I don’t remember the first time that I heard the term ‘squish’ to describe a person but when I did in context it was just perfect. Scouring the interwebs and settling at the most logical location, Urban Dictionary, for a proper definition I was disappointed to find that in 4 pages of entries the closest that I could find was:
Someone who is extremely disproportional or just unattractive in general.
One thing that is great about Urban Dictionary is that users can add definitions so while disappointed I was also heartened to learn that I could define it just right. So, who exactly is a squish?
I am lucky to know someone who fits the definition to a squish perfectly. My first definition for a squish is for those people who never think about it that way but use a common turn of phrase:
A squish is a person who is often described with the caveat: (But) they are a nice person.
This caveat is inevitably preceded or followed by the description of an unattractive quality of that person. Imagine the type of person who has never grown up but not in the quaint Peter Pan lost boy kind of way, but in the pathetic kind of way. The type of person who is of an adult age but has never learned to be self reliant in any way shape or form. The kind of person who resents anyone else for their ability to be self-sufficient. A person who suffers from such low self esteem that any comment, compliment or criticism towards them is rebuted with a sissyish and immature response because that person cannot differentiate comments and believes that everyone views them in a negative light. The type of person who is completely dependent on another person, be it a parent or a significant other and resents that they have no decision making authority but has neither the desire nor will to do anything about it.
Basically, a squish is the perfect description for the pathetic loser of a person who honestly believes that their miserable lot in life is entirely to blame on nebulous circumstances or they who keep them down. They are everywhere and most everyone knows one. I have lost my patience recently with a squish. They can be nice people but it gets to a point where pathetic is and will always be the best way to describe the person.
Monday, November 29, 2010
More Excuses
One Charles Rangel makes me as a voter very angry. It could be said that he doesn’t matter to me as he represents Harlem, New York, a district thousands of miles from where I live. That’s wrong because Rangel, as a 20 plus term incumbent, is a very powerful member of congress and has most recently served as the chair of the House ways and means committee, the committee charged with oversight of the tax code. Representative Rangel, while representing a part of New York, directly affects us in New Mexico.
Rangel makes me angry because he committed tax fraud and his punishment is censure, an admonishment of his crime by the speaker of the house in a session of congress. This is less than a slap on the wrist and everyone knows it. There is a kabuki theatre of various congressmen making noise about the punishment being harsh and even unwarranted which makes me even angrier.
Rangel’s incoherent and inconsistent statements have varied from him not knowing that what he did was wrong to that he did not personally benefit from his crimes to that his long tenure should exempt him from the law. Never has he apologized with the closest being the equivalent of saying, if I offended anyone I apologize for their misunderstanding of me doing nothing wrong.
Recently, with all of this going on, Rangel was re-elected with about 80 percent of the vote in his district. It is astounding to me how someone like Rangel could win with the cloud of corruption like this. It is unsurprising that he would not even show a hint of contrition for his guilt when all he gets is an admonishment and is re-elected so resoundingly.
It is a sad commentary when the excuses flow. Because of his position, why wouldn’t Rangel work to make the tax code more understandable for everyone? It is overly complex and I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t harbor some anger at having to pay almost a hundred dollars a year in order to pay taxes in accordance with the law. And is ignorance of tax law an excuse for any member of the public? Of course not. Rangel’s punishment is a joke to anyone over the age of ten and it’s no wonder why the public has lost confidence in its representative body as a whole.
Rangel makes me angry because he committed tax fraud and his punishment is censure, an admonishment of his crime by the speaker of the house in a session of congress. This is less than a slap on the wrist and everyone knows it. There is a kabuki theatre of various congressmen making noise about the punishment being harsh and even unwarranted which makes me even angrier.
Rangel’s incoherent and inconsistent statements have varied from him not knowing that what he did was wrong to that he did not personally benefit from his crimes to that his long tenure should exempt him from the law. Never has he apologized with the closest being the equivalent of saying, if I offended anyone I apologize for their misunderstanding of me doing nothing wrong.
Recently, with all of this going on, Rangel was re-elected with about 80 percent of the vote in his district. It is astounding to me how someone like Rangel could win with the cloud of corruption like this. It is unsurprising that he would not even show a hint of contrition for his guilt when all he gets is an admonishment and is re-elected so resoundingly.
