Tomorrow is a Day of Action for all those that oppose censorship; SOPA is censorship

Posted by Martín Paredes on January 17, 2012 No comments

Going Dark Protest

On January 24, 2012, Congress will vote to pass internet censorship in the Senate and a similar bill is pending before the House of Representatives. Both, Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the House and PROTECT-IP (PIPA) in the Senate are misguided attempts to deal with online intellectual property theft. Unfortunately their approach is draconian and goes against the fundamental principles of free speech and fair and equal protection under the law. Furthermore the Acts, as proposed, unilaterally impose sanctions against citizens of other countries without giving them the benefit of the due-process so enshrined in the US Constitution.

Under the Acts, a properly worded letter is all it would take to force a company, like Google to stop delivering search results for a targeted website, or a payment processor to stop accepting payments for a website or an Internet provider to stop delivering service. That’s it, a letter is sufficient to infringe on the rights of a website provider without recourse to due-process. Most egregious is that the legislation targets foreign website operators while leaving US-controlled domain names; .com, .net & .org under the umbrella of the protections of due-process. Unfortunately in their haste, the supporters of the legislation didn’t realize, or maybe they did, that US citizens also own and operate the website addresses they are targeting.

If this is allowed to happen, American citizens could be subjected to retaliatory legislative measures from other countries simply by having a website. Here is an example of one country’s wayward laws targeted at American citizens and the personal cost to the individual.

American Citizen, Joe Gordon was sentenced to two and a half years of prison in December 2011 for insulting King Bhumibol Adulyadej. Gordon had translated “The King Never Smiles”, a book banned in Thailand, and uploaded it unto the Internet while in the United States. Gordon is now serving a prison sentence, while awaiting a Royal pardon, for exercising his right to free speech.

His crime? Insulting the Thai monarch.

The Internet has given us the power to express ourselves and we all benefit from it. As passive readers or active participants the Internet empowers everyone, including those in repressive nations. To espouse freedom and Democracy for other countries while attempting to implement draconian measures is duplicity at its best. Either the Congress is for open freedom of speech and the free flow of information or it is about protecting the self-interests of a small minority.

One need not go further than Rupert Murdoch’s recent Tweeter tirade in support of SOPA in order to understand the fundamental drive for it. Murdoch went on a Twitter rampage shortly after the Obama administration conceded that it had reservations over the controls proposed by the legislation.

Murdoch wrote; “Obama has thrown in his lot with Silicon Valley paymasters who threaten all software creators with piracy, plain thievery”. Murdoch called Google the “piracy leader” through his Tweets. Murdoch used the very system he wishes he could shut off to express his fervent need to control the Internet to his own liking, or that of his pocket book which is probably the same.

That is the fundamental flaw in the legislation in that it punitively punishes innocent infringers by the actions of their membership without giving them the opportunity to respond via the time honored tradition of your day in court. Murdoch’s stance is understandable; his revenues are under heavy stress because his revenue model simply cannot compete in a connected world. Rather than adapt to a digital world, he would rather have Congress pass legislation that he can wield to hold the tide back for him.

Intellectual property theft is a serious problem not only for single-man bloggers but for multi-national conglomerates as well. Intellectual property is the single most important asset the United States is able to actively complete in the world market with, but to create legislation contrary to the fundamental guarantees to the US Constitution is not only foolhardy but dangerous to American citizens.

Wikipedia and Reddit, among other notable websites will go dark tomorrow, January 18, 2011 for twenty-four hours to protest this misguided attempt by Murdoch and his cohorts. You can do your part to thwart a would be attempt to censor the vehicle we have all come to rely on by calling or writing to your Congressmen to let them know you do not support these bills:

Click here for a Directory of Representatives.

The following is a list of cosponsors of the SOPA bill:

H.R.3261
Latest Title: Stop Online Piracy Act
Sponsor: Rep Smith, Lamar [TX-21] (introduced 10/26/2011)      Cosponsors (31)
Related Bills:S.968, S.1228
COSPONSORS(31), ALPHABETICAL
Rep Amodei, Mark E. [NV-2] – 11/3/2011
Rep Baca, Joe [CA-43] – 12/7/2011
Rep Barrow, John [GA-12] – 11/14/2011
Rep Bass, Karen [CA-33] – 11/3/2011
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] – 10/26/2011
Rep Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] – 10/26/2011
Rep Bono Mack, Mary [CA-45] – 10/26/2011
Rep Carter, John R. [TX-31] – 11/3/2011
Rep Chabot, Steve [OH-1] – 10/26/2011
Rep Chu, Judy [CA-32] – 11/30/2011
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] – 10/26/2011
Rep Cooper, Jim [TN-5] – 12/12/2011
Rep Deutch, Theodore E. [FL-19] – 10/26/2011
Rep Gallegly, Elton [CA-24] – 10/26/2011
Rep Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] – 10/26/2011
Rep Griffin, Tim [AR-2] – 10/26/2011
Rep Holden, Tim [PA-17] – 11/30/2011
Rep King, Peter T. [NY-3] – 11/3/2011
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] – 11/30/2011
Rep Lujan, Ben Ray [NM-3] – 11/14/2011
Rep Marino, Tom [PA-10] – 11/3/2011
Rep Nunnelee, Alan [MS-1] – 11/3/2011
Rep Owens, William L. [NY-23] – 11/14/2011
Rep Quayle, Benjamin [AZ-3] – 12/13/2011
Rep Ross, Dennis [FL-12] – 10/26/2011
Rep Scalise, Steve [LA-1] – 11/14/2011
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] – 10/26/2011
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] – 12/7/2011
Rep Terry, Lee [NE-2] – 10/26/2011
Rep Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [FL-20] – 11/3/2011
Rep Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12] – 11/3/2011

Freedom of Speech needs to be protected and nurtured or we will lose it. Take action and let them know you care.


