This Week in Lake Wobegon


It’s been a week since a story broken by a local media outlet here in New Rochelle went national. According to a video posted, New Rochelle Police approached and drew their firearms on black teens having a snowball fight. We have since learned that the police were responding to a 911 call about someone brandishing a gun. In a week’s time, that’s about all we know.

This has become an all too familiar story unfortunately. What’s also become all too familiar are the responses to stories like this. There are the knee-jerk liberals who immediately decry police brutality and knee-jerk conservatives who blindly support law enforcement. Facebook as usual devolved into either name calling, veering off to non-relevant topics, or both.

To me, there are too many outstanding questions to come to any conclusion. They include:

  • What did the person who posted the video know about the situation and what was the purpose of posting?
  • Why hasn’t the police released the 911 call or provide its transcript?
  • Why was the mayor calling for a further investigation while the city manager said no further investigation was necessary?

As responsible citizens, we must advocate for full transparency, leadership from elected officials, demand of our fellow citizens that conclusions shouldn’t be made until the facts come out. As a black American, I’m concerned that we don’t jump on every perceived slight because then we can become the boy that cried wolf. There are the intransigent members of society that will never see any issue. They are not in my radar, it’s those that would be supportive when cases that merit our outrage actually occur. No need to go down rabbit holes.

On the other side, despite contrary belief, the police are not under siege. What we are asking for is accountability. It does our society no good if law enforcement operates with impunity. All aspects of our government should be questioned.

Join me in asking for transparency from our elected officials while denouncing those that what to relegate any discussion into name calling.

Jeffrey Hastie

Advice for the 114th Congress


This week marks the beginning of the 114th Congress. It’s been documented how drastic a change this will be from the 113th and how historic (biggest Republican majority since 1929, hope that’s not a bad omen). What’s been said of the 113th is that it is one of the productive of all time. They passed 279 bills, the second fewest in history. In my book, that’s a home run. I’d rather not have Congress passing any more bills than is absolutely necessary to run the Federal government. Legislation needs to stay on the books long enough to generate a history of whether it accomplished its task or not. I’m a small business owner so their impact isn’t as significant to me as say a medium to large-sized business or one that is a heavily regulated industry. Leave what we have in place and let’s see how things pan out.

That’s my first advice. My second is for every member of Congress to Brené Brown speak on vulnerability. I’m a big fan of TED Talks. If you don’t know what that is, I highly recommend you check out their website. They are an organization that likes to spread ideas and to get people talking. They bring interesting people to discuss their history, viewpoint, research, or anything else of interest. Brené studies human interaction. Her talk on relationships and vulnerability, of value to all, would be particularly suited for those in Washington. I’ve provided a link below.

Would love to hear your comments. Please share them below.

Jeffrey Hastie


Disheartening is about the only word I can think of to describe my feelings from the events of the past two weeks. One of my first posts on this site was about whether we were in a post racial society. It’s clear we are not judging by the reaction to the decisions.

In two weeks we’ve seen two police officers who have caused the death of two African-American males not be indicted for murder or a lessor charge. Each is problematic in its own right.

So much has been discussed about both these cases that there is nothing new I can add. However, is about sharing independent thoughts and ideas and I think this is a perfect forum to talk about what we can learn from both of these cases.


What’s disheartening about this case is not the lack of indictment but the response from the community. Rioting and looting serves no purpose and only feeds into the stereotypes some have of the African-American community. Social media was no help in the matter. I have friends, like most I hope, that span a wide political spectrum. Most were thoughtful, engaging, and truly inquisitive. Some unfortunately used it as an opportunity to spew the vile that only surfaces at times like these. To be clear, I’m talking about those on both sides.

In every race & ethnicity there are those that feel that they have to defend every member no matter what they do. While I empathize with the plight of the citizens of Ferguson, destroying the neighborhood only deepens the gulf between them and those who do not care about their future. If we truly care, actions and discussions would focus more on the future than wrongs of today or the past.

On the flip side, those that ignore that a community that has been neglected, at best, would react in such a dramatic and self destructive manner has never understood what true despair is. Chants of ‘thugs’ and ‘get a job’ show no regard for the situation in which folks in places like Ferguson find themselves.