It is a sad commentary when the excuses flow. Because of his position, why wouldn’t Rangel work to make the tax code more understandable for everyone? It is overly complex and I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t harbor some anger at having to pay almost a hundred dollars a year in order to pay taxes in accordance with the law. And is ignorance of tax law an excuse for any member of the public? Of course not. Rangel’s punishment is a joke to anyone over the age of ten and it’s no wonder why the public has lost confidence in its representative body as a whole.
Corruption and Consequences
This morning on the radio a corrupt sheriff in New Mexico, who was selling departmental goods, including body armor, on eBay was the topic. This sheriff, who was on his way out anyway by way of the election of someone else, has admitted what he did and resigned. He is not in jail yet and whoever is in charge of that sort of thing is working on a case that may possibly lead to criminal charges.
Read that last part of the sentence, possibly. That is pathetic and it is illustrative of our government today that this person is not behind bars at this moment. His excuse was personal financial hardships and some hold the opinion that he should be a sympathetic character because he was in dire financial straits and because the items he sold had little value or were to be destroyed.
Nonsense. First, it is not acceptable that a public servant steals and profits from stolen items because they cannot manage their personal finances. No one else can get away with stealing because they have financial hardship. Since when are public servants above the law?
The next assertion is the worse of them, excusing this thief because some of the items that were stolen were of little value or were meant to be disposed of. That does not matter in any sense. If this sheriff had stolen and re-sold a pencil he would still be stealing and should be sent to prison.
A sheriff is supposed to lead law enforcement and it is in part an indictment of the public who elected this person twice to a position of such stature. From the news, it seems as though it was not much a surprise that this sheriff behaved in such a way. He is nothing more than another democrat crook that deserves to rot in a jail cell.
Read that last part of the sentence, possibly. That is pathetic and it is illustrative of our government today that this person is not behind bars at this moment. His excuse was personal financial hardships and some hold the opinion that he should be a sympathetic character because he was in dire financial straits and because the items he sold had little value or were to be destroyed.
Nonsense. First, it is not acceptable that a public servant steals and profits from stolen items because they cannot manage their personal finances. No one else can get away with stealing because they have financial hardship. Since when are public servants above the law?
The next assertion is the worse of them, excusing this thief because some of the items that were stolen were of little value or were meant to be disposed of. That does not matter in any sense. If this sheriff had stolen and re-sold a pencil he would still be stealing and should be sent to prison.
A sheriff is supposed to lead law enforcement and it is in part an indictment of the public who elected this person twice to a position of such stature. From the news, it seems as though it was not much a surprise that this sheriff behaved in such a way. He is nothing more than another democrat crook that deserves to rot in a jail cell.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Empirical Dancing
The funniest story this week involves some person somewhere who shot his television over the elimination of someone other than Bristol (daughter of Sarah) Palin on TV’s Dancing with the Stars. This news was accompanied by many other stories on the subject of Palin’s worthiness to remain a competitor on the show. Many of these stories push the idea that dastardly tea party types are at it again, mucking things up for other, more worthy dancers.
Palin is mostly degraded because her celebrity stems from being the daughter of a politician, who happens to be an evil Republican, and the former fiancé and co-parent of an idiot. Most ridiculous is all the consternation focused on a call-in show judging the completely subjective. Think trying to explain the definition of a strike zone in baseball is difficult; imagine doing the same for dancing. Having a mirror I know how to identify bad dancing but for the most part, anything from halfway competent to professional look the same to me.
Second, like American idol or any other call-in and vote show, it’s a popularity contest. Perhaps the fact that Palin has been treated so poorly by so many who don’t even know her has led to viewer empathy. It’s not like she forced her way on to the show, she was invited like everyone else who participates and given the opportunity, who wouldn’t take it?
Sometimes not everyone else agrees with who you think should win. It’s no reason to freak out. I didn’t vote for the President, or either of the last two congressmen from New Mexico. I think they’re horrible at their jobs and I will continue to not vote for them, the majority of citizens disagreed and that may or may not change. The key difference is the people voted into office can directly affect our lives. Can a contestant on a dance show? Perspective.
Palin is mostly degraded because her celebrity stems from being the daughter of a politician, who happens to be an evil Republican, and the former fiancé and co-parent of an idiot. Most ridiculous is all the consternation focused on a call-in show judging the completely subjective. Think trying to explain the definition of a strike zone in baseball is difficult; imagine doing the same for dancing. Having a mirror I know how to identify bad dancing but for the most part, anything from halfway competent to professional look the same to me.
