Trending news; Ebola Cogent & Fallacious #4

I decided to look on twitter to find what was trending and write about that.

This week Shepard Smith made the twitter trend.  In case you have been hiding under a rock, and may have missed this story in the last few days, you can catch up here.

The gist of this commentary is that the media is responsible for launching the Ebola outbreak into apocalyptic standing.  He encourages Americans to not take the bait.  He reassures his listeners that two health care workers that cared for the dying Ebola patient are the only ones that have Ebola, and the first health care worker that got Ebola is doing better.  The second worker that has Ebola flew on a plane when she didn't have symptoms, and that Ebola is only spread when the symptoms are present.  Those that were on the plane are being watched and are aware of the situation.  He explains that Ebola is not widespread in America.  He encourages his audience to instead get a flu shot.  He said that 52,000 people died from the flu last year and you can be protected with a flu shot.

I enjoyed the truthfulness of his message and found it to be entirely cogent.  He cut through the bull and helped to alleviate the fear that has been permeating throughout America with regards to Ebola.

Opposition: Look what the test drug in...

What is to be gained by requiring people seeking state assistance to be drug tested?  One 
potential gain is that taxpayers can be assured that their tax dollars are not helping to fund 
another persons drug habit.  Another plausible benefit is that by testing future welfare recipients, drug users on state assistance can be identified and directed to the treatment they need, while still receiving benefits. These arguments appear to be reasonable, but there are other factors that play into this controversial topic.  I will illustrate how mandatory drug testing for assistance is about funding drug testing companies and politicians, how it targets a small subset of public benefits, and is also unconstitutional.

Let's delve into the real questions at hand here, and do what you should always when seeking clarity; follow the money train and see where it leads.  Who actually benefits financially from mandated drug testing?  The drug testing companies benefit the most from states adopting mandatory testing.  Drug testing is a multi-billion dollar a year industry. Drug testing companies are targeting legislation that requires drug testing for welfare recipients, but that is not the only slice of the pie they want.  They also push for drug testing in the work place, government jobs, and now want to drug test school children, because there is a larger market there than the workplace.  Lobbyist are working for the drug testing companies, and in Utah, Senator Hatch has received over $30,000 in contributions from several drug testing companies. This is not a coincidence that coincides with Utah's new screening process for cash assistance for welfare applicants.  Since this law took effect in July 2014, drug testing has cost tax payers in Utah $25,654, with another $5,912 spent on the pre-screening tests, for a combined total of $31,566. Of these tests, that are meant to help families only 12 tested positive and then just four received treatment.  Is lining the pockets of politicians and drug testing companies really worth all the money we as tax payers in Utah have already invested in this initiative?  We can see that the identifying and helping of drug users on welfare is very limited in its scope compared to the perceived targeted audience.

Another question to think about is why is there legislation that seeks to pigeon hole welfare recipients into a drug using subset? All this is under the guise that it is  justified because those that use taxpayer's money should be held accountable. What about the rest of us that use taxpayer money?  How many people would mandatory drug testing laws affect if we included this logic?  Who among us receives tax credits?  What about attending public schools or colleges?  Who utilizes the services of the police departments? How about driving on public roads?  The fact of the matter is that everyone uses taxpayer-funded benefits.  It is unfair to require that welfare recipients be drug tested due to the stigma of using such benefits.  Additionally, only 3-9% of  those on welfare have drug problems, which is "similar to the subpopulation of the United States not receiving welfare benefits."  Thus, the problem with drug abuse is not constricted to the Americans using the benefits of the welfare programs or fairly applied to all who utilize government funding.

Florida's Governor, Rick Scott signed into law a drug testing requirement in order to qualify for welfare cash benefits.  Luis Lebron, a former Navy Veteran and single father applied for benefits in Florida, and was instructed to take a drug test.  After the drug test results proved negative he would then receive the $241 per month benefit.   The drug test cost is between $25 to $30, and is to be paid for by the applicant, and reimbursed by the state if the test results are negative for drug usage. He refused to test on the grounds that it violates his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable government searches.  In Lebron v. Florida, an ACLU case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals found the mandatory drug testing law for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  to be unconstitutional.  The court found that "there is no set of circumstances under which the warrantless, suspicion-less drug testing...could be constitutionally applied."  An interesting side note on Gov. Scott  is that he recently "transferred his $62 million stake in Solantic to his wife." Keep in mind that Solantic is one of the companies that provides the drug test required by his law, and this constitutes a definite conflict of interests. Laws should be created to help the people they serve, not to financially benefit those that enact them.  