Staten Island

What’s disheartening about this case IS the lack of indictment. First there is video record that clearly shows that Mr. Garner had his hands up. Second, unlike Ferguson, there were five cops there to subdue the suspect. Third, the hold placed on Mr. Garner was classified as illegal by the officer’s own police force. Lastly, the medical examiner classified Mr. Garner’s death as a homicide.

The response in New York in contrast to Ferguson was civilized. This is due in large part to the economic opportunities afforded to all in NYC and to the work by NYPD in building relationships with those they police (and the police being more representative of the city demographics).

Grand Jury

It’s clear that we have a broken judicial system. The purpose of the grand jury is to be a check on the prosecutor in bringing charges at will on alleged perpetrators. In brining matters to a grand jury, the prosecutor relies on evidence gathered by the police. So when it’s time to convene a grand jury for a police shooting, police cooperation is not a factor. But pursuing an indictment against a police officer won’t help the prosecutor in future cases where their help will be needed.

In addition, a grand jury’s sole job is to determine whether there is a enough evidence to justify a trial, not to determine guilt or innocence. As an outsider who hasn’t seen what was presented to the grand juries in either case, it seems that the jury was focused on whether a conviction was possible. And it appears both prosecutors metaphorically had their thumbs on the scale. In Ferguson, there was enough inconsistencies in witness statements to justify a no indictment decision. However, I would suggest that shooting 18 rounds, 12 of which connect, would appear excessive. That would be enough for me to allow the case to proceed to trial.  Lack of indictment in Staten Island is absurd and doesn’t merit further conversation.

We need an independent prosecutor to specifically bring cases involving the police. As long as we continue with the system in place, we will never be able to hold the police (most of whom do the right thing), accountable.

And by the way, those body cameras, meaningless. Refer to the Staten Island case.

Net Neutrality – Simply

netneutrality-contentblockedToday, President Obama is going to lay out his approach to immigration reform. I’ll wait to see what he has to say before commenting. This post is about his weighing in on the proposed net neutrality ruling under the Federal Communications Committee (FCC).

Before getting in to the proposals the FCC is weighing, a little background on what net neutrality is and how we got here.


Net neutrality is the principle that all data on the Internet should be treated equally. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) should not discriminate based on content, user, application, site, platform, or any other distinguishing characteristic. It’s a term coined by a Columbia University Media Law professor Tim Wu. Others call it the open Internet as a means of being more accurate in addition to rebranding.

In 2010, the FCC passed the Open Internet Order which barred the practice of ISPs of charging fees for speedier access to content providers such as Netflix. In January of this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. struck down key provisions of the FCC’s ruling thereby weakening the agency’s attempt to keep the Internet open. This opened the door for Internet service providers like Verizon and Comcast to charge Netflix, Hulu, Google, and others for faster access to their networks and customers. Subsequently, the commission decided to write new rules to preserve its desire for an open Internet. If ISPs are allowed to differentiate access by content provider, consumers will lose out if they cannot afford to pay for greater access or a content provider cannot or will not pay for high-speed service on the ISP’s network.

Next, let’s discuss the pros and cons of net neutrality.


  • The founding proposition for the Internet was for free and unfettered access to information from anywhere. That’s why the “father” of the Internet and the creator of the web, Vincent Cerf and Tim Berners-Lee have spoken in favor of net neutrality.
  • Innovation and experimentation will be stifled should a tiered model for content providers as that would effectively create a barrier to entry.
  • Prevents ISPs that are also content providers (think Comcast and Time Warner) from potentially creating a system that favors their content to that over a competitor. (If you don’t think this is possible, read this article).


  • By disallowing ISPs to charge content providers for higher speed access, they will limit or discontinue investment in underserved areas in the U.S. (See this)
  • Ability to recoup their cost of investment in providing the broadband service  would diminish or possibly eliminate the Internet Service Provider’s ability to recoup its investment.
  • Less rather than more regulation is necessary.

The FCC is considering two approaches to the issues raised by the court ruling in January, regulating ISPs under section 706 or Title II of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Currently, FCC classifies ISP as information service providers which are governed under Title I of the act.