Second, like American idol or any other call-in and vote show, it’s a popularity contest. Perhaps the fact that Palin has been treated so poorly by so many who don’t even know her has led to viewer empathy. It’s not like she forced her way on to the show, she was invited like everyone else who participates and given the opportunity, who wouldn’t take it?
Sometimes not everyone else agrees with who you think should win. It’s no reason to freak out. I didn’t vote for the President, or either of the last two congressmen from New Mexico. I think they’re horrible at their jobs and I will continue to not vote for them, the majority of citizens disagreed and that may or may not change. The key difference is the people voted into office can directly affect our lives. Can a contestant on a dance show? Perspective.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Knowing the Unknowable and the Ubiquitous PR
It’s impossible to really know what anyone truly believes because there is no way to actually get into someone else’s mind. The best way to guess when it comes to a politician is to take what they have ever written or said in addition to the policies and priorities taken in office. Before running for Commander in Chief, President Obama’s associations, two autobiographies, history in community organizing, record in the Illinois and United States Senate pointed to a left wing politician. This is part of the reason why the hope and change campaign the president ran in 2008 was so jarring, because it could be construed to mean absolutely anything and in the context of that election it was used to convey rainbows an lollipops. It was a charade masking the policies favored by the President.
Nearly two years in to the Obama Presidency it seems as though his policies, once demonstrated, have led to a rebuke illustrated in this month’s elections. The basic point to me is that many agree that government is too big and does not do many things well when it attempts to shape decisions for everyone. It has been opined that when the President uses a bitter clingers or distribution line, it’s some kind of slip but it is more in line with his actual record that the nonsense from his campaign.
Speaking of that campaign it is still meaningful to many, from an article on Salon by Sasha Abramsky titled “Obama’s toughest task: Make us believe again”:
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama fashioned an appeal to independent voters and young adults based in large part not on specific policy pledges but on his promise to end the culture of hyper-partisan hyper-bickering that was poisoning the country's political well…Obama believes in good government, in moderation, in a smart, worldly, calm approach to politics. He believes that government can, and should, act on behalf of ordinary people to protect them from the vagaries of an unregulated market and also to smooth out the rough edges created by boom-bust cycles, inequality, and the twists and turns of history…Unfortunately for him, and for his broader progressive political agenda, conservatives have spent the last 30-plus years demolishing any notion that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena.
That’s a ton of inference from hope and change. It seems that the Author’s belief in government and of conservatives is the actual view put forth in this piece.
On the first assertion, the ending of partisanship in politics. The only political system that has no partisanship is a dictatorship in which all of the people living under it agree to live under said dictatorship. Those clamoring for bi-partisanship aren’t looking for any actual agreement; they are looking for people to capitulate to their view of government.
On to the good big government tripe. Boom-bust cycles happen in any economy that promotes freedom and the only kind that sidesteps this are those in which everyone is miserable, all bust. Government has tried many times to help ordinary people and in some very limited ways has helped albeit at enormous costs. The reason why many people view big government as bad government is because many of these programs have failed to deliver at an inflated cost.
The last notion, that conservatives have spent the last 30 plus years demolishing the idea that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena. This rubbish assumes that conservatives have ever been a force in forming public opinion, which just isn’t true. Conservatives don’t promise to solve everyone’s problems, don’t promise to stop the rise of the oceans and don’t believe that government should make every decision for every citizen. Because progressives always promise the impossible and can never deliver on the impossible they always get elected on inflated hope and then are shown the door when it all falls apart.
Nearly two years in to the Obama Presidency it seems as though his policies, once demonstrated, have led to a rebuke illustrated in this month’s elections. The basic point to me is that many agree that government is too big and does not do many things well when it attempts to shape decisions for everyone. It has been opined that when the President uses a bitter clingers or distribution line, it’s some kind of slip but it is more in line with his actual record that the nonsense from his campaign.
Speaking of that campaign it is still meaningful to many, from an article on Salon by Sasha Abramsky titled “Obama’s toughest task: Make us believe again”:
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama fashioned an appeal to independent voters and young adults based in large part not on specific policy pledges but on his promise to end the culture of hyper-partisan hyper-bickering that was poisoning the country's political well…Obama believes in good government, in moderation, in a smart, worldly, calm approach to politics. He believes that government can, and should, act on behalf of ordinary people to protect them from the vagaries of an unregulated market and also to smooth out the rough edges created by boom-bust cycles, inequality, and the twists and turns of history…Unfortunately for him, and for his broader progressive political agenda, conservatives have spent the last 30-plus years demolishing any notion that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena.
