Speech and Debate

What I would like to see in the next Presidential election cycle at the debates is a new set of rules put in place. And appoint moderators that will expressly follow those rules. I'd also like to see rules like this applied to politic ads, as well.

Rule 1: No talking about the other party

When asked a question of any type or style, all answers must be from YOUR perspective. You cannot talk about "well, according to my opponent ..." or "the philosophy of the [other party] is to ...". None of that. All questions must be answered based on your own position, your own desires, your own reasoning.

Rule 2: No pejorative words toward or attacks aimed at the other party

You are not allowed to use ANY negative words toward the other party. Your ads and your words cannot be deemed to attack the other candidate(s) position or perceived faults. This seems like it should be covered in #1, but I want it stated outright and for the record. No use of "snowflake" or "childish" or anything harsher. No fear-monger ads that misrepresent or make something seem more dire or dangerous than it is. Nada.

Rule 3: No false statements

If you are saying something and the fact-checking crew catches you in an outright lie, you get one warning. If they catch you in another lie, you pay a penalty. Lies will be determined by factual content within your statement, not normative statements.

Punishments

If you break any of the rules, the punishment for that infraction is that your microphone is cut off immediately and you do not get to finish your statement (or, in the case of Rule 3, it is cut off on the second lie within the same answer).

Once your mic is cut off, the moderator will immediately respond to the audience why the microphone was cut off and move to the next question for the next candidate.

I think that these simple rules can keep the debate lively, focused on what the candidate will do once in office, and give the audience a reason to watch. Too often the debates (and especially in the last election cycle) turned into diatribes about what "the other party" wanted to do or what "the other candidate" wanted to do... that isn't helpful. Also, it often is not true. You cannot speak for someone else. You don't know where they are coming from, what they plan to do, or how their mind may have changed.

In addition, by focusing on the candidate's position, it is easier for the audience/voter to hold that candidate accountable once they get into office. You must answer questions directly, responsibly, and on-record in front of both a live crowd and the millions watching the debate. It gives you a chance to talk about you -- and only you.

If these same rules are applied to political ads, then the punishment for those would be slightly different. The company/group providing the ad will be asked to re-edit the ad to remove the offending piece. If they are caught airing an ad that infringes on one of those rules a second time, that company/group cannot provide any more ads for that campaign season at all, for any candidate.

The rule will be doubly-applied to both the company/group name (The X Group to Elect Candidate Y, or whatever Super PAC, PAC, Candidate Committee, or grass-routes group) AND to the people who make up that group. So, for example, if Jim Walsh is the founder of a Super PAC that releases two ads that are deemed to violate one or more of the rules above, that Super PAC cannot release any more ads at all AND Jim Walsh (and all his coworkers at that Super PAC) also cannot be involved in any more ads during that election cycle, for any candidate.

These rules, and others like them, can keep the political climate open, fair, and more positive. If the audience can only hear what a candidate will do for them, they have a better chance of picking a viable candidate and hold that candidate accountable. No more attacking. No more fearmongering. No more divisiveness in the election cycle.

Congressional Rules (Revised)

I have revised my set of rules for Congress.

A member of Congress:

1. Shall be paid a Salary equal to the American Median Income + 10%. This amount cannot be raised or changed by Congress in any way.
1. Must make public and easily accessible any and all Income made in addition to their Congressional salary, including any stock and bond transactions, gifts, gratuities, honorariums, speaking engagements, book deals, campaign funds/contributions, et al.
2. Shall only have “free” health care provision while in office.
3. Must make public and easily accessible all travel expenses while in office. Only those that are for official government functions and reasons will be paid for by the government. Campaigning, fundraising, vacations, travel for family members, and any other travel deemed to not be for official government purposes will not be reimbursed by the government. (UPDATED)

[Solves the problem of Congress being paid well more than the average person (current Congressional salary: $174,000/year; current median income: about $45,000/year), making it a job that, once earned, no one wants to leave, but it is still valuable enough that those who want to serve the people will run for office.]

[Provides incentive to Congress to make sure laws enacted are beneficial to all income demographics.]

[Solves the problem of Congress members getting rich via alternate means while in office.]

2. Must spend a minimum of 12 days out of every month in their home location.
1. Congress members must maintain a residence in their home during the entire time they are in office.

[Solves the problem of Congress spending all of their time in Washington, D.C. and losing touch with those whom they are supposed to serve and represent.]

3. Cannot serve more than two consecutive terms in office, and no more than three terms total.

[Solves the problem of lifelong public jobs, cronyism, and the “good ole boy” club mentality. Forces Congress members to have to live under the laws they create.]

4. Must vote in a minimum of 90% of all Congressional votes. If a Congressman does not vote in a minimum of 90% of voting opportunities, the House or Senate will immediately begin the process of removing the Congressman from office.
1. Voting and abstentions will be documented per Congress member.
2. Votes cannot be delegated to another member of Congress.
3. Votes cannot be made anonymously.
4. Abstained votes will count as a non vote toward the 90% minimum requirement.
5. All voting records will be made public and easily accessible.