Section 706

Since the section is short, basically two paragraphs with the second defining how inquiries into the enforcement of paragraph one, the entire paragraph is below.

The Commission and each State commission with regulatory jurisdiction over telecommunications services shall encourage the deployment on a reasonable and timely basis of advanced telecommunications capability to all Americans (including, in particular, elementary and secondary schools and classrooms) by utilizing, in a manner consistent with the public interest, convenience, and necessity, price cap regulation, regulatory forbearance, measures that promote competition in the local telecommunications market, or other regulating methods that remove barriers to infrastructure investment.

Title II

Gives the FCC the authority to treat ISPs as a public utility. There are over 100 pages of regulations with this title many of which would not apply. The relevant portion is Section 202 which delineates that broadcast providers cannot discriminate against non-affiliated broadcasters. In other words, cannot charge more to a content provider that is not a part of the ISP’s content production.

A third alternative would be to create new rules and regulations that would specifically apply to the Internet, but we know that is not going to happen so we have these two inelegant approaches.

President Obama weighed in by urging the FCC to adopt the Title II approach over Section 706.

Neither one of these solutions works for me. Providing access to the Internet is an animal of a different color. However, I’m loathe to suggest new rules and regulations, we have enough of them. Instead, I’d like to see Title II streamlined and be less technology & platform specific. Barring that, I’d have to lean toward Title II as the proper approach. The elegance of Section 706 is appealing but I fear the language can be used to force ISPs to provide equal access to rural environments without the ability to recoup its investment. (Which in some circles is what net neutrality is all about.) Title II while over 90% is not applicable to Internet service, Title II is a better fit because its focus on leveling the playing field for content providers by protecting them from the service providers.

For fans of David Pogue and John Oliver, here is a link to their description of net neutrality and its impact (I highly recommend the John Oliver video):

David Pogue

John Oliver

jeffrey hastie

Charles Barkley Doesn’t Speak For Me


I can’t decide whether it is Black leaders who feel they must speak for all of us or the media industry that is always looking for the one person to go to. As with everything, it is a little bit of both.

Recently, Charles Barkley stated in an interview to a Philadelphia radio station that successful Blacks biggest problem is unintelligent Blacks. This statement has so many problems on so many levels. First, is this only an issue for Black people? So successful White people, Latino people, Asian people, etc (fill in your favorite ethnicity) don’t have the same issue? Second, the statement assumes that successful people are intelligent and unsuccessful are not. Depending on how you define successful, there’s an argument to be made that intelligence or the lack thereof exists on both ends of the success stratum. Biggest problem? Not institutional racism, the economy, the effects of government policies, or anything else, just unintelligent Black people. In his quote, he states he tells his White friends this. Sounds to me he’s trying to be accepted by his White friends. I was alerted to his comments by my friend George Alexander who has a piece in Huffington Post about high-tech summit held at his alma mater, Morehouse College.

The problem is that no one person can speak for an entire ethnic group. Every group has a wide range of expectations, desires, beliefs, and philosophies. I’m sure Mr. Barkley represents a segment of the Black community, so too Dr. Cornell West, or Jesse Jackson, or Tavis Smiley, or Dr. Thomas Sowell. In the Latino, I’m sure there are equivalents.

As much as I would like for the media industry to provide balanced coverage to issues in matters of race, I know it won’t happen. All I can ask is that we as thoughtful citizens be mindful that what we are hearing is one person’s view and not that of an entire community. As with any politically expressed viewpoint, seek out the opposing view. That’s what Free Voter readers are all about.

Jeffrey Hastie

A thousand words and then some

A picture is worth a thousand words as the saying goes. The entertainment and media industry knows that well. That’s why when I came across this image in my Facebook feed, I was disheartened. If it is not readily apparent what is concerning about this, unfortunately you are in the majority. Take a closer look and you will see the distinction. The African American mother is by herself while the Caucasian mother is with what is presumed to be her husband.

Pardon me while I check my calendar to make sure it’s 2014, not 1814.

