I’m sure there is real investigation going on and real plots are being uncovered and disrupted. But the ones that seem to get the most attention are the ones that revolve around sensational targets or the potential, however remote, of mass-casualties, regardless of the actors’ operational capacity.

As he says in his article: “[...] in this country, while you have to be competent to pull off a terrorist attack, you don’t have to be competent to cause terror.”

Perhaps these stories are the security equivalent of an opiate for the masses. The appearance that the security folks are “on the job” and “getting things done”. The reality sometimes seems so different.

There are real terrorists out there that pose a real threat to us. Too often, the ones you see getting arrested on TV or simmering in their cages at Gitmo aren’t the ones we should worry about.

Here’s a short list of the features I really like (my list):

• Recurring billing — Setup recurring fees, generate invoices automatically and email them to your clients.
• Multi-user, role-based access — You can setup limited-access accounts for employees and contractors can have their own accounts to log their hours.
• Robust set of reports — Every report I’ve ever needed. You can also export your data to Excel and massage it however you want
• Client portal — You can give your clients access to view their own invoices and payment history.
• PayPal/Credit Card Payments — You can provide a PayPal link on your electronic invoices or (for a nominal fee) integrate your Authorize.net account into your payment system.

These are just a few of the features they have. There are other similar services available (Quicken.com comes to mind), but it’s always seemed like a great deal for the price.

For only $14.95 per month, you have full access to most features. Starting at $19.95 per month, you can add automated invoicing and Authorize.net^tm automated recurring billing. For an additional $10.00 per month, you get access to their support ticket system / help desk.

When I first started looking for this kind of service in 2002, the options were fairly limited. Nowadays the space is more crowded and options are diverse. But for my needs, I’ve never seen a compelling reason to switch. BillingOrchard provides everything I need at a great price.

From their site:

OpenCongress is a free, open-source, non-profit, and non-partisan web resource with a mission to help make Congress more transparent and to encourage civic engagement. OpenCongress is a joint project of the Sunlight Foundation and the Participatory Politics Foundation.

OpenCongress brings together, for the first time in one place, all the best data on what’s really happening in Congress:

• Official Congressional information from Thomas, made available by GovTrack.us: bills, votes, committee reports, and more.
• News articles about bills and Members of Congress from Google News.
• Blog posts about bills and Members of Congress from Google Blog Search and Technorati.
• Campaign contribution information for every Member of Congress from the website of the non-profit, non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics, OpenSecrets.org.
• Congress Gossip Blog: a blog written by the site editors of OpenCongress that highlights useful news and blog reporting from around the web. The blog also solicits tips, either anonymous or attributed, from political insiders, citizen journalists, and the public in order to build public knowledge about Congress.

Looks like a very useful site to more easily follow what the old-white-male-lawyers who run our country are up to.

Companies now hold gene patents for the genes that compose common diseases, such as Hepatitis. This stifles research as scientists who would otherwise devote energy to researching cures are dissuaded by the sometimes huge licensing fees that must be paid to the owners of the patent to conduct their research.

People die because of this, as Crichton points out. He cites proposed legislation to nullify prior gene patents and prevent the future patenting of genes but the only reference I could find to a similarly titled piece of legislation died in Congress 3 years ago. If anyone can find evidence that the legislation is on the docket for the current Congressional session, please comment and provide a citation.

Few besides the Veep himself would argue such a perspective. But as entertaining as penetrating the stew of U.S. foreign policy can sometimes be, pundits can hardly keep themselves from a topic so rich with opportunity.

Temple mathmetican John Allen Paulos offers a curious thought experiment in the implications of applying the “one-percent doctrine” to other aspects of human life, and it’s associated fallout.

He argues that while the average cost of a family insurance plan that Americans get through their jobs has doubled in the last 7 years (which he concedes is unsustainable), and that the industry clearly suffers from both greed and waste, in the end modern
medicine is truly an expensive venture that ultimately results in big dividends for it’s beneficiaries (eg., those among us who can afford it or are otherwise insured).