That’s a ton of inference from hope and change. It seems that the Author’s belief in government and of conservatives is the actual view put forth in this piece.
On the first assertion, the ending of partisanship in politics. The only political system that has no partisanship is a dictatorship in which all of the people living under it agree to live under said dictatorship. Those clamoring for bi-partisanship aren’t looking for any actual agreement; they are looking for people to capitulate to their view of government.
On to the good big government tripe. Boom-bust cycles happen in any economy that promotes freedom and the only kind that sidesteps this are those in which everyone is miserable, all bust. Government has tried many times to help ordinary people and in some very limited ways has helped albeit at enormous costs. The reason why many people view big government as bad government is because many of these programs have failed to deliver at an inflated cost.
The last notion, that conservatives have spent the last 30 plus years demolishing the idea that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena. This rubbish assumes that conservatives have ever been a force in forming public opinion, which just isn’t true. Conservatives don’t promise to solve everyone’s problems, don’t promise to stop the rise of the oceans and don’t believe that government should make every decision for every citizen. Because progressives always promise the impossible and can never deliver on the impossible they always get elected on inflated hope and then are shown the door when it all falls apart.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tone Deaf and Confident
Even during hard times when voters are asked, if you knew that your money was going to education, would you agree to increase taxes or something like that—they always say yes
That is a quote from Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein responding to warnings from Albuquerque Public Schools Superintendent Winston Brooks cryptically warning of further education budget cuts.
The only answer that the taxpayer can provide that may actually lead to an improved APS is a shut wallet. Scare tactics from a bumbling superintendent are only meant as a hedge to game the public into more funding as desired by the teacher’s union. Both of these statements are complimentary and outline the same tactic that has failed education time and again, more money.
More money is not the answer and that conclusion is supported by the fact that as taxpayers have been more than generous over and over again as acknowledged by AFT president Bernstein, nothing has changed. ‘Education’ has not improved for the children that are used as a cudgel to guilt citizens into throwing money at the same old same old.
The reason why is that more money only grows the same failing system and that system is a growth of programs meant to solve problems by endless study and moving around students into various school activities that are not in any way tied to education. This is the same ‘try something’ charade that never does any good because adding to a wasteful system while not honestly addressing the actual cause of issues within the public schools does nothing. And these new programs once established, never go away and always want more.
Teary eyed politicians always want to ‘keep money in the classroom’ and ‘in education’ and the problem is that as the schools add more and more programs and studies, each requires more and more management which have nothing to do with any actual education. The problem is that the money is not literally spent on the classroom but a gigantic, out of proportion support system whose only goal is to feed it and grow ever larger.
Since inception the public schools answer to its many problems has always been more funding and they have always been granted more funding only to deliver worse results every time. It is more than past time to try real reform, to force the school districts who insist on digging into our pockets to be fully accountable. The public should know every program, every employee and every purpose of our funding. As the public we must hold administrators, school board members, teachers and every employee of the public schools accountable and determine what programs actually work and which teachers actually teach. It is time to rid ourselves of anything that is not directly tied to real, actual education within APS.
That is a quote from Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein responding to warnings from Albuquerque Public Schools Superintendent Winston Brooks cryptically warning of further education budget cuts.
Worst-case scenario, we could be looking at cutting $64 million ... all of those numbers are estimates right now. Please do not take any of them as gospelNo one knows with any certainty what the future holds for the school district’s funding and the union leader has no qualms with sticking it to the taxpayer to shovel more money into the furnace that goes by the blanket term ‘education’.
The only answer that the taxpayer can provide that may actually lead to an improved APS is a shut wallet. Scare tactics from a bumbling superintendent are only meant as a hedge to game the public into more funding as desired by the teacher’s union. Both of these statements are complimentary and outline the same tactic that has failed education time and again, more money.
More money is not the answer and that conclusion is supported by the fact that as taxpayers have been more than generous over and over again as acknowledged by AFT president Bernstein, nothing has changed. ‘Education’ has not improved for the children that are used as a cudgel to guilt citizens into throwing money at the same old same old.
The reason why is that more money only grows the same failing system and that system is a growth of programs meant to solve problems by endless study and moving around students into various school activities that are not in any way tied to education. This is the same ‘try something’ charade that never does any good because adding to a wasteful system while not honestly addressing the actual cause of issues within the public schools does nothing. And these new programs once established, never go away and always want more.