Apparently, the Mad Men of today are no different than the ones depicted in the hit AMC series. Speaking of television, it’s no better. Matter of fact, it’s worse. Predominantly black tv shows were in either one of two categories: the poor family trying to get by (e.g. Good Times, Sanford and Son) or the pompous, showboat black male (e.g. The Jeffersons). In my view, The Cosby Show was successful mainly for the fact that it portrayed a black family dealing with issues that middle class families all deal with, regardless of race. Sure, it had its episodes that dealt with race, but that was not the basis of the program.

And if you don’t think images matter in entertainment or advertising and people aren’t paying attention, think back to the backlash Cheerios experienced over its ad with a biracial couple last year.

Image is a powerful medium. It’s how we judge others and others judge us before one word is uttered.

So, yes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Let’s be careful as to which thousand words they are.

jeffrey hastie

What do Jellyfish and politicians have in common?

polls_mike03112008_0337_300605_answer_1_xlargeTwitter is such a useful tool. Great source of information and fun facts. As one social media consultant said in a presentation “Facebook is for hugs, Twitter is for news.” A recent tweet made me chuckle but think. Uberfacts tweeted:

The opening for the mouth and the anus on a jellyfish is the same.

To which a follower replied:

Hey Uberfacts, you spelled politician wrong.

It used to be that running for public office was pursued by those of noble cause. Now it’s seen with such disdain that the trust in a politician is lower than a used car salesman. Running for office is no longer about governing as it is about the constant chase for donations. No sooner is a member voted into the House of Representatives than he or she is back on the trail looking for money for the next campaign.Their constant chase for the almighty dollar has caused most, not all, politicians to say whatever it takes to separate a donor from his/her money.

Besides chasing dollars, many chase polls. The prevalence and prominence that polls take these days is mind blowing. The proliferation is so great that now we have polls that aggregate polls. Andrew Cuomo was on WNYC Friday morning and when asked by Brian Lehrer about whether he struck the right balance between public safety and civil liberties with his latest quarantine policy, he started his answer by quoting a recent poll stating that 84% of New Yorkers agreed with him. Don’t know about you, but I look to my leaders to lead, not follow. Let’s take an example from the business world about leadership. Apple is famous for developing products that consumers didn’t know they needed (okay, wanted). They recently have lost their way in that regard as evidenced by the ridicule Samsung first received for their big screen phone, now Apple has copied them due to Samsung’s suggest. If Apple and Samsung were strictly guided by what consumers say they wanted, we’d all still be caring flip phones.

Shows like The West Wing and Madame Secretary are popular not because of the political stance they take, but because of the moral stance they take. We desperately long for leaders that lead from their gut and not from a poll. Click on this link from The West Wing to see an example of moral character.

Jeffrey Hastie

Our Language Does Truly S*CK

Either I must be getting old or being a father has impacted my view. I’d have to agree with my fellow blogger, Jean Maisano, that our tolerance for inappropriate language has significantly increased. Television is where we see this the most.

An article in the New York Post, “Family Extinct” as sitcoms get more vulgar, highlights this trend. I’ll add an example from a show I happened to watch the Tuesday night.

My wife, teenager daughter, and I love to watch TheVoice. The only reality show I like (except for Amazing Race, but I don’t watch regularly. I digress). The show went off at 9 pm and Marry Me started. Fortunately, my daughter turned to her homework, while I continued to watch. It was a Halloween episode and centered around kids trick or treating in the apartment building the central characters reside in. What totally shocked me was two things. The language of the characters was so bad that they bleeped the sound and pixelated their mouths. Mind you, this is a RECORDED show, not live. Second, one of the main characters’ friends decided to wear an inappropriate costume to a Halloween party. So inappropriate that when she appeared in the costume, pixelation was over her private parts. I have never seen anything like that during prime time.

It’s unfortunate, but my children won’t have memories like I have of watching the CBS Saturday night lineup of All in the Family, M*A*S*H, The Mary Tyler Moore Show, The Bob Newhart Show, and The Carol Burnett Show with my entire family. Those were good (and clean) times.