However, the article goes on to point out that the number of Americans without any medical insurance has risen by 23% since 1987 as more corporations decide they can no longer shoulder the cost of subsidizing medical insurance for their employees — in effect reducing healthcare costs by reducing the real healthcare benefits to fewer and fewer people.

The longer term public health consequence is a widening division between those who can afford expensive healthcare and those who can’t. The current trend points towards life spans extended for only the wealthy, and sometimes at the expense of the poor.

History’s lesson tells us this is nothing new — wealth buys privilege, one of which is a longer life. The question is what responsibility do our public institutions bear in ensuring equal access for all. Is high-quality, affordable healthcare a civil right? It hasn’t been defined in those terms so far, and probably never will.

Fairness has rarely been a standard applied to private enterprise. Socialized medicine rings of something inefficient and even communist. The wealthy prefer things the way they are since they can afford the best healthcare at almost any cost. The poor will need subsidies no matter how low insurance costs get. As in so many cases, it’s the middle class that gets the squeeze…again.

Only after you’ve been faced with a friend or relative forced to suffer through a medical setback, sometimes for years on end, because they were denied all-but-emergency care for lack of insurance, can you feel the weight of the inequity of our system.

Medical outcomes are tied directly to an individuals ability to pay for good healthcare. We can pretend it doesn’t happen but it does. I’ve been around enough sick people and hospitals to have seen it first hand. Emergency care is (theoretically) available to everyone in the U.S., regardless of station in life, just enough care to keep you alive. The effects are more long term. The regular preventative checkups and health education many of us take for granted aren’t available to a lot of people, which in the end contribute to a shortened life span that could have been extended by ensuring everyone has access to quality medical care.

Much like the wars we fight, where the poorest among us most often find themselves on the front lines, the present healthcare system in the U.S., for all it’s triumphs, reflects a society — and ultimately a government — that seems to value the lives of it’s people only in proportion to their personal wealth. In so doing, it seems that with all our technological prowess, we’ve advanced little in terms of elevating our ethical standards to giving those with the least among us the care we all deserve.

In the five years that have passed, a lot of progress has been made in the war on terror. We have gained much, and lost much. I thought I’d take a few minutes to write a few thoughts that have been on my mind about 9/11.

Just this week I began reading the official report of the 9/11 commission. It’s really a fascinating read and not the dry fodder I expected from a government publication. I’m about half-way through it at this point and I find myself having mixed feelings as we pass the anniversary milestone…again — feelings muddied by both the election-year politicking and the anxiety the anniversary news coverage brings back to the surface.

We Must Act Preemptively, AND Be Responsible Stewards Of A Coherent Foreign Policy

Reading the 9/11 report has strengthened my feelings that as a nation we have every responsibility to act preemptively to prevent terrorist attacks against our people, unilaterally if necessary, as no one is as interested in protecting us as we are. The trouble is that as a superpower, acting unilaterally places our actions and motives under intense scrutiny by the world community, and losing the moral high-ground, which unfortunately we so often seem to do, reinforces feelings of mistrust and feeds impressions of an imperialistic will.

Our leaders must articulate a sensible, coherent foreign policy that can be understood by rational, civilized societies, and let their actions clearly support that policy. If we expect others to view our democracy as a beacon of light and hope — a shining city on a hill — we must behave in a manner consistent with our founding ideals. When we don’t we must admit our mistake and, as best as we can, make it right and whole again. Too many times in the past five years we have failed to hold ourselves to a higher standard, and call our leaders to account. This has damaged both our credibility in the world and our ability to prosecute the war on terror.

This must change…soon.

We Can’t Preserve Our Way Of Life By Compromising Our Freedoms

Here at home, our civil liberties have, at times since the attack, tread on thin ice. I believe our President to be a good, moral man and that the NSA wiretapping and otherwise heavy domestic surveillance are being used as they argue to track individuals and groups that truly appear to be engaged in malfeasance. The trouble is that it can all be so easily abused, and everyone knows that. We’ve all been lied to at least once by our government, so how can people not believe that the domestic investigative power won’t be abused, and given both the broad powers afforded to the intelligence and investigative bureaucracies, and the limits effectively placed on Congerssional oversight, abused in an unprecedented way.

