Nick Oliva

Here is something from a recent Economist that people on both sides of the death penalty debate ought to be able to come together and agree on when they give it just a little thought:

THE sad case of Cameron Todd Willingham began two days before Christmas in 1991. He was alone with his three daughters—one toddler and two baby twins—when their house in Corsicana, a small town south of Dallas, began to burn. Mr Willingham later said the house was so thick with smoke he could not find any of the girls before escaping. But at his trial, investigators testified that based on the burn patterns in the house, the fire had been arson. Mr Willingham was quickly convicted and sentenced to death. Years of court challenges came to nothing and in 2004 Mr Willingham was executed. “The only statement I want to make is that I am an innocent man—convicted of a crime I did not commit,” he said from the gurney.

There is an obvious controversy about the death penalty here, but let’s not cry over Cameron Todd Willingham… here’s the comment I posted on the Economist Web site:

Not knowing more about this than what is in this article, I think it’s a poor example to use to debate the death penalty. I’m a father… if my son and I are in a burning house, I find him and bring him out with me or I die trying. You can be carried out unconscious, but you cannot walk out of that house. He deserved to die.

I can’t see how any self-respecting person would want to live knowing that he walked out and left his kids to die. There is no possible way to excuse this and no way to live with having done something like this.

F.C.C. Chairman Proposes ‘Open Internet’ Rules – NYTimes.com.

Cox Communications, another cable company, has been testing a system that slows traffic that it deems less time-sensitive, like file downloads and software updates, to keep Web pages, streaming video and online games working faster.

In case you’re missing the implication here… while you’re telecommuting, or while your company’s employee is telecommuting, his file downloads are taking much longer than they need to be. The reason, of course, is that nothing should keep 13 year old’s from killing their online friends as quickly as technologically possible.

File downloads are not time-sensitive? And just how closely is Cox reviewing traffic packets that it can distinguish binaries as being “software updates”? I suppose they’re just checking the Windows and Apple update sites.

Twitter Gets Revenue Model?

Wasn’t it just a few months ago that @Ev was bragging about not having any advertising-knowledgeable people at Twitter because it wasn’t something they were considering?

Does this mean that advertising is back in vogue for Web sites that can truly support it?

And for Twitter… where exactly will they run and not run ads? It’ll be interesting to learn from people complaining that a profane or disgusting tweet supported an ad for some wholesome product or service.

I made a stab in the dark the other day and was called on it by a guy whose commentary I enjoy tremendously, and whom I have a lot of respect for… except that I regularly trash just about everything he writes. Well, I can’t help it! I’m on something of a religion anti-crusade and he’s one of these pretend-everything-squares-with-Christianity types.

The NY Times had an article on the discovery of ten rare coins. How rare? According to the article, the US Mint was ordered to melt down every single specimen of the coin minted, after sending two to the Smithsonian. Based on these facts – which are NOT disputed, according to the article – just how many coins were legally available for sale?

NONE!

Right? Let’s do the very tricky math:

2 sent to the Smithsonian
+ all others melted down
= 100% of all coins minted

So how did 11 pieces make their way into the world? The US Government contended that they were stolen. The claim of the people that say they found the ten coins in a safety deposit box is that the government… (really give this some serious thought, ok?)

“did not conclusively establish when, how or by whom the coins found in circulation were taken from the Philadelphia Mint.”

And this is what the judge has told the government to prove… that coins that could not legally have left your possession do NOT have a valid title.

My conclusion was that this kind of reasoning is exclusively the domain of people that are susceptible to “believing” the claims of religion. Only someone that, ignorant of the cosmic teapot, tells you that the burden is on you to prove that a god does NOT exist, could possible shift burden of proof in this way. Therefore, the judge must be religious. In the US, a religious judge pretty much means a Christian judge.

This is mere deduction of the Hercule Poirot variety. A ruling of that type is exactly characteristic of a religious mind. A non-religious person would say that anyone that had legally acquired what would clearly become extremely valuable objects, would know he had the burden to prove title and would have said, “Dude,  could you give me a receipt for these?”

Walk along any well worn sidewalk in any US city and what two things can’t you miss? The first is the ignorant army (apologies to Matthew Arnold) of tar receptacles known as cigarette butts. The second is the connect-the-dots of the nasty remnants of the cud of after-smoke or school ectoplasm that was once sold as “chewing gum.”

And what does this come down to? Nothing more than a Paper v. Plastic packaging debate.

1. Require that cigarette and gum packs have receptacles for refuse built right in. The space taken up by the unused stuff could even collapse as the refuse space expands so overall size doesn’t increase by much.

2. Once enough time has passed for all legacy packaging to have turned over (can’t be very long, these are presumably perishables), punish littering of either with a day of community service. (I don’t believe in monetary fines since the cost of a dollar is different for all whereas the cost of an hour is far more uniform… unless you are lonely or old, or both. )

It would be really silly to argue that such packaging for cigarettes is unsafe. Just study the basic principles of combustion. If that doesn’t satisfy you, look at the packaging of any product “designed by Apple in California.” The suggestion that this is not feasible, in light of the complexity of technology we stuff into our pockets every day, is not tenable.