Jeffrey Hastie

Ebola in NYC – Part Two


Following my first post about Ebola in NYC, quite a bit has occurred. New Jersey & New York Governors, Chris Christie and Andrew Cuomo respectively, demanded that all healthcare workers coming through JFK and Newark from West Africa must be quarantined 21 days upon arrival, something I suggested in my first post.

Since my post and the governor edicts, we’ve had the first test of the new law. Kaci Hickox, a nurse from Maine, arrived at Newark after having treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone and was promptly placed in an isolation tent. There was a public outcry at her treatment and a threat by her and her attorney to sue for her rights. The state relented and allowed her to travel home. Now Maine wants her to quarantine herself at home but she’s refusing to submit to that.

I agree with those that say we should treat healthcare professionals that risk their life to serve others like we do returning troops. Common sense tells us though that we should take care that the risks they took does not impact the rest of us. So while my first inclination was to quarantine returning healthcare workers, based on what we know about how the disease spreads (after symptoms materialize and through fluids from the infected individual), what may be more palatable to Americans, and more importantly to the healthcare workers, is mandatory monitoring during the 21 days of their return. Any uptick in fever requires immediate isolation, any failure to report for required monitoring results in immediate quarantine. For purposes of tracking movement for later followups if needed, a GPS tracking device affixed  upon arrival in the states.

We need to balance between protecting citizens and not discouraging healthcare professionals from volunteering to help in West Africa. The best way to make sure Ebola does not spread here is to stop it there.

Jeffrey Hastie

Ebola in NYC


Is it me or has common sense gone out the window? There is breaking news tonight that about a positive case of Ebola in New York City. This is breaking news so more information will be forthcoming. But here is what we know so far:

  • The positive case is that of a doctor
  • The doctor just returned from West Africa working with Doctors Without Borders treating Ebola patients
  • He was at a bowling alley on Wednesday and travelled via subway and taxi

Again, details are not fully available, but it appears he just started showing symptoms this morning, Thursday, which according to what we know now is the only time the virus is contagious. He has been taken to Bellevue and was taken in the prescribed HAZMAT method.

I’m not in favor of eliminating flights from West Africa as some have called for (people will just travel through other countries and we would lose track, plus increase the number of folks exposed). I also applaud doctors who at their risk go to help in West Africa. Something all Americans should be proud this doctor did.

However, if we know the incubation period is 21 days, why not quarantine health workers returning from West Africa for 21 days to make sure they are free from the virus? That may be inconvenient for the volunteer, but as a healthcare worker they would understand what exposing the virus would mean to the general public.

Simple precautions for a not so simple problem.

Just What Does Post-Racial Mean

My wife and I recently spent time with some good friends, whom we’ve known for years, in a New England beach town. At dinner, the host made a comment about each couple at the table. When it came to us, he said “Our African-American friends.” While our host said it as a passing joke, it sparked a lively but unintended conversation. It rambled from race relations, to American foreign policy, to JFK (don’t ask, still haven’t figured that out yet).

It did get me thinking about race relations and just what it means to be post-racial and if that is a good thing. I looked up post-racial in my favorite online dictionary, Urban Dictionary. They define it as:

A term used to describe a society or time period in which discussions around race and racism have been deemed no longer relevant to current social dynamics. Popularized after the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of the United States of America in 2009.

Can’t imagine we will ever get there, nor am I so sure we should on the first part. One of the guests who lived overseas for part of her life, described how race/color wasn’t seen nor ever an issue. While that is laudable, it is not a world in which I want to live or think we should live in. What I would like to see is a world that recognizes our differences and celebrates them.

In a prior life, I traveled extensively for my job. I was always struck by what I considered the downside of globalization. Nothing was more depressing than seeing a Starbucks, KFC, Gap, or Walmart dotting the landscape. At every destination I tried my best to explore and see the local shops and culture. why travel that far to pick up a pair of blue jeans or sip a caramel macchiato. So much more can be gained by seeing how others live.

Getting back to the US and race relations, I’m happy to say that while we may not be post-racial, we are at a point where friends can sit around a dinner table and have an open and honest conversation without judgement. More and more folks are having these conversations and its through dialogue where progress and understanding is achieved.