 It is important to maintain our rights as citizens of the United States and require our leaders to uphold these standards.  By holding firm to a conviction that does not allow unwarranted drug testing we are ensuring that future generations will enjoy the same freedoms.  Mandatory drug testing is merely the tip of the proverbial  iceberg in regards to allowing government agencies to chip away at our constitutionally backed rights.   In taking a stand against those that seek to promote self interests at the expense of taxpayers we are on the right path to self preservation as a nation.  

It's in the bag...

In California, beginning July 1, 2015, stores and pharmacies will not be able to give out plastic bags with purchases according to the new law SB 270.  This is reported on npr.org, and I found the article to be cogent, as it simply went over the law signed by Gov. Jerry Brown, and did not add an opinion about the new law.

The law requires that businesses collect a 10 cent fee per paper bag, and the proceeds are kept by the store which can be used to cover costs incurred by the store adhering to SB 270.  The law will affect grocery stores and pharmacies, with convenience and liquor stores being added in the next year.  

California is also the first state to mandate a ban on one use plastic bags, but Washington D.C. and San Francisco are cities that have previously banned the bags. Many environmentalists are happy about the new regulation, an industry group called the American Progressive Bag Alliance is in the process of overturning the law with a referendum on the 2016 ballot.  Another voice against the bag ban is the Retail Merchants Association who believe that a ban will raise costs for businesses.  

The retailers do not want to be the entity to explain to an annoyed customer exactly why they cannot bag their purchases without "nickel and dime-ing" them.  The city is addressing this concern and plans to educate the state and reiterate the long-term benefits of bag banning.  

Overall, this was a good article which discussed both sides of the issue and left it to the reader to decide which side they agreed with.  

Click it or Ticket: First Construct

There are plenty of laws about how to operate a moving vehicle.  From the speed of travel to safe lane changes, and even how closely you should follow another vehicle.  There are also constructs for you while inside your car, including no texting or distracted driving, and you must always wear a seatbelt.  My question is "how is wearing a seatbelt affecting any other drivers, besides myself?"   Forcing an adult to comply to the seat belt law is like telling an adult they can only listen to talk radio.  Just because I am an adult doesn’t mean I always want to do the responsible thing.  Sometimes I want to crank up the rap and get a little wild and crazy.  And that occassionally means not buckling up.

There are several degrees to which the seat belt law, click it or ticket as it has been coined, is enforced in varying states.  Utah adheres to the primary enforcement for individuals up to 19 years old.  This allows officers to stop a vehicle if they see an a child, up to age 18, unrestrained in a vehicle.  Also, children up to age eight must be in a car seat or booster seat, in addition to being buckled.  The secondary enforcement in Utah applies to persons 19 and older, this means an officer can only ticket for the seat belt violation if another infraction has occurred first.  The ticket can be issued in the amount of up to $45 for lack of seat belt use.

map

Not wearing a seat belt should be a personal freedom.  The natural consequence for not wearing a seat belt should remain within the confines of gravity and inertia;  bodily harm or death, but not a monetary fine.  The usage of seat belts is not my contention with seat belt laws. My contention is that the government should not dictate the use of seat belts.  The seat belt law assumes that motorists are not aware of the benefits of seat belt use and are unable to make correct decisions regarding their own personal safety in vehicles.  

The National Motorists Association's, Eric Skrum, contends that allowing enforcement laws which dictate seat belt use directly violates of legislation's responsibility is to "do no harm."  He argues that there is an abundant amount of evidence that in certain accidents, individuals survived only because they were NOT wearing a seat belt.  "In 30% of fatal accidents, where a person is ejected from the vehicle, the person remaining in the vehicle is the fatality."  Thus, he reiterates that if someone chooses to wear or not wear a seat belt and is injured or killed, it is a "personal tragedy."  Where, on the other hand, if the person is injured or killed because the government required them to wear the seat belt against their own consciousness, it is an unforgivable disaster.  The government is not meant to protect us from ourselves.