The Myth of New Urbanism

Posted by Martín Paredes on December 5, 2011 Comments Off

During the last couple of years I was in El Paso Texas, one of the most vocal public policy arguments was the notion of infill development and downtown revitalization. Wrapped around the nostalgia of yester-year walk able communities, the notion of “new urbanism” seems to have manifested itself across various communities, including El Paso. As with any public policy endeavor one must look at what is the driving force behind it.

As the public commentary rages on, the issue of new urbanism has interested me. Coupled with my interest in the movement, my frequent cross-country travels and my previous experience living in other major cities; the façade of “walk able communities”, “cost-cutting savings” and “better communities” has begun to peel away to reveal the ugliness and failures of a design movement designed to fail from the onset.

My recent experience in San Francisco, my recent move to Orlando and my Thanksgiving trip to South Beach crystalized for me the failure that is “new urbanism”. The Achilles heel for the walk able communities is the fact that people are not meant to be concentrated on top of each other.

If humans had been meant to concentrate themselves together in dense groupings then we would never had ventured beyond our original borders in search of greener pastures. Yet, our history continues to show that we strive to expand our influence across vast spaces in search of some distance from each other. Although we build communities and linkages among ourselves, these are not indications of our need to live on top of each other, rather they are support mechanisms designed to pool our resources while keeping our remoteness from one another.

The empirical evidence is clear, large cities designed vertically beget community problems socially and health wise that rarely, if ever, manifest themselves in rural communities. Although urban sprawl is the “ugly word” du jour, my experience is showing me that the movement is being driven not from a need to be socially conscious but rather, it is being manipulated by some that stand to make money from forcing “new urbanism” into community policy.

Take for example South Beach. Displaced community members were the original developers of the community. Once the community was made sustainable, the pioneers were forced economically out of their established communities where they had chosen to build a legacy for themselves. The evidence supports this as well as in San Francisco. Once the South Beach community was established, the erosion of the pioneers was again begun and today, the original settlers are nowhere to be found.

They were not forced out by overt displacement, but rather they were displaced economically as South Beach was reinvented to serve well-heeled residents looking for nostalgic playgrounds for themselves. And so the cycle repeats itself again, the pioneers, that attempt to build a legacy for themselves are forced out economically only to be replaced by nomadic, temporary settlers looking for another playground to place temporary roots on.

If “new urbanism” created “sustainable communities” then I would be hard-pressed to condemn them. But San Francisco and South Beach have clearly shown me that “new urbanism” and “sustainable communities” are nothing more than a façade designed to mask the reality of its failure. Peel the first layer of the fancy hotels in South Beach and look beneath the surface and the fallacy of “sustainable communities” clearly manifest itself. Dilapidated buildings and homelessness, not to mention health and social ills are clearly a result of concentrating people into denser populations.

Once you look closely at urban renewal projects, the urbanism movement reveals itself as nothing more than a façade covering its failures in post-card ideals of comfortable life. But what the proponents of the movement ignore, possibly purposely, is that new urbanism takes away from the poor and displaces them even further out of the community’s mainstream further disfranchising them from the comfort of membership in the general community.

Those that argue that denser communities brings lower costs due to lowered transportation requirements and somehow creates a sense of community membership for the good of the village ignore the evidence of the communities that have already tried and failed at urban renewal. The evidence is clear, the displacement of the members that built the quaint postcards that so many in the vertical cities lust for are eventually driven out by the locusts taking over their homes.

Both South Beach and San Francisco have proven to me that new urbanism is a failure, but far more egregious, for me, is that it appears to be designed to serve well-healed silent minorities pulling the strings in re-inventing communities for their delight while taking away from the citizens, like Segundo Barrio in El Paso, who strive to make themselves a better home. El Paso is one of the latest battle-grounds and the battle lines are clearly drawn out between the two antagonists, the poor wishing to make a better life and the weasel proponents conveniently serving hidden masters in their agenda to remake a community into yet another playground to play in.  The question is, who will ultimately prevail, or will, yet another economic displacement happen again?


Caballero to run for Judge

Posted by Martín Paredes on December 1, 2011 Comments Off

El Paso attorney Theresa Caballero announced today that she
is running for Judge in Criminal District Court 1 in the upcoming county-wide
elections.


AT&T Scam: Landline Early Termination Fees

Posted by Martín Paredes on October 25, 2011 Comments Off

I have recently noticed that AT&T has quietly begun to tack on Early Termination Fees to landlines. As a cell phone user, for many years, I am cognizant of Early Termination Fees by cell phone providers, but it appears that one of AT&T’s reactions to its eroding market share by cell phone and VoIP service providers is to quietly add Early Termination Fees to its landline customers without their active and knowledgeable consent.

One of my company’s core services is to provide managed telecommunications solutions to our customers; as such I have dealt with AT&T and its counterparts by requisitioning telecommunications services from simple, single-line telephone numbers to broadband internet connections. Therefore I have many years of experience dealing with the telecoms and their processes.

I have seen and dealt with the idiosyncrasies of giant conglomerations in Mexico and the United States and especially their monopolistic attitudes in the 80’s and 90’s. What AT&T is doing now is nothing more than a fraud designed to milk as much money as they can from consumers before their monopoly completely erodes and they have to figure out how to make money honestly.

The scam, like all scams, works on people’s busy lives and the concept that if only a few fall for our scam then it lines our pockets.

It starts with the friendly telephone operator happily taking your telephone order constantly trying to upsell you an additional service you really don’t need but hey, it’ll save you money in the long term; “who knows you might need it”. If you insist that you just need a “plain, simple telephone number with no call waiting or long-distance service”, the operator will happily fill your request not once telling you that there will be early termination fees in the future. In fact the term is never mentioned.