I’ll leave with this one last thought. Let’s dispense with the description of America as a melting pot and start talking about America as a tapestry. Each strand adding its unique perspective that makes America what it is today.

Jeffrey Hastie

Is It Time for NCAA To Go?

Saturday night, I was watching the Notre Dame v Florida State college football game and I was conflicted. I was raised to despise Notre Dame (for NDvFSUreasons I can no longer remember). However, as most young adults grow up and step out of the shadow created by their parents (in this case my father), we tend to see things in a different light. The game symbolized the state of affairs in college football, college sports, and sports in general.

The entertainment industry has the ability to shape opinions and make a difference in the world. Sports has the same ability but I would argue more focused on the young minds of the world. In last night’s game, we saw two programs that have a markedly different approach to what they see as their responsibility regarding their players and their school.

Florida State University (FSU) has one of the most talented players to play football in the last few years. Quarterback Jameis Winston, last year’s Heisman Trophy winner for best college football player, is in contention for the trophy again this year. While deservedly getting the accolades he receives for his on field performance, his off field performance is less than stellar. He’s been accused of rape, breaking code of conduct rules, and receiving payment for signing memorabilia. So far, his only punishment is missing a half of one game where the opponent wasn’t expected to give FSU a challenge.

Notre Dame’s approach to disciplinary infractions is pretty simple, you break the rules you are off the team, no matter who you are. Their star quarterback, Everett Golson, missed all of last year due to an academic infraction. They have five starters out now for various reasons yet the team is still competitive while building responsible men for the future.

The sad part of the Jameis Winston story is that what may ultimately get him a serious punishment is the signing of memorabilia for money. And that is why the NCAA must go. Presently, the college football audience cannot see one of, if not the, best running back in the game because he got paid for signing memorabilia. Todd Gurley of University of Georgia is sitting out an indefinite suspension while the NCAA investigates the allegations. In contrast, while the State of Florida investigated the alleged rape charges, Winston continued to play. That means that players can do whatever they want on campus, up to and including physical assault, but when they try to get a small portion of the enormous amount of money these players make for their schools, suspension occurs immediately.

The answer to the question is a resounding YES. NCAA is no longer concerned about the sanctity of the game or the well being of the athletes, if it ever was. It’s purely a business set out to protect itself, its member schools, and its bottom line.

Sorry dad. May you rest in peace. But I have to support Notre Dame. Unlike the NCAA, it cares about its players and their future.

Jeffrey Hastie

Education Reform

school_childrenWashington is great at coming up with names for new educational initiatives, No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top. What they are not good at is creating sensible plans for educational reform. As is typical for the federal government, no matter who is in charge, they think money fixes everything. We are the wealthiest nation on earth but compared to our first world competitors, we are middle of the pack in terms of education.

A friend posted a link on her FB page to a three year old article in the Atlantic Monthly describing the educational system in Finland. For those that don’t know, Finland consistently ranks in the top three for students with the highest achievements. How do they do it? It’s certainly not by testing their students year in and year out. Teachers are given autonomy in evaluating their students and their written evaluation serves as the primary grading mechanism. Nationally, their focus is on equity not excellence. The thought being that focusing on quality education across the board means everyone does well. Our reforms seem to be more centered around satisfying unions or corporations and not thinking about the student.

If you read the linked article, you’ll see that some say that Finland’s model cannot work here because our society is not nearly as homogeneous as theirs. I’m on my local school board and in my view, my city is a microcosm of the United States. I’ve heard this same argument from administrators that there are socio-economic issues beyond the school district’s control that impact their ability to delivery quality education. I don’t buy that. Where there’s a will there’s a way. But there in lies the problem.

Remember the great space race of the 60s? As a nation, we came together to support the mission to put a man on the moon by the end of the decade, before the Soviet Union. We had a collective will to achieve that goal. That will does not exist for public education. My guess is that our “cultural heritage” of rugged individualism cannot be overcome. How this comes into play is in how public schools are financed.