Seat belt laws started being passed in 1985, though there had attempts to pass them for 10 years prior.  In 1984, "then-Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole promised to rescind the rule that required automakers to install passive restraints (air bags) by 1990 if states representing two-thirds of the U.S. population passed seat-belt laws by April, 1, 1989."  Since auto makers did not want the expense of developing and implementing air bags, they began to lobby for the seat belts instead.  The auto makers created the lobby Traffic Safety Now (TSN) and by 1992 had spent $93 million in an effort to pass the seat belt laws.  Even the government added grants to states that reached certain levels of seat belt use to pay for enforcement of the law.  Some states wouldn't allow the primary seat belt enforcement, but the option of  secondary enforcement was permitted.  Then, once the law was in place, the lobbying continued to whittle away at law,  which added higher fines, included all occupants, and changed some to primary enforcement.  After all the TSN did to pass the seat belt law, the air bags were eventually required as well.  But, unfortunately our freedom of choice regarding seat belts is now gone.

The seat belt laws violate our rights as American citizens.  This intrusion by the government into our personal daily lives is an example of how important it is to hold our elected officials accountable.  Our elected officials were able to sell their vote on the seat belt law and we are the ones that suffer now that our inalienable right to choose stripped from us. Click it or ticket is the reality we live with, each time we get in our cars.  

Hands up (UPDATED) Cogent & Fallacious #2

There are several articles circulating the various news sources about the Michael Brown shooting.  This is the first I have heard about the August 9th shooting, as I don't usually keep up on the news.  So, looking at this situation with a fresh perspective, I found the article in USA Today to be fallacious.  Even the title screams judgement, "Mo. police told no bracelets backing teen-killing cop."  This   headline condemns the police officer.  

Michael Brown

The Justice Department has stepped into this controversy in Ferguson, Missouri, and is not allowing officers to wear bracelets that read "I am Darren Wilson."  He is the officer under investigation in the shooting death of Michael Brown.  These bracelets are meant as a show of support for the officer. The issue is further being amplified as a race issue because Brown was an 18 year old black male, while Officer Wilson is white.

As I delved further into this story, I can understand why Brown's family was frustrated.  Brown was unarmed, and as far as Wilson knew, his only crime was walking in the street instead of on the sidewalk.  Here is the other side of the unarmed claim.  Michael Brown was not a small boy.  He was 6' 4" tall and weighed in at just under 300 lbs.  There are also conflicting stories about whether Wilson knew that Brown was involved in the strong-armed robbery when he initial approached him and his friend, Dorian Johnson.  

When Wilson instructed Brown and Johnson to walk on the sidewalk they told him that they were almost to their destination and then they would get off the sidewalk.  Isn't that disobeying an order from a police officer?  Regardless, Johnson claims that Wilson stopped his vehicle in front of the teens, blocked their path, and then pulled Brown into the car window by his neck.   A witness claims that Brown actually prevented Wilson from exiting his vehicle and physically assaulted him through the window, and that is when the first shot was fired, during that initial altercation.  

Officer Darren Wilson

Conflicting reports as to what ensued next are plentiful.   Some report that Wilson drew his weapon and told Brown to freeze, at which point Brown charged toward the officer.  It was then that Wilson shot and killed Brown.  

 Johnson reported that Brown turned around when he was told to freeze, and told the officer he was unarmed, and put his hands up, but the officer just came out of his car firing until Brown was dead.  

The truth of the matter is that we may never know what really happened.  Though it is difficult to draw an educated conclusion for yourself when the media is telling you how you should interpret what happened, according to their spin and agenda.  This article was opinionated and full of fallaciousness from the very beginning when it talked about a "teen-killing cop."  It failed to show the extensiveness of Officer Wilson's injuries and painted the cops backing Officer Wilson as villains.  

(Updated) Coming Soon: Another Hack Job Cogent & Fallacious #3

I read an interesting article by Steve Weisman that was actually about a future event, yet I found the reasoning to be cogent.   Let me explain...