As with any scam, the less information you give the customer up-front the less chance they have of starting to price and feature compare, which is where AT&T will always fail.

Then you begin to deal with the monopolistic attitude of a monolith whereby getting a telephone line installed at your office requires that you wait patiently for a four-hour window where the tech might stop by to install the line; “time permitting”. Notice that at no time was the “Early Termination Fee” mentioned.

I know perfectly well that the more complex telecommunication connections such as T1s and cellular service require term contracts and therefore Early Termination Fees are amply spelled out. I have no problem with those because, as an informed consumer, I make an affirmative decision to contract and pay the penalty for moving before the term expires. The key, here, being an affirmative decision to enter into a contract that requires a penalty for cancelling before the term expires.

In terms of landlines, AT&T doesn’t want to clearly spell out Early Termination Fees because then the scam will not work. You see, if you tell the consumer that they need to contract with a pre-determined period of time, then getting a landline is no longer a simple matter, but one of, wait maybe I should shop around a little before I commit.

So how do they get away with it? Obviously there is an upside to this for AT&T, if not why bother. It’s simple; businesses are in transition today, going from the traditional fixed-land line to converting to other providers via cellular or VoIP service for their telecommunications. During this transition businesses are still trying to determine the best course of action. This transition is the reason why AT&T is relying on a scam to shore up their eroding revenues because their infrastructure is unable and their corporate culture is unwilling to compete fairly in the marketplace.

The scam works this way. Sneak in the language of Early Termination Fees buried in pages of legalese and little post cards advising you; “thank you for being a valued customer” and, by the way, we are happily renewing your service for another year, oh and guess what, since we value you as a customer so much, we are letting you know that if you decide to cancel we’ll tack on an Early Termination Fee.

There is no affirmative agreement on your part or consent to accept the Early Termination Fee, but after all it is a scam so why bother with business ethics and fairness? As a business owner you make the move to improving your bottom line and make the switch to another telecommunications provider to be more efficient. Sure you asked AT&T if they could match the price point or even provide the service and they could do neither. So after spending hours jumping from AT&T representative to AT&T representative to make the switch, you finally convince them to cancel your account. The helpful AT&T representative takes the cancellation order and conveniently tells you that you will receive a final bill in the mail.

A few weeks later, it arrives. It conveniently tells you that you are paid up for services rendered since AT&T, like all telecommunication companies, charges you for service BEFORE you actually consume it, but wait, there is a balance due any way. It is a fee for “agreement termination”. Yup, it’s an Early Termination Fee for canceling a landline.

Here is the genius to scam. Most businesses contracted their telephone lines years before and paperwork and the person that contracted the service is probably no longer with the company. And even if they were, it is probably the owner who is too busy with the business day to day operations that recollecting who they spoke to or what they signed is not worth the effort.

But guess what, there is no paper signed by the business that says; “yes, I agree to pay Early Termination Fees”. Most companies would rather pay the outrageous fee rather than face the threat of being referred to an outside collection agency. You see, AT&T is so egregious about their scam that they conveniently mention on their bill that this is your final bill and that “it is IMPORTANT that you pay the final balance no later than the DUE BY date” or there will be consequences.

The scam, like all scams, works on ignorance and therefore AT&T doesn’t want you to take the time to scrutinize the bill, much less think about it. So most companies pay and move on. The fact that some companies choose to pay the scam does not make it right.

The economy and the business world are in a state of ever evolving flux as technology and world-wide economic stresses have made it necessary for businesses to streamline their operations in order to remain relevant in today’s economic climate. Giant conglomerations struggle, like small businesses, but as industry giants their resources mean that they can get away with scams individuals will likely face jail time for.

In the case of AT&T’s landline Early Termination Fee scam, the most likely outcome is that eventually, if ever, they will be faced with a class-action lawsuit where they pay cents on the dollar to settle the case, with the majority of the monies going to attorney fees. The consumers who paid the fees will get no relief and AT&T, even after paying the penalty, if any, will still have benefited from the monies it collected from the scam through increased stock options/prices, interest earned from banked money and “legal fees” deductions on their corporate tax returns.

And, if an enterprising attorney doesn’t decide to pursue a class action lawsuit then the monies collected are banked for AT&T’s shareholder benefits. AT&T benefits from the scam regardless of, and if, they are ever called on it.

Can you do anything about it?

As a realist I know that there is really nothing anyone can do about it. It is the nature for government to perpetuate consumer fraud by ignoring it or paying lip service to it. It doesn’t do government any good to go after the same people that feed it on a daily basis, so it continues. A small business man would likely face jail time for the same fraud, but a giant, like AT&T, will be ignored by government oversight therefore further encouraging them. It is easier to throw an individual, with little resources, in jail rather than to hold a company, like AT&T accountable for the same scam.

The only thing we can do, as consumers, is to call them on their fraud and demand written proof of your company’s “affirmative” agreement to enter into a contract with AT&T whereby your company agreed to pay Early Termination Fees. Absent that, well, would you pay a person that walked up to you and told you; “you owe me $100 for walking on my street”?

That’s exactly what AT&T is telling you when it demands an Early Termination Fee for a land-line you cancelled that doesn’t have a signed contract attached to it. But, as a giant unethical conglomerate, they have the resources to make your life difficult by legal terrorism through threats of lawsuits and referrals to collection agencies.

So, if you decide to embark in this assertion of your rights and correct a wrong, document, document and document everything. More importantly respond to each and every letter you receive and do not engage anyone in a discussion about the merits of your argument. Rather force them to contact you via correspondence in order to properly document your actions.

Like all scammers, documentation is the worst nightmare for the scammer, so once AT&T realizes that you are on to them they will quickly move on to the next victim.