Funding for schools come from three sources, local, state, and federal governments . As of 2010, the percentage split was 44% local, 44% state, and 12% federal. With the local support coming from property taxes, areas with high valued properties get to spend more on their schools, then areas with low valued property. Would those in the high property tax areas be happy to see their money go out of their district to support another? Somehow the argument has to be made that it is each person’s self interest to make sure everyone has access to quality education. And the only way to achieve equity across the board is to distribute funds where needed.

So now I’ve come a 180 degrees from where I started. Federal government has been unsuccessful in its approach to education yet I support a distribution of funds (which can only be done at the state and federal level). The difference is this, I support it with no strings attached. Allow the local districts to receive their funds from the state and federal government without the demands of testing and data gathering that they presently insist. That also means that the federal or state government should not support teachers’ unions either financially or by law. That’s not to say I want to see them abolished, just that they should stand on their own two feet and exist where they provide value for students, not teachers.

Jeffrey Hastie

First Do No Harm?

images-2While the Hippocratic Oath doesn’t contain the phrase referenced in the title of this article, it is considered its underlying principle. Just like a blindfolded Lady Justice (who originally was not depicted with blindfolds, but that is a discussion for another post), healthcare is supposed to be administered without concern for the patient’s religious beliefs, economic status, race, nationality, sexual orientation, and gender. In the case of Thomas Eric Duncan, the system failed.

How does a patient with 103 degree fever, vomiting, and a reported pain level of 8 on a scale of 10 get sent home with some antibiotics? The Reverend Jesse Jackson is now representing Mr. Duncan’s family and injecting race into the equation. I am not certain that race is a factor, but I’m also not certain that race isn’t a factor. What I do think though is that his level of care was based on his socio-economic standing and his lack of citizenship. Take a look at this CNN article. The article is interesting because it delineates the difference in care Mr. Duncan received versus other Ebola victims treated in the U.S. but what is more concerning to me are the comments posted. The general thread is that he lied (not true, his information was not reported to people who could have made a difference), came here for free healthcare, and since he’s not a citizen we owe him nothing. It’s the last statement that concerns me most. Since when do our morals and values end at our borders? If that were the case, we’d station our military along our borders and demolish the State Department.

A common view you will see on this site is our belief that human rights supersedes politics. If as a nation we want to project our moral authority, we need to practice what we preach by not picking and choosing which international crises we decide to engage in. Whether its Rwanda, Kobani, or Ebola, we as a nation should stand behind our moral obligations and values.

Jeffrey Hastie


Work in the Real World First

I’ve always considered myself socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Or as another friend put it, nationally Democrat and locally Republican. Through this blog, I hope to reach people who identify themselves in this manner. It’s unfortunate that there are very few politicians that fit this mold. In my last post, I outlined my issues with the Republican Party. This post outlines my issues with the Democratic Party.

As a small business owner, I’m familiar with the many layers of regulations necessary to do business. Anyone who has spent any iota of time in the real world would not be proponents of adding complexity to the business of business. More often than not, Democratic candidates are career politicians while their Republican counterparts come from industry. Would love to see a requirement that before seeking office, every candidate must have spent time in the real world (and the military). I understand that there’s more to being a public servant than matters that concern the economy, but only by having spent time trying to turn 10 dollars into 20 can one grasp the challenges of business.

Let’s not perpetuate class warfare. I cringe every time I hear “the wealthy have to pay their fair share.” Really? Please define wealthy. If there is real concern about who is paying their fair share, then make it easy to determine everyone’s share. Eliminate deductions and pay a flat rate. Simple and clean. No more debate about who is not carrying their load. Added benefit: with no deductions, the tax code will no longer be used to pick winners and losers in the economy.

When it comes to the economy and the citizens of the United States, the federal government has one job to do. That is to level the playing field. Don’t stack the deck in favor of one industry (e.g. mortgage deductions favoring the construction business) or group of citizens (e.g. charitable deductions). I’m a free market individual and appreciate its ability to allocate resources effectively. However, for the market to do its job more efficiently, every individual must have an equal chance of participating. That’s our government’s role. As Arthur Okun sums up in the subtitle of his book Equality and Efficiency, it’s a big tradeoff but one that will have a lasting impact.


Jeffrey Hastie