Monday, October 08, 2007


The intent of the action is solely held by the individual 'acting'. In my case, Essent ascribes my motivations as quite low, while many readers place them on a pedestal. The truth is somewhere in between. The comment about Publius took me back to my 7th grade Civics class, so very long ago.

"The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth." -'Publius' The Federalist No. 1

Hamilton probably wrote the bulk of the Federalist Papers, but the contributions of John Jay and James Madison are far from forgotten. Could you imagine those authors having the power of blogs at their disposal? (A sidebar: Where is an Iraqi Federalist blog? Probably is one, and the topic is better left for a different blog.)

Has the blog been completely altruistic? Probably not, very few things are. I just see too many things that there should be awareness of, hidden from the public consciousness. We base so much of healthcare on trust. When that trust is violated, we all suffer.

Essent would probably say that their trust was violated, but the truth is, in healthcare we have so many barriers to knowledge of what really happens. There really is no 'loyal opposition' in healthcare. Government is the closest thing we have to that, as an advocate.

What happens in a socialized medicine senerio? Would I be facing a Federal suit? And who then is left to monitor?

A long while ago, I received an email from a blogger in the Netherlands, saying that he was fascinated by the blog, because in his country there wasn't such a thing (to this level). He wanted to follow-up with questions and an article, and suddenly nothing. Maybe, in a socialized medicine country, that's one stone you don't kick over.

It is ironic that the reason Essent was able to track back on me is because I wanted to be accurate in what I wrote--by using their own words. Posted at their own websites. I just did it a bit less covertly than I should have.


Anonymous said...

Don't give up the fight, Frank. SL's lawyer needs to take this to the Supreme Court. This is a Constitutional issue.

arizona auto insurance, home insurance phoenix said...

I like your poster. That says it all. I hear people on the radio (talk radio) about how they don't care if any law enforcement can enter their vehicle or home. They have nothing to hide. That's not the point. It's privacy. It's ownership in America.

fac_p said...

However, Suddenlink has so far filed nothing to preclude discovery. They're just along for the ride....frank

Anonymous said...

If Suddenlink continues to be quiet and not stand up for the privacy of all its subscribers, I for one will be shopping for a new provider, for both cable and internet service.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like Suddenlink's owners need to go to a restaurant that serves calf fries, since that's the closest they'll come to that important part of the male anatomy.

Anonymous said...

How can Suddenlink NOT fight the release of any customer's identities?

It VIOLATES what they have as their "Privacy Policy"...wouldn't any Suddenlink customer who's identity is released without their permission have legal recourse AGAINST Suddenlink?

I, for one, will be exploring that option if Suddenlink violates my privacy.