RIM Outage Reinforces the Need to take Control of Business Assets

Posted by Martín Paredes on October 13, 2011 Comments Off

The recent outage of the Blackberry network reinforces the need for all businesses to start analyzing the danger of relying on one provider to provide critical business services to companies. Research in Motion, the back-bone of the Blackberry connectivity tool, suffered a world-wide system shutdown on Monday, October 10, 2011 and three days later it is still struggling to bring back its services online.

On, Thursday, October 13, 2011, RIM’s co-CEO, Mike Lazaridis apologized to his customers for the service outages. The apology, all though well-intentioned, seems to gloss over the fact that a company that is entrusted to keep the lines of communications open has failed because of one device.

According to an article in the New Your Times, RIM’s chief technology officer, David Yach, stated that he believes the world-wide failure was caused by a single switch that brought the entire system down. Apparently, although backup systems were designed to avoid this potential problem, they apparently failed as well.

This latest system failure for RIM is a wake-up for businesses to start evaluating their dependence on third-parties to provide critical collaboration tools for their business operations. In the technology world, it is not a question of WHETHER a system will fail; rather it is a question of WHEN it will fail.

Businesses today have jumped on the bandwagon of social media tools for their customers by relying on free third-party tools such as Facebook. Although free of charge, the reliance of a single third-party tool under the control of someone else is a ticking-bomb waiting to go off without warning, potentially wreaking havoc over a company’s customer relationships to the point that they may not recover. Just as Research in Motion is currently demonstrating, a single-point of failure can have devastating effects across many facets of a company.

A single-point of failure is the reason why businesses need to consider who and what controls their greatest assets, their customers. Amitor® addresses the problem of both providing an integrated, easily accessible customer resource manager (CRM) and a full-suite of social media tools while keeping companies in control of their own business futures. As Research in Motion continues to prove, relying on a third-party to keep the lines of communications open between customers and companies is a disaster in the making, if companies do not take the steps necessary to protect themselves from single point of failure.

Find out more at http://www.cognent.com


A culture of Needy People

Posted by Martín Paredes on October 11, 2011 Comments Off

Recently on an airplane ride to a business meeting I spent some time reflecting on the people around me. I am a people watcher and as such I enjoy seeing how people react or act under different situations. Along with this, lately I have been unsettled by something I didn’t seem to understand. The world around us has been changing dramatically in recent years and somehow it all didn’t add up in my mind. These are exciting times but they are also dangerous times. And then it hit me, we have been creating a world of needy people.

As I watched the people around me on the airplane I couldn’t help but see how things have gone from a culture of self-sufficiency to one of needy people. Stewardesses, although there to facilitate the security and to some extent the comfort of the traveling public are not babysitters but there they were baby-sitting spoiled adults. I understand that Southwest Airlines’ primary goal is to attract a fickle traveling public in order to excel in their industry. As such they force their stewardesses to keep a smile on their face regardless of the circumstances or the childishness of the people they are dealing with. They have a hard job and I do not envy them.

It all starts at the boarding gate, my favorite kindergartener can count from one to fifty without missing a beat. Why can’t the adults lining up to board, not understand that “A” group boards first with other group “A” members in numeric order? “B” group does not board until after “A” group. “ABC”, get it? And just because you have a child, or two, does not mean you should get special treatment and the right to check-in late and still expect to board with group “A”? A child does not extend special privileges.

Oh and don’t get me started on luggage. It is a simple concept; there is a finite amount of space for your luggage inside the aircraft. And, there is a limit to the number of carry-ons you can carry on board. That means, that a purse and a computer are each one item and therefore that over-sized suit case and backpack means you are carrying four items on board, instead of two. Remember two plus two equals four, not two.

And, more importantly, a protruding backpack, especially an overloaded one on your back means that if you turn around to wrestle your oversized wheeled suitcase down a narrow aisle means you slam someone in the face every time you turn around to tug on that suitcase that is not meant to be carried on the plane.

If the over-sized bag that is too heavy for you to lift doesn’t fit down the aisle, what makes you think it will fit in the overhead bin? It is simple geometry, it just doesn’t fit! And for those that insist on sharing your snoring sound-effects with the rest of us, remember that regardless of whether your spouse may or may not enjoy your comfort sleep, the fact remains that they chose to share it with you, not us. Go to sleep the night before and save us from your snoring sound effects. That also means bathe and wash your clothes, the rest of us on the plane do not want to partake of your cooking smells emanating from your clothes or your body scent. It’s a shared ride, not your private plane.

That goes for fat people. Yes, I wrote “fat”. Part of being a society of needy people is that we have accepted the notion that we do not call things what they really are, rather we should refer to them in a nice way, as if nice fixes the problem. Fat is a personal choice, whether psychological or medical it is still a choice we make by accepting it. If you choose to be fat, do not expect to be given preferential treatment to board the aircraft or park in handicap areas. Loose the weight or fix the problem, do not ignore it. And if you choose to ignore it, remember that it is your choice and not anyone else’s, so guess what, you need to buy two tickets, not just one. If you need a belt extender you need two tickets. It is as simple as that!

Unfortunately the saddest thing is the children that are shuttled from city to city on an airplane because parents just can’t seem to take personal responsibility for their own actions. You chose to have child. If you can’t afford to travel with them, then sacrifice and live in the city that the other parent is at. Stewardesses are not baby sitters and should not have to deal with a child, period.

Oh, and by the way, ObamaCare wouldn’t even be an issue today if people understood that the high cost of medical health is not about the quality of life but rather our own irresponsible behavior. We are obese and sick because we refuse to take personal responsibility for our lives. Children are taught at a young-age that anything that ails them is fixed by going to the doctor or taking medicine. Scrape your knee and the first thing the parent does is take out the non-stinging ointment. How about plain old simple soap and water? That always worked, why not now? Oh, that’s right, because the kid may cry louder because it stings. The lesson for the child is don’t worry; if you screw up I’ll still make it better. We all learn from our failures. It stings because we are not supposed to do things that lead to injuries. That’s how we learn from the pain that accompanies our own stupidity.