Wouldn’t it be nice to make people with nasty habits clean up after themselves? And wouldn’t it be nice to take just one more step toward the eventual, inevitable saving of civilization from the most useless and ubiquitous outrage man has perpetrated? (If you aren’t familiar with my pet peeves, I’m talking about those monstrous machines that move dirt around the street for the purpose of giving out traffic tickets and annoying drivers.)

Here’s the one healthcare item that most urgently needs fixing and is most simple to fix: Price gouging. Put this in your Facebook status for the day, “Require that those with the most need get the best price for medical care.” Not that I actually expect people to jump on this issue… it’s just a pet peeve of mine.

When an insured person has a procedure done or goes to an ER, insurance companies pay a negotiated rate. This is capitalism at work… the insurance company has purchasing power and they require the provider to agree to specific discounts in order to be in their network. Does the provider still make money? Of course… just not as much. My local convenience store  charges three, four, or more times the price for milk, bottled water, etc… because you’re paying for “convenience”… but everyone pays the same amount.

When an uninsured person has something done because he needs it, he’s charged “full price”. This is not just MSRP, i.e., the price that nobody has ever paid or will ever pay, but you show it so you can say the real regular price is a discount. What the uninsured pay is the equivalent of what you pay for water at the one watering hole in the desert… five or ten times what the insurance companies pay.

People don’t seem to realize or remember this, but the solution is simple. If a provider offers a discounted or negotiated price to anyone, whatever the best price is must be offered to the uninsured. Otherwise, he’s robbing the uninsured to give price breaks to insurance companies. In fact, if they get testy about it, it should have been illegal to charge prices that are so disproportionately oppressive to the people that could least afford to pay them. Perhaps the more egregious providers ought to be told to refund uninsured patients the grossly excessive amounts they charged for services.

This is why uninsured people go broke… paying ten times full price. This should be fixed before anything else… it could be done in a month if politicians wanted to do it.

Should a 95 year old man who cannot afford cutting edge cancer treatments that could “save his life” die because he can’t afford it?

YES!

Because “health care” should not mean “life prolongation at any cost”. There are basic things like emergency response that should not be denied to anyone. But there are some things that the average person should not be guaranteed access to. There is a reasonableness factor that has to be considered. For example, anyone that has disorders or diseases caused by smoking long after the years in which people were ignorant about smoking… sorry, dude… you don’t deserve life prolongation. Anyone that suffers significant injuries because of his refusal to wear seat belts… or a motorcycle helmet… they should know. You should have to sign a statement when you get your car or motorcycle license that says, “If you do not take steps to mitigate injuries that are known to occur on a daily basis, you idiot, you waive your right to claims for payment.”

So the Facebook chain status going around is deceptive. Of course, you should be able to get basic care! But you should not be automatically entitled to cutting edge, expensive treatments regardless of circumstances. There needs to be a distinction made and, unfortunately, it has to be based on cost and benefits to society. Society does benefit when a 10 year old survives an accident or disease through a terribly expensive operation; that kid could go on to do great things. Society does not benefit when a 95 year old smoker gets another three months to live… even if he’s your grandfather. It’s unfortunate… but necessary.

I love this particular quote from Walter Cronkite on whether Fox News is animal, vegetable, or mineral, “It was quite clear when they founded the Fox network that they intended to be a conservative organization, beyond conservative, a far right wing organization.”

So America watches Fox and accepts it’s doublespeak that it’s “fair and balanced.” Meanwhile, America (right and left) looks to Cronkite as the ultimate example of the “fair” and “balanced” journalist that could be trusted. It’s a logical contradiction… so what? Americans don’t believe there’s anything wrong with logical contradictions. It’s ingrained into them from birth by religion – which at it’s most basic purpose seeks nothing more than to instill ignorance and subject people to otherwise indefensible commands.

I think this is why I do believe strongly that religion hinders the advance of civilization. Sure, there are many historical examples of religion directly stopping the advance of man, but over hundreds of years these lose power. Christianity will one day likely be viewed by all as nothing more than another myth in the library of human mythology, but some other unjustified belief will take its place. Same for Islam and all the others… religion is transient… Ancient Egyptian religions survived for thousands of years too….

When people grow up thinking that two things that require each other to be false can both be “true”… they remove themselves from all possibility of adopting reason and experience as acceptable justifications for decisions.

This was more of a ramble than a rant… but things I read meshed together and brought it out…

A long, long time ago Nick started blogging. Then he stopped. Then he started again. Now, Dad Gummit!

He’s back!

I’m writing on a subway train heading home to Brooklyn from a meeting in the Upper West Side. I never blog anymore… I miss it. I’m anxious to get back into it because it kept me in touch in ways I’m not right now.

In the last year and a half I’ve been splitting my attention, energy, and efforts in two ways: this startup business, and our first pregnancy and birth: Nicolas "Nico" Oliva.

I’m happy to say that both the family and the business are doing great. Of course, you can never devote as much time as you would like to either, but I feel great about the time I spend with my wife and son, and I feel like whereIstand has gotten to where so much happens without me that I can turn my attention to different parts of the business without worrying so much about things not getting done.

Well.. to some extent, anyway. We’re a startup and as such we can never move quickly enough on things to be satisfied.

This is something of an "I’m back" entry. It’s not the first one I’ve written, so you can spank me later if I don’t stick to it.