[Solves the problem of Congress members who are granted all the perks of a government job without the accountability of actually doing the job.]

[Solves the problem of a lack of accountability for votes.]

[Solves the problem of the public not being able to find out how their representative votes on any issue.]

5. Cannot enact any law that does not include all members of Congress.
1. Any existing law that excludes any member of Congress will be immediately and summarily changed to include all Congress members.
2. The Laws of the land will be applied equally to all, regardless of position or status.

[Solves the problem of Congress exempting itself from laws that affect all other citizens. I.e., being able to trade stocks based on their inside information of which laws will pass/won’t pass.]

NBA Refs

I argue that the NBA has the worst officiating of any professional sport, especially in North America. When it added a third on-court official, the refereeing actually got worse. How about, instead of fining players and coaches for pointing out what every fan knows to be true (i.e., that the NBA officiating is so horrible), the NBA simplifies its rules and cleans up the officiating? I know, I know, what a novel concept.

Here are some suggestions:

Right now, on approximately 8 out of 10 plays, the official who is completely blocked off from actually seeing whether a foul was committed is usually the one that blows the whistle. He assumes a foul must have been committed because he heard a sound or saw some movement by the shooter that suggested a foul. New rule: if you don't actually see an actual foul, you don't call it.

Also, frankly, the rules have gone too far toward allowing "act of shooting" calls to grant the person with the ball a foul shot. Let's make it so that if you aren't actively/currently in the act of shooting (i.e., the ball is in your hands and they are actively moving forward in a shooting action), then it is not an act of shooting foul. No more "two steps without dribbling," no more throwing your arms wildly forward after you hear the whistle and faking the ref into giving you a foul shot. Getting to the free throw line should be a rare and special occurrence, not a contest between the superstars to see who can get there the most in a game.

Oh, and let's actually use a rule that is on the books and make it more prevalent and important: the person who initiates the contact is the one on whom the foul is called. I hate watching a basketball game and Hubie Brown, Marv Albert, Mike Breen, or another announcer talks about the shooter "leaning into" the defender or trying to "draw contact" and getting a whistle. The rules state that the person who initiates the contact is the one who committed the foul. No more charging straight ahead, leaping into the air and into a defender, and it is the defender's fault for being in the way. If this rule was used and applied properly, more charges would get called and NBA players wouldn't feel the need to "flop" in order to get a call in their favor.

Also, let's expand the existing "hand is part of the ball" rule to say "the hand and forearm, up to but not including the elbow" is part of the ball and any incidental contact is considered part of the ball. Also, "the feet and lower legs, up to but not including the knees" is considered neutral territory, like the court, and incidental contact does not constitute a penalty. No more having two players running down the court and their feet get tangled and it is a foul on someone. I think most refs can determine if a player is kicking at another with intent as opposed to just stepping on a foot and taking a tumble.

If two people are on the ground wrestling over the ball, or someone is trapped on the sideline, they cannot call a timeout. If you are wrestling for the ball, there is always some, even minor, doubt as to who has possession of it, so no time out can be called. If you are trapped on the sideline by a defender, possession of the ball is starting to be in doubt (as you may not be able to escape, thus giving the ball to the other team either via the shot clock or by stepping out of bounds) and you should not be allowed to call timeout. Timeouts should only be called when possession is without doubt and only by the team with the ball (TV and referee timeouts are the only exceptions to this).

The NBA wants exciting games to draw the fans in. They want to make money. During the season, the refs call the game one way which allows for a lot of offense and higher scores. But when the game gets to the playoffs, they call it differently and much more defense is played. Yet more people watch the playoffs than watch individual games during the season. This is partly because there are so many games (82 during a regular season) that each individual game means very little but mostly because individual game in the playoffs have so much more meaning and value. It also shows that fans don't mind watching exciting, defensive games. So, let's bring the defense back into the league and allow the contests to be decided on the court, not by arbitrary calls by an official.

These are my suggestions. How would you fix the officiating in the NBA?

Genies and Bottles

Like it or not, the digital age is here to stay. We have smart phones (but dumb users), Facebook, Twitter, and the 24/7 news/opinion cycle. The moment one person hears something, it is out there for everyone to see, hear, read, and react to and cannot be taken back. You cannot delete something from the Internet, you can only remove the copy of something you posted at that time; all the other copies, reposts, reTweets, and spider-bots that look for and save copies of web pages will have their copies in perpetuity.

It astounds me that sports figures, celebu-tards, and politicians continue to try to use the "they hacked my account" excuse. That's so 2005. Haven't you learned yet that if you just apologize for the stupid, insensitive comment right away, the public is much more likely to believe you and move on to the next scandal? If you deny it, you just add wood to the fire.

One of my wife's family members died on Sunday, but the family waited until Monday to ask people not to post anything online about it. Too late. That should have been explicitly and clearly stated when they were making the phone calls announcing the death, otherwise it has become de rigueur to post whatever thoughts a person has immediately onto a Twitter, Facebook/Plus feed, or blog. In this case, a couple of family members were not told immediately, posted something, and the cat was out of the bag before the family could notify the rest of those they wished to call.