Teary eyed politicians always want to ‘keep money in the classroom’ and ‘in education’ and the problem is that as the schools add more and more programs and studies, each requires more and more management which have nothing to do with any actual education. The problem is that the money is not literally spent on the classroom but a gigantic, out of proportion support system whose only goal is to feed it and grow ever larger.
Since inception the public schools answer to its many problems has always been more funding and they have always been granted more funding only to deliver worse results every time. It is more than past time to try real reform, to force the school districts who insist on digging into our pockets to be fully accountable. The public should know every program, every employee and every purpose of our funding. As the public we must hold administrators, school board members, teachers and every employee of the public schools accountable and determine what programs actually work and which teachers actually teach. It is time to rid ourselves of anything that is not directly tied to real, actual education within APS.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
The Answer Isn’t More of the Same
In the bad idea of the day department there is a group calling itself ABQPass that is currently pushing splitting Albuquerque Public Schools in two with a new district comprised of existing schools that dot Albuquerque west of the Rio Grande. The prime justification for this initiative is the state of New Mexico’s poor ranking in education nationwide.
The idea behind the idea is noble, that providing the children with the best possible education is paramount to prosperity. Nothing controversial there, however, splitting APS in two is a bad idea that will only serve to exacerbate the problems within the district. ABQPass should instead concentrate its efforts on bettering the district as it already exists.
The creation of a second Albuquerque school district immediately doubles the problem with the existing district because it creates a second entity encompassing the same problems. The problem with APS is the size and reach of its bureaucracy. APS as it exists today is the perfect demonstration of the failure of big government. Every year, the APS school board and administration makes excuses for the poor performance of their system and insists that the solution is more money. We rubes in the public pony up and nothing changes.
It is folly to believe that the creation of another school district, more government will alleviate the problems within APS. All that it will lead to is another corrupt and burdensome government entity that is always crowing for more money from the public they are supposed to serve inevitably disappointing but never having to improve once entrenched.
The idea behind the idea is noble, that providing the children with the best possible education is paramount to prosperity. Nothing controversial there, however, splitting APS in two is a bad idea that will only serve to exacerbate the problems within the district. ABQPass should instead concentrate its efforts on bettering the district as it already exists.
The creation of a second Albuquerque school district immediately doubles the problem with the existing district because it creates a second entity encompassing the same problems. The problem with APS is the size and reach of its bureaucracy. APS as it exists today is the perfect demonstration of the failure of big government. Every year, the APS school board and administration makes excuses for the poor performance of their system and insists that the solution is more money. We rubes in the public pony up and nothing changes.
It is folly to believe that the creation of another school district, more government will alleviate the problems within APS. All that it will lead to is another corrupt and burdensome government entity that is always crowing for more money from the public they are supposed to serve inevitably disappointing but never having to improve once entrenched.
Monday, November 08, 2010
The Event Center that will not Die
It is difficult for me to understand exactly why many Albuquerque city council members continue to insist on building a new Downtown event center. In his first State of the City address, Mayor Richard Berry made the following statement:
I'm not saying 'no, never.' I'm saying now isn't the time
This simple statement is a practical way to look at the proposed event center. It may one day become a reality but now really isn’t the right time. A new event center in downtown Albuquerque is estimated to cost nearly 400 million dollars, where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Accompanying the mayor’s position statement was news that city owes nearly 20 million dollars on renovations made more than a decade ago to the existing convention center. Where is that money and when is the existing convention center, operating at less than capacity going to come from?
One of the arguments in favor of the new event center is the construction jobs that will ostensively add to the city’s labor base, stimulating the economy. There are a lot of problems with this position. First, these jobs would only be temporary. One of the ill effects could be an artificial inflation in the city’s construction labor base; companies may bring in workers from other economies that leave after the work is complete or may have to lay off many local employees once the work is complete. This is an example of unsustainable. The city may as well employ a hundred hole diggers and a hundred hole fillers working on a split shift in perpetuity.
Another argument is that an event center will lead to a revitalization of the city’s downtown area. The first step to any city revitalization is taking care of crime. Albuquerque already has a modern convention center with much useful space that is across the street from a mostly empty beautiful civic plaza, why would another event center do any better? Part of the event center plan involves a hotel. There are already many hotels in downtown Albuquerque with much vacancy. What reason is there and do we really want the city to get into the hotel business? The city does not need to enter any private industry and should first concentrate on finding tenants for existing city properties and take care of crime on those properties and throughout the city.