In a world of personal responsibility there wouldn’t be a need for psychologists because we wouldn’t need someone to tell us that its ok, all will be all right soon regardless of our own stupidity. In a world of personal responsibility there wouldn’t be Barney Madoff stealing money because those that ignored the warning signs because they were making more money than logically possible because they were greedy are not victims. Labeling them victims is ignoring the fact that they expect the world to watch out for them rather than them taking personal responsibility for their own actions.

This leads me to the nexus of the whole problem and that is that parents are bringing up needy people. It is a world-wide problem where children are taught from an early age that personal responsibility is not an important part of their lives. Schools no longer allow sports where scores are kept in primary school because the child’s feelings may get hurt. Deal with it! Life is full of disappointments! There are winners and there are losers to everything. The sooner a child learns that, the better we all are.

Schools are reluctant to give grades out because a child shouldn’t know that they are a looser. Bull-crap, if a child is failing he or she needs to know that. How else is a child going to understand that it takes hard work to excel? A child is never too young to learn the meaning of failure. It is part of life and we should all strive to avoid it but we all need to understand that sometimes we fail while other times we win. The sooner we learn that, the better, as a society, we all are.

Children need to be taught that church, or other public places are places that have certain behavioral standards. At the grocery stores or at the church services, parents seem to have the notion that catering to the child’s wishes teaches them responsibility. You don’t have to beat a child to teach them personal responsibility you just have to take the time to deal with them. If the child fidgets in church, talks or doesn’t pay attention the solution is simple, teach them not to do it again. For every action there is a reaction. Parents, now-a-days, think that little “Johnny’s” antics in public are cute, rather than a lack of personal responsibility.

Parents are perpetuating the concept of needy people.

Parents have decided to forgo their responsibility and instead plop their children in front of a television set, a computer or both and let their children grow up on their own. Sometimes they expect the babysitter to do the parenting. And then they complain that society is all screwed up.

Making a better world starts at home with you. Lead by example and teach your children that personal responsibility is the only way to live. Living that way eliminates the excuses that ail the world today. This notion that it “takes a village” to raise a family is cop out designed to make people dependent rather than free. It is personal responsibility that makes us free.


Citizen Power Alive and Well in El Paso: Unfortunately, the three amigos not riding off into the sunset, yet

Posted by Martín Paredes on September 23, 2011 Comments Off

As hard as it is to believe for the powers-that-be in El Paso, the fact is that the citizens of the community have a voice and know exactly what it is that they want. As much as Susie Byrd, John Cook and Steve Ortega try to conceal the truth, the reality is that the electorate of the city knows exactly what they want and are willingly to demand it, no matter what it takes.

Yesterday, Municipal Clerk Richarda Momsen declared that the signatures submitted for a recall election of three members of council are valid. Momsen rightfully stopped validating the signature at the point where the required number, plus a comfortable cushion, had been validated in order to expedite the process. Therefore, it can be assumed that the actual number demanding the recall of the three politicians, who think they can ignore the electorate, is much higher than the 7,000 signatures verified.

There is no hiding the truth; over 7,000 registered voters demanded that the three politicians, who assumed that they could obfuscate the will of the voter through voter apathy, need to explain themselves before the electorate in order to keep their office.

It cannot be any clearer than that!

Unfortunately, the three compadres aren’t about to listen to the constituency, after all, they feel that they know better and will now attempt to stop the recall process through legal challenges to it. That’s right, unfortunately, the three-amigos aren’t about to start listening to the electorate because they know that when it comes down to it, the truth is that the electorate has been clear from the beginning about the whole episode; it is they who determines the road the city takes and not the three amigos.

Although the certification of the recall signatures is clear as daylight, unfortunately, the shenanigans from the three-amigos will continue.

Led by self-anointed ruler of El Paso, John Cook, the recall process and the electorate’s control of the city will have to wait for more legal maneuvering intending to slow it down long enough to allow them the ability to survive their terms in office. After all, they know full well that in an election, the message will be clear to them as they are shown the door back into the obscurity of nothingness for them.

The unmentioned factor in this whole episode is that the process has been thwarted from the very beginning through legal maneuvering designed to silence the electorate. The question is who is the legal mind strategizing the legal maneuvering and why? Is there a financial benefit to the protagonist by thwarting the electorate’s will?


The trouble with politicians is their actions: Beto O’Rourke exemplifies

Posted by Martín Paredes on September 8, 2011 Comments Off

Former city representative Beto O’Rourke recently confirmed that he will be challenging US Representative Silvestre Reyes in the March Democratic Primary. Although recently confirmed, there have been months of speculation on his intent to seek the 16th Congressional seat. Both the incumbent and the challenger have plenty of actions to create the necessary record for the electorate to make a decision on Election Day.

Local bloggers have fallen over themselves trying to garner attention of the upcoming bruising battle by focusing on the controversy of O’Rourke’s use of a nickname rather than his given name. Funny how politics can be, the use of a nickname becomes the central issue rather than the policy decisions and the actions of the politicians.

In the case of Beto O’Rourke, although portrayed as a newcomer looking to unseat the incumbent, the fact is that Beto O’Rourke has cemented a record that will be hard to overcome for the typical El Paso voter, regardless of the nickname he runs under.