How often do you pay with cash?  If you didn't answer "every time I buy something," then you are susceptible to this article's premise.  However, the truth of the matter is that thieves don't always run up to you and steal your wallet.  They have higher tech operations that allow them to acquire your information.  For instance, there are skimmers put in place at gas stations, and once I had my information stolen when I paid with my card at a restaurant.  The newest modus operandi is hacking into major 
companies'  data bases and stealing credit/debit card 
information by the millions.  This is what happened at Home Depot. 

THE HOME DEPOT WAS BUGGED

The disheartening part concerning the data breach with Home Depot is that it  could have been prevented.  Home Depot had a key that could have provided another line of defense that they failed to activate  within their cyber-defense software. Unfortunately, more than 56 million cards were put at risk as a result of the oversight.  





Since the Target breach that happened in November 2013, hackers have invaded UPS, Goodwill, Sally's Beauty Supply, Michaels, Neiman Marcus, and P.F. Chang's.  Home Depot's breach made more headlines because they compromised the largest amount of customer's information.  The contention of this article is that since stores are not able to thwart all the ways hackers penetrate a system's defenses, that something else needs to be done. 

 The technology on the magnetic strip we use on credit cards dates back to the 1960s and with this information the hacker has access to the victim's credit.  A newer technology is available which encrypts a new number every time the card is used, it is called an EMV card, and has a chip embedded inside.  This makes the information worthless to a hacker.  There is a cost associated with this  upgrade on the classic credit card, and that is the reason credit card companies and retailers are dragging their feet on the change.  By October of 2015, new regulations will be in place and the EMV cards will replace the current magnetic strip cards.  Until then, we will continue monitoring our accounts and waiting for the next hack job.  

I have heard about cyber crimes affecting consumer data on several platforms.  From the evening news, to the radio, and this article from USAToday.  I have also been a victim of this crime so it hits closer to home.  This article thoroughly explained the risks and the reasons behind the credit card companies' resistance to the change that will help consumers.  It also included recent cyber attacks and how a simple chip could thwart the cyber thieves for a time.  I found the reasoning to be cogent and coherent.   

(Updated) Dress Code Enforcement at Formal Dances. Is it fair? Cogent & fallacious #1

STUDENTS PROTEST DRESS COD

I have seen several stories about the girls at
Bingham High School being denied entrance to the Homecoming Dance last weekend.  The girls' attire was deemed as inappropriate according to school dress code.  As a result, on Monday, students walked out of class in protest to the school's strict enforcement.

I also heard about this on the radio morning shows, and on Fox 13. This article was taken from everybody's favorite family online news source, KSL.  It was reported that the girls felt that the dress standards were too strict and not equally enforced.   The dress code required that the dresses cover the chest and
back at the armpit, and the hemlines could not be
higher than mid-thigh when seated.

When girls attempted to enter the dance, they were stopped, evaluated for modesty and dress code conformity, and then either admitted to the dance, or told to go home to change. If they were able to meet the standards they were welcome to come back to the dance.  The administration is reporting that before the dance they had an assembly about the future enforcement of dress code for the dance, sent home emails, and even passed out fliers.  An interesting note is that the article included a plug for a business that sells inserts for dresses, which makes them modest enough for dance dress standards.

So the question is, if everyone knows about the rules and chooses not to follow them, then who is responsible for the girls not being allowed entrance to the dance?  I think that because the school explicitly informed the students and parents about the  future dress code enforcement that it was the responsibility of the parents and students to adhere to the expectations.  I think that because parents are allowing their girls to wear clothes that they know are not accepted by the school's dress code, that they are antagonizing the situation.  The rules apply to everyone and the mindset that "the rules do not apply to me" is part of the problem with the entitled attitude that some youth have today.

This article did not seem entirely cogent.  It was fallacious due to the fact that both sides of the issue weren't thoroughly discussed.  It leaned more towards the school and the ample heads up they provided students and parents.  Furthermore, it also discussed an option that the students had available to them to allow them entry into the dance by purchasing modesty inserts for their choice of clothing.  It seemed one-sided.