Why Are We In Iraq…Again?

The other feelings that have been strengthened by reading the report is that our foray into Iraq has been, to be polite, unwise. Who would argue that Saddam is a “bad guy” and that given the opportunity, he would have loved to have a few WMD to gain some leverage, but the evidence wasn’t there, and the trust in our government to tell us the truth that was so strong after 9/11 has been broken, along with the political goodwill of our allies (and even a few enemies) around the world.

Many Americans feel misled into an unceasing commitment of scarce resources and precious lives to a war in a country that, based on the knowledge we had even at the time, presented no significant threat to our national security and had no part whatsoever in 9/11.

The commitment of American lives into harms way is the most serious decision a President can make. Our military asks for nothing except our support and that the cause is just. In return they are willing to give all. Speaking personally, our commitment of American lives to the cause of deposing Saddam Hussein, with little but the pretense of his WMD ambitions built on a house of cards of shaky intelligence, is as tragic a legacy of 9/11 as that fateful day itself.

The President keeps telling us we’re “Safer, but still not safe”. Well, sure. It doesn’t bear repeating in those terms and that oversimplified articulation serves only to feed the anxiety of a skittish middle-America and offer a dull warning that re-electing the President’s party is the only way we can become safe. That’s just not true.

The New McCarthyism

Another issue that has really roiled me lately is the language used in describing points-of-view and people who pose an alternative perspective to the Administration’s line. To characterize public dissent as tantamount to supporting the terrorists is outrageously reprehensible. Our liberties must not be sacrificed on the alter of national security. We can have both, we shouldn’t be made to choose one or the other. Competent leaders recognize this and can lucidly articulate a national vision that includes both.

The Pakistan Quagmire

People want to feel like we’re making real progress to keep 9/11 from happening ever again and that the deaths of that day are avenged. Capturing or killing Bin Laden and Al Qaeda’s top leadership would have gone a long way toward that end. That hasn’t occurred. I’ll speculate that most Americans feel the human tragedy of that horrible day has yet to be avenged. Using World War II as an example, who would have felt that victory was complete without news of Hitler’s demise? I feel no different today with Bin Laden and his lieutenants on the run. Of course decapitating the al Qaeda leadership won’t alone solve the terrorism issue. But in this case, as in so many others, vengance alone is just cause for an unyielding and determined pursuit of justice.

This pursuit has become especially challenging as Pakistan has become the new Afghanistan. We’re diplomatically hamstrung in dealing with them given, among other things, how Musharraf came to power and their nuclear ambitions (which also hampers our military options). Our options to compel Pakistan’s cooperation seem limited, but money has always been a great motivator, and we can always get more money.

There is no question this is a different kind of war. You can’t rationalize with a group for whom death is a reward, whose talking points shift with the tides, who have nothing to negotiate for, who seem to have transcended policy disagreements and simply wish for our destruction. Those responsible for 9/11 must be captured or killed.

The principal al Qaeda leadership appears by all accounts to be hiding in Pakistan. We have to find a way to get in there and get them, period. The fact that we have been either unwilling or unable to bring our considerable military and intelligence capabilities to bear in solving this issue makes me more than a little anxious that our either priorities have been horribly misguided or our capabilities aren’t what I once believed them to be. You could probably safely argue either point.

Where Are The Democrats?

A viable alternative vision of American foreign policy hasn’t been offered up the Democratic (or any other) party. I don’t know if this speaks to a dearth of Democratic leadership, intra-party dissent on a viable platform, or what. It’s deeply concerning though to have so few ideas coming across the aisle. It seems the Republicans dominate the public debate on the issues of our time and a balanced, bi-partisan dialogue is something we’ve left in the rubble of 9/11.

Maybe they’re hoping dissatisfaction will somehow grow organically and foist them into power. Indeed it may, but without a clear vision and a coherent plan to solve the issues we face, the protest votes that get them into office will be the same ones that get them out and we’ll be back where we are now — “safer, but not safe”.