Issue: Conflict of Interest

In early 2006, the Paso del Norte Group comprised of Beto O’Rourke, his father-in-law – William Sanders, and various other powerful businessmen secretly crafted a plan to modernize downtown El Paso. The plan called for relocating people out of their homes under the auspice of rebuilding a historical part of downtown to a more palatable format for economic revitalization. As the plan trickled into the community’s consciousness an unmistakable truth materialized: eminent domain had to be used in order to accomplish the goals of the project.

The issue of eminent domain comes down to one simple truth; the government targets a house and determines that it will take it regardless of the owner’s wishes. It does not matter that the home has been in the family for generations nor does it matter that the owner does not want to move. Under eminent domain the government has a right to take your home for a price determined by the government and supported by the court systems, whether you want to sell it or not.

Coincidently the El Paso downtown, both commercial and residential, is comprised mostly of Mexican and Korean residents and shop owners. Its culture is thus something they have developed and honed over generations to fit their needs and not the needs of others.  Therefore you are more likely to find a panaderia selling Mexican sweet bread rather than a Starubucks, selling coffee.

Generally I refrain from commenting on racial divides because, frankly, racial divides exist all over the world and are not unique to Americans. In this case, the racial divide must be pointed out because the Paso del Norte Group made it so with a study commissioned by them that made racial comments about the area. The GlassBeach study, a city rebranding study, was funded by El Paso City Council of which Beto O’Roruke is a member.

GlassBeach Study

The GlassBeach study purported to study how downtown El Paso is perceived in order to develop a branding campaign to make it more palatable for redevelopment. In complete ignorance of the makeup of the existing demographic of the target area, or perhaps based on the assumption that the demographic does not vote, the study proceeded to denigrate the community that makes up downtown El Paso through culturally insensitive imagery and perpetuating racist stereotypes of the population. Beto O’Rourke supported the study financially through his vote at City Council and vocally in public commentary.

The conflict of interest

As a city representative Beto O’Rourke voted and participated in multiple actions of City Council in regards to downtown redevelopment. Although O’Roruke has continuously taken the position that he does not have a conflict of interest in the downtown redevelopment effort, he finally submitted a signed affidavit that he does, in fact, have a conflict of interest, but not before participating in multiple votes, that in at least one case, was instrumental in moving the plan forward as the vote was affirmed by one vote over the others.

As a matter of fact, according to O’Rourke’s conflict of interest affidavit, the conflict did not come about from his relationship with his father-in-law, William Sanders but rather his wife, who is employed by someone who owns property in the area. This goes against those who have consistently pointed out that the guiding force behind the downtown redevelopment plan is, William Sanders, O’Roruke’s father-in-law.

According to Tanny Berg, a well-respected businessman with significant ties to El Paso downtown, William Sanders, Beto O’Rourke’s father-in-law is the driving force behind the downtown redevelopment effort. Not only that, but Sanders is a founding member of the Paso del Norte Group who developed the downtown redevelopment plan and is the founder of the Borderplex Community Trust, a REIT designed to acquire investment property in downtown El Paso.

Although Sanders, at first, stated that in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest for O’Rourke that any monies he made from his participation in the project would be donated to charity. Sanders backtracked from that promise a short time later.

In the meantime, O’Rourke continued to participate on votes directly related to the downtown redevelopment effort.

Ethics Complaints Filed

Because of the apparent ethical conflicts, opponents of the downtown redevelopment effort filed ethics complaints against Beto O’Rourke in 2006.

According to the complaint, O’Rourke’s conflict stems from two issues in relation to the downtown redevelopment efforts. The first one was his company’s alleged financial benefit from providing services to the Paso del Norte Group.

Although, no longer a member of the Paso del Norte Group, O’Rourke’s mother and wife were members of the group spearheading the revitalization efforts while O’Rourke was voting on the plan’s requests before City Council. William Sanders “is a highly influential member” of the group, according to the complaint.

The complaint was amended later to add the following allegation against O’Rourke. According to the amended complaint, O’Rourke received favors from his father-in-law that according to the complaint rise above “normal familial benefits”. The complaint alleges that Beto O’Rourke took his financial records to be analyzed by Verde’s company accountant “three days before the public unveiling of PDNG’s Revitalization Plan”. Verde Group, LLC. is owned by Sanders. According to the complaint, this points to a “troubling impression that Sanders unduly enjoys his favor in the performance of his official duties”.

Unfortunately for the community, but seemingly fortunate for Beto O’Rourke, the ethics complaints never got the opportunity to be reviewed and acted upon by the city’s Ethics Commission because the City Attorney, Charles McNabb, decided that the complaint could not move forward to the Ethics Commission. Charles McNabb, the city attorney under Ray Caballero, one of O’Rourke’s allies in the divided Democratic Party of El Paso, left the position after Caballero’s loss to the new mayor, Joe Wardy. McNabb was brought back from Chicago by the current mayor, John Cook. O’Rourke is on the record stating that McNabb advised him on whether he had a conflict or not before an actual complaint was filed.

Under the city’s municipal code, it is the city attorney that determines whether a complaint is forwarded to the ethics commission, or not. It is a classic case of the wolf guarding the hen-house. In this case, McNabb counsels O’Rourke on whether there is potential for an ethical violation while at the same time being the gatekeeper of the commission that is tasked with hearing evidence of possible ethical violations.

The city’s ethics commission never got the opportunity to hear the evidence levied against O’Rourke.

Issue: The Drug War

There is no doubt that the drug war in Mexico has been center stage for years now with El Paso and Cd. Juárez being the nexus to the death and destruction of its affects upon society. Plain and simple, people are dying in the ongoing battle for control of the lucrative drug trade.

As an elected official, Beto O’Rourke is tasked with making policy for the community. Although outside of the purview of his elected office, Beto O’Rourke nonetheless has taken the controversial stance that legalizing drugs will somehow placate the drug dealers. Regardless of one’s stance on the issue, the problem is that the community has sacrificed, continues to sacrifice to control drug proliferation and has made it clear it is not interested in drug legalization.