People need to remember:

1. Every single thing you post to the World Wide Web is permanent. You can never delete it or get every single copy removed. So think a second (and a third time) before posting it. Does not matter if it is a text message, email, blog, video, picture or other communication -- if it is posted to the Internet, it will always be on the Internet.
2. Assume that everything you post to the World Wide Web is public. A personal email may be accidentally (or intentionally) forwarded to the wrong party or someone may CC/BCC someone you do not want to read it. Something you post to your Twitter or Facebook may be listed as "private" but can easily and quickly become public when the person you posted it to responds. And, once it is posted or sent, refer to rule 1.
3. There is no such thing as "anonymous" on the World Wide Web. You may think what you are posting is done anonymously, but the government can requisition your information from the ISP, the content provider, or the social media site and quickly discover who you are. There are groups of "hackers" and never-do-wells who delight in breaking into accounts and posting your private information so that you can be publicly accosted (see the 4chan versus the little girl incident, for example). The best you can hope for is plausible deniability. Once it is posted or sent, refer to rules 1 and 2.
4. Be respectful of others. This is the one most lacking in today's online communities. But if you consider rules 1-3, this one becomes a no-brainer. If you thought you could call someone names and bully them, just remember what happened to the little girl and her family when 4chan decided to make them a project. No one is truly anonymous, everything can be made very public, and all of it will be permanent, so be nice. If you disagree, do it respectfully.

Remembering and assuming these rules can keep you safe(r) in the digital age. It makes you think twice before posting that picture or video. It helps you not send that inflammatory email to your boss, coworker, client, subordinate that can get you fired. It makes you think again before posting that blog containing derogatory comments.

I only post a blog entry every week or two. But I write many more blog entries. It is just that I write them, let them sit in my Draft folder for a while, and then delete them when I realize I was out of bounds, did not want whatever it was about to be public, or was not being respectful. And I realize my anonymity to the general public is easily compromised both by those few who know who I am and by those who wish to make an effort to find out. It just is not worth it to me.

Actually, in reviewing the four rules I typed above, I think they are salient points for everyone's daily lives, regardless of Internet use. If we would all assume that everything we say and do is permanent, that everything we do or say can become public, that we cannot maintain our anonymity, and if we are respectful to others in all aspects of our lives, the majority of the scandals, situations, and issues we see reported in the news today would not happen.

It would be one small step toward putting the Genie back into its bottle.

Lounge Lizard

We are traveling to SoCal in September. On the way there and coming back, we have a 2 hour and a 3 hour layover in Toronto. My wife once had an upgraded ticket on a trip out to see me and she used the Air Canada VIP Lounge and loved it. So, we wanted to use that service again if possible (you can with standard fares for an additional fee per person).

The strange thing is that Air Canada will not accept you purchasing a VIP Lounge pass if your destination or starting location airports do not have a lounge. Since we are in the small town of Saint John, NB, our airport does not have a lounge. So the fact we are WILLING to pay this additional fee means nothing to AC, they will not accept our money or give us the pass.

This has irritated my wife more than once, and today she found the rule, sent it to me, and asked me to call and argue with them about it. Rather than argue, I took a different tact.

When Mike, the AC representative who fielded my call came on the line, I said, "Mike, I have a problem. I want to give Air Canada money and your company doesn't want to take it. Can you help me to give Air Canada more money, Mike?"

This completely took Mike by surprise and I heard him give a little laugh before he replied, "I'll see what I can do. What seems to be the trouble?"

I then explained to Mike that I was willing to bet that the vast majority of people flying do not feel the need to use a lounge at their starting destination, as they are likely arriving at an appropriate time and getting on their planes fairly quickly. Where the majority of people need a lounge is at connection cities; they have long layovers and may have had a trying flight for a number of reasons, and they need to unwind before going up in another plane. Mike agreed that made sense.

At this point I explained that it almost felt like AC was discriminating against NB because none of our airports had lounges, so we couldn't purchase this option at all for any of our flights. I told him this was like AC turning down free money. He laughed and agreed.

Mike was so amiably surprised and pleased with the conversation that he then tried some workarounds to see if he could get us the lounge passes. Each failed. But this led him to check to see if there was any more information about this service available. He found an article that says that, starting August 6, 2009, AC will allow these passes to be purchased by any individual for locations that have a lounge. He recommended that we try again to purchase it online at that time and, if it still didn't work, to call AC back. He went so far as to give me the location and name of the file so I could tell anyone who argued with me to look it up and get it done.

As we were signing off, he again said, "I see your point; seems strange that Air Canada would just leave this 'free money' on the table. Maybe this new policy is addressing that."

Sometimes, you just have to know the right tact to take and doors will open. This is, by far, some of the best customer service I have received in my calls/talks with any AC employee. Kudos to Mike for going the extra step.

Do you think if I had called up with angry voice and only complaining/demanding satisfaction, I would have had the same experience?