Reality Checks and Real Progress

In truth, we’ve not been attacked on U.S. soil on any significant scale since 9/11. You could accurately argue this is due in large part to the administration’s efforts over the past 5 years. But it’s hard for Americans to contextualize how central a role in their lives the threat of terrorism should play. By statistical standards it should be a very, very small part. However inasmuch as it is continually rehashed in our 24/7 media coverage and “Breaking News” culture, it’s hard to put aside. In reality, terrorists of any stripe pose little threat to our nation or our economy, unless we let them. Unfortunately in too many cases since 9/11, we have let fear reign. Perceived threats, exacerbated by fear-mongering for political gain has created a culture of fear disproportionate to the real threat. Rationality must re-enter our public discourse again to allow American’s to give the real threat of terrorism proper context in their lives.

History shows us that good leaders can make all the difference in bringing peace, preserving a way of life, and giving people the courage, will, and hope to get through the difficult times. Think Washington, Lincoln, Kennedy, Franklin, and Churchill. The past five years has seen far too little of that character of leader.

Wise, articulate leadership is needed now more than ever — leaders that will help us lift our nation above the discourse of fear to a brighter day when our collective conscious is dominated once again by belief that our children and grandchildren will inherit a world made better by the efforts of our generation.

Let this be a time future generations can look back upon and see that evil was defeated because good men did more than just something, they did the right thing.

I know energy company profits are not a simple thing. It’s something only the egghead economists and energy analysts can truly understand.

You can’t just say that oil prices are artificially inflated in a government-protected monopoly that takes advantage of a wartime, deficit-spending economy to boost its profits to record numbers and put the squeeze on you and me in almost every aspect of our lives.

Oh wait… I guess I just did.

I know it’s not that simple, I know. But it just looks real bad for the oil companies.

Simply put, profit = income – expenses. In the case of the energy companies, it means revenue is outpacing the cost of doing business by a record margin. It’s safe to assume this is due most directly to the market price of oil, rather than reductions in the cost or pace work in other areas or the energy production life-cycle.

While supposedly “driven by anxiety over supplies from the Middle East” (which could be argued at any point in modern history), that alone can hardly justify what’s going on. Calling for a “windfall tax” on the oil company profits is surely the very least our Congress could do.

I had a guy tell me yesterday that the price of stainless steel kitchen appliances are skyrocketing because (don’t ask me how or why, but…) gasoline is used in the manufacturing process (presumably more directly than in the distrubution process). I’ve even seen resturants raising their prices to cover the gas surcharges their suppliers are hitting them with.

Most people only see the effect when they fill up their cars, but we pay the price for these “profits” in almost every monetary transaction that occurs.

“Big oil” is protected from on-high by governments all over the world. It isn’t going anywhere. But the public can make a difference by increasing demand for energy-efficient technologies.

I just realized yesterday that our energy company has a plan we could elect that uses 100% renewable energy sources. They claim that the pollution saved by using this plan is the equivalent of planting 1,100 trees per year. It is slightly more expensive than other plans, but for me anyway, it’s a worthwhile exchange.

Energy-resources will always cost us because there will always be money to be made. But at least we can do something to make the by-products of our consumption less destructive to the world we’re leaving to our children.

From the article:

“After years of benign neglect, the Federal government is finally involved in the Internet – big time. And the decisions being made over the next few months will impact not just the future of the Web, but that of mass media and consumer electronics as well.”

Most interesting to me wasn’t the specifics of any particular piece of legislation, but the fact that Congress (and government in general) is becoming more involved in matters relating to the Internet. As commerce on the Internet grows, governments at all levels are playing catch-up with business when it comes to tapping the new revenue sources it can provide.

The author concludes with this:

“The final impetus for Washington may come when the Internet truly becomes our primary means of commerce, including electronic versions of anonymous cash. At that point, the Internet could become the largest potential tax-avoidance machine ever invented.”

The “Sales Tax” advantage of Internet purchases will soon become an historical relic of it’s early growth, and probably should be. Assuming governments provide additional services and tax relief in other areas, it could be a boon for more localized communities as well.