Drug Legalization

In 2009, Beto O’Rourke on the other hand has publically and nationally called for an “honest open national debate on ending the prohibition of drugs”. He made his position clear on the issue as a city representative when he added those specific words to a City Council resolution in support of Cd. Juárez, El Paso’s sister city on the Mexican side of the border and arguable the citizens that have suffered the most in the going struggle against the drug cartels. O’Rourke’s amendment was killed by Mayor Cook who vetoed it.

Beto O’Rourke had nonetheless made his position clear, both personally and under the auspice of his official capacity as a city councilman. Clearly and from a policy perspective, O’Rourke wants to explore the legalization of drugs.

Is this really representative of the will of the people of El Paso?

Money laundering

Money laundering has been identified by governments as one of the major tools drug dealers use to fund their murders and continue to traffic in their drugs. This is the reason why the governments of both Mexico and the United States have setup rules related to dealing in cash. The laws are designed to allow government agencies to monitor and identify money laundering by criminals.

In May, 2010, Charlotte’s, Inc., owned by Beto O’Rourke’s mother, pled guilty to “structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements”. In other words, the company handled cash in a way that allowed it to avoid reporting where the large cash transactions were coming from, as required by federal law. The company was sentenced to five years’ probation and ordered to pay a fine of $500,000 with $250,000 probated and the remaining $250,000 to be paid in annual installments of $50,000.

According to the plea agreement, “Charlotte’s employees structured approximately $630,745.28 in cash payments in excess of $10,000 received from the ‘particular customer’”.  The plea agreement shows that Charlotte’s also accepted additional cash payments totaling an additional $1,071,934.00. Charlotte’s plead guilty to “structuring” the cash payments in order to avoid reporting them to the government as required.

There are two very troubling aspects to this issue. The first is that the mount, over $1.5 million came from a small group of individuals with a majority being attributed to a “particular customer”. Even more troubling is the fact that although over one million dollars in cash was handled by the company, not one individual, much less the owner, was ever charged, much less convicted of a crime. Since when does a company commit a crime without the help of an individual?

Even more troubling is that the only reason someone “structures” cash transactions is to avoid reporting them to the government, something that only benefits people engaged in criminal behavior.

On one hand, O’Rourke advocates drug legalization while at the same time his mother’s company pleads guilty to structuring large cash transactions to avoid reporting requirements.

Issue: The will of the voter; trustee versus delegate

Beto O’Rourke is not shy about taking the position that he is elected as a “trustee” whose job is to make a decision on what he thinks is better for the community, rather than what the constituency demands.

The domestic partners issue is the first example of O’Rourke’s stance that he is better suited to make decisions for the community rather than to express the will of the community. Although Beto O’Rourke has vainly tried to wrap this issue under the cloak of a civil rights issue right out of the 60’s, the reality is that it has nothing to do with civil rights, but rather about how the community wants its money spent. The community is clear that it is against extending benefits coverage, at the expense of the taxpayer, to unmarried couples. Beto O’Rourke, on the other hand feels that his position, although contrary to the will of the people, should be the official policy of the community.

Eminent domain

During the debacle and the continued threat to people’s homes under the city’s power of eminent domain, Beto O’Rourke has consistently supported the use of eminent domain, as supported by the Paso del Norte Group, while his father-in-law leads the endeavour, notwithstanding what his constituency, those under threat of losing their homes, have demanded of him.

In other words, Beto O’Rourke has taken the position, through words and actions, that he represents the interests of what he believes is better for the community, even though it might benefit his family and friends while being detrimental to those that he represents. He votes for his needs, rather than the needs of those he purports to represent.


Chanting and Marching in Downtown Orlando; America Whimpers for Change

Posted by Martín Paredes on September 1, 2011 Comments Off

Please note: This is an observation of today’s event and no endorsement, for or against, the intent of the protestors is intended, nor should one be assumed. I do not have enough information to form an opinion on their grievance or proposed solution.

Author’s note: This article is also published on new2orlando.com.

I was enjoying my Cuban sandwich under a cloudy wonderful Orlando afternoon with just enough sprinkles to keep the heat under control when out of nowhere a group of protestors showed up to express their opinion about the economy. As with any form of public dissention, the ones expressing their discontent are usually the ones with the most to gain from the event. For most people, expressing, especially public expressions of disappointment, is alien to them, something best left for others to do.

The ones chanting and pleading for change are either vested in the outcome of the plea, have finally had enough and therefore have nothing to lose or, more likely, are serving a paymaster of some type for the day, whether as a guarantee to continue in the good graces of their community or are being directly paid for their participation.

In the case of today’s protest the organization was well prepared and at the same time very unprepared. A protest is about getting the message out. It is about mobilizing a critical mass to one’s side of the argument. That requires a message and a call to action.

Today’s protest did neither. All I know was that they were dressed in red and had professional signage with the logo of the National Nurses United. That’s it. It had no call to action and nowhere to figure out whether I wanted to support them or scorn them. The rhetoric was your typical rhetoric of dissatisfaction and a need for change. But where was the call to action? What was the actual message?

I was handed a sheet of paper with the following on it:

“Everywhere across the land
People are losing their homes
Jobs are scarce and cupboards bare
Quietly struggling alone
Everywhere people stare
Each and every day
Wondering whether help is there
And I hear them say
Hey! It’s time to Make ol’ Wall Street pay
Hey! It’s time to Make ol” Wall Street pay
How can you let children die
From lack of medication?
Hearing them, seeing them
In the state I’m in
Main Street didn’t destroy this land
But billionaires want us to pay
Americans understand
t’s time people stand up and say
Hey! It’s time to make Wall Street pay
Hey! It’s time to make Wall Street pay”

Ok, so I get it, the economy sucks and the favorite whipping boys are being pillared again, the rich and the money managers. So where’s the call to action? What is this group advocating for? What a waste of an organized protest. The paper I was handed didn’t even have a website or contact information for me to get more information about their grievance.

