What do they 'handle'?

When majority of the businesses were brick and mortar and you wanted something packed and shipped to your home, I can understand the 'handling' aspect of it - since it is not their usual thing to do. But how are 'Online retailers - e-tailers' justified in charging its customer 'handling'?

Would you pay Dell a separate 'handling' cost to put that computer of yours in a box and send it to you from Texas? Of course not. That is Dell's business model and the 'handling' is factored into the price.

Amazon offers the ultimate - Free Saver Shipping. If you are not in a rush, your item is shipped to you for free.

Contrast this with some really outrageous e-tailers: ProFlowers (or any of the flower delivery companies for that matter), L.L.Bean. Their merchandise is already higher priced than a department store. And you end up 'shipping & handling' on top of their exorbitant prices. This is a total rip-off.

Quite frankly, your grocery store flowers are more fresh and better than anything you can order online with these guys. And L.L.Bean's merchandise is also mostly 'Made in China' stuff that you can buy anywhere else. And to have to pay 'handling' for a vendor whose business model is mail-order - is simply unacceptable in today's world.

Red Pill, Blue Pill

Over this summer, our President used the red pill, blue pill analogy to bolster his healthcare plan.

I have personally been involved in evaluating these considerations for my own health a few years ago. In fact, I had three choices.

Faced with highly active Crohn's disease, ended up in the hospital with bloody diarrhea 4 times in 6 weeks. My doctor who was treating me for years wanted to perform yet another resection - which may have worked.

I sought a second opinion. And this doctor wanted to treat me just with steroids - the blue pill, would cost just pennies per daily dose and the insurance does not have to pay any of it, as these are fairly cheap.

Frustrated with those options, I sought yet another opinion. And this doctor thought I was too young to resect away my intestine or treat with steroids. He decided to put me on Remicade - the red pill, costs upwards of $5,000 every 8 weeks and administered at the hospital or physician's office.

In all of this, my insurance company did not get between me and my doctors. And the improvement in the quality of life has been incredible.

Under state-run healthcare like the British system, NICE (the agency that sets these thresholds) would have denied this treatment option since it exceeded their arbitrary $20,000 limit for six months.


And now, anyone with basic understanding of how market works knows that, if the blue pill can do everything that the red pill does at a lower cost, there never will be a red pill.


If there is anything that red pill does the blue pill does not, there are probably patients out there who need it, regardless of the cost.


When you paint with such broad strokes as the President and the democrats are doing, the individuals such as me get the stick. The reason the nation is animated over this subject is because when individual rights are threatened for collectivist dogmas, are we still a free country and free people?

Why we are in Afghanistan

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.