This kind of makes me wonder where Libya or Egypt would be today if their protestors had gathered together to chant “we want”; insert something here, with no follow through. Their protests have led to change, significant change.

It also reminded me about something I had read by Octavio Paz many years ago when he was explaining the difference between Mexico and the United States. Paraphrasing, Paz stated that Mexico is held back by our history and our culture; it’s like an anchor that doesn’t allow us to shed our inhibitions and leap forward into the unknown. America, on the other hand, was born under the notion of always looking forward and challenging the unknown without hampered by historical failures.

After reading that, I began to notice how Americans acted; never backing down and never accepting the status-quo. The world would say, “no you can’t” and America would collectively retort, “yes we will”.

This is best exemplified in the world of soccer, where America is considered the under-dog. But, it’s an under-dog never willing to accept it as each and every time the American team plays it’s with the gusto that today is the day they will teach the world a lesson. Most national teams play for the prestige of playing seemingly satisfied with a finish where FIFA ranks them, rarely if ever, playing to the bitter end regardless of the blood and guts left on the playing field. Not America, it will come back from a three goal deficit just to spite the world.

Unfortunately that doesn’t trickle down to everyday Americans it seems. Oh yes, they are the first to proclaim, I’m an American but are also amply satisfied with mediocre government inaction and self-serving speeches of change to come.

Today’s protest by the National Nurses United once again reinforced to me that America is now the land of “oh well, c’est la vie”. Truly disappointing, as was today’s protest.


Blogging and Personal Responsibility; Flights of fancy should be ignored

Posted by Martín Paredes on August 26, 2011 1 comment

“I am David Karlsruher. Some time ago, I wrote a blog about Stuart L. Leeds wherein I made statements regarding him which were inaccurate and which I should not have made. I publicaly (sic) apologize to Stuart L. Leeds for having done so.” A public apology, by a local blogger, for words written in defiance of the truth is the result of irresponsibility in the blogging world.

I have been blogging for a number of years, at least since 1999, and in that time I have witnessed firsthand the power of the written word to make changes in our society. I have wholeheartedly embraced the First Amendment as the nexus to government restraint. Unfortunately the irresponsible seem to attempt to turn good into bad. Public art is good, graffiti is not. Challenging government is good while writing unfounded allegations with no regard to the truth is bad.

Blogging is about disseminating the truth and challenging the status-quo. It is about engaging the community into demanding better from everyone. It is about holding government accountable to the people. Blogging is not about writing flights of fancy about real people with the intent of damaging their reputations. Blogging is not about acting out personal idiosyncrasies in order to feel empowered.

David Karlsruher recently learned that blogging demands personal responsibility and publically admitted so with his apology. Unfortunately his penance is masked by the defiance of a fantasy in which he asserts he prevailed, notwithstanding the apology itself. And that is unfortunate because a learning experience could have made him a better blogger instead of a bitter writer looking for an outlet to vent his personal frustrations. The events surrounding the apology started simple enough.

An up-start blogger looking to make a name for himself, wrapped in a cloak of self-aggrandizement, decided that to write make-believe allegations would make him the blogger he strived to be.  In November 2009, Karlsruher wrote on his blog that Leeds was out to start political “witch hunts” for him and his friends. Karlsruher, as his blog’s custom, attempted to thinly veil his unfounded allegations by attempting to be witty although knowing full well that his allegation was nothing more than his own mind’s made-up event.

On December 16, 2010, David Karlsruher was deposed in the lawsuit filed as 2009-5018. In his deposition Karlsruher states, under oath, that his allegation against Leeds was nothing more than an expression of his personal “opinion”. In other words, Karlsruher states that his allegation was nothing more than a flight of fancy he concocted in his own brain. Regardless of this, he decided to publish his fantasy irresponsibly and regardless of the consequences. In the deposition Karlsruher admits that his blog, for that day, was based on nothing more than “rumors”. Karlsruher admits, in the deposition. that he had no knowledge of Leeds engaging in unethical behavior much less criminal and even goes on to state that he knew little, if anything, about Stuart Leeds, his accomplishments and his motives. Nonetheless, Karlsruher decided to write an unfounded allegation against Leeds based on nothing more than his own self-created fantasy.

Karlsruher goes on to state, under oath, that his blog gets a “few people a day”. Although only a few people participate on his blog, Karlsruher should have embraced personal responsibility before uttering flights of fancy in written form. And, unfortunately it seems that Karlsruher has yet to learn that lesson.

Shortly after the blogosphere started buzzing about his public apology, Karlsruher immediately tried to vainly mask his public humiliation with the fantasy that he did not lose the lawsuit against him by Leeds, writing; “that’s not what happened”, when someone pointed out that he had lost. Although many posters pointed out that he had publically apologized, Karlsruher seems to hold on to the fantasy that his apology is just some words he wrote on his blog. He even writes that he “quite rightly won”! Those interested in looking into the mind set of someone who lives in a fantasy world can do so by pulling the records of this lawsuit from the El Paso County records. It is telling what the record states when contrasted with Karlsruher’s continued flights of fancy.

With the truth starring him square in the face, Karlsruher seems to continue to live in a self-imposed fantasy world where he continues to fight imaginary windmills threatening his existence. His public apology is a fact, his fantasy world, is well, a self-created world where he himself can dictate the terms of his existence. As long as he keeps his fantasies off of the blogosphere the better chance he has of not finding himself in the same predicament once again having to write a public apology, or worse having to write a check to pay a settlement fee for his flights of fancy.