The most laughable reason given for an event center is the idea that the city could conceivably attract a professional sports team, most likely an NBA team. Put simply, Albuquerque does not have the population base necessary to support a professional basketball team. Second, smaller cities with NBA teams are bankrupt thanks to those teams. I doubt the NBA would support a team moving to Albuquerque because of woeful attendance at the area’s NBA developmental league team’s games. There are sentimental reasons for this, making it a point of civic pride to call Albuquerque a major city because it’s a budget busting NBA team’s city. It isn’t worth it.
I just don’t get it. Any reason that can be given for the city to create a new event center when one already exists and many other venues dot the metro area can be easily refuted. Now is simply not the time to even consider this idea. Over the last few years Albuquerque has lost several major private sector employers. The city should concentrate its efforts on making the city safer which will help make it a city people want to move to and encourage businesses to move here by improving taxes for them. This event center is a distraction. Any city councilor who supports it can’t be bothered to solve actual problems and are probably running for mayor in three years.
I'm not saying 'no, never.' I'm saying now isn't the time
This simple statement is a practical way to look at the proposed event center. It may one day become a reality but now really isn’t the right time. A new event center in downtown Albuquerque is estimated to cost nearly 400 million dollars, where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Accompanying the mayor’s position statement was news that city owes nearly 20 million dollars on renovations made more than a decade ago to the existing convention center. Where is that money and when is the existing convention center, operating at less than capacity going to come from?
One of the arguments in favor of the new event center is the construction jobs that will ostensively add to the city’s labor base, stimulating the economy. There are a lot of problems with this position. First, these jobs would only be temporary. One of the ill effects could be an artificial inflation in the city’s construction labor base; companies may bring in workers from other economies that leave after the work is complete or may have to lay off many local employees once the work is complete. This is an example of unsustainable. The city may as well employ a hundred hole diggers and a hundred hole fillers working on a split shift in perpetuity.
Another argument is that an event center will lead to a revitalization of the city’s downtown area. The first step to any city revitalization is taking care of crime. Albuquerque already has a modern convention center with much useful space that is across the street from a mostly empty beautiful civic plaza, why would another event center do any better? Part of the event center plan involves a hotel. There are already many hotels in downtown Albuquerque with much vacancy. What reason is there and do we really want the city to get into the hotel business? The city does not need to enter any private industry and should first concentrate on finding tenants for existing city properties and take care of crime on those properties and throughout the city.
The most laughable reason given for an event center is the idea that the city could conceivably attract a professional sports team, most likely an NBA team. Put simply, Albuquerque does not have the population base necessary to support a professional basketball team. Second, smaller cities with NBA teams are bankrupt thanks to those teams. I doubt the NBA would support a team moving to Albuquerque because of woeful attendance at the area’s NBA developmental league team’s games. There are sentimental reasons for this, making it a point of civic pride to call Albuquerque a major city because it’s a budget busting NBA team’s city. It isn’t worth it.
I just don’t get it. Any reason that can be given for the city to create a new event center when one already exists and many other venues dot the metro area can be easily refuted. Now is simply not the time to even consider this idea. Over the last few years Albuquerque has lost several major private sector employers. The city should concentrate its efforts on making the city safer which will help make it a city people want to move to and encourage businesses to move here by improving taxes for them. This event center is a distraction. Any city councilor who supports it can’t be bothered to solve actual problems and are probably running for mayor in three years.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Defining a good job down
Yesterday I characterized the re-election of Martin Heinrich to the US House of Representatives as demonstrative of the power of the democrat brand, especially in the state of New Mexico. While New Mexico is a right to work state, there are two teachers unions that have a strong presence in the state. New Mexico has a larger percentage of state employees as a percentage of the general population than many other states. Many of these state employees live in the Albuquerque area (witness the existence of the rail runner) and therefore in Heinrich’s district. In Albuquerque their exists Sandia National Laboratories, many federal DoD offices employing civilians at Kirtland Air Force Base, Federal, State and District Courts, an FBI presence, other Federal agencies and the University of New Mexico. Basically, Albuquerque is a giant hub of public sector employment and trends show that all of these groups overwhelmingly vote democrat as a brand and not at a 51/49 split, closer to 70/30. Knowing this it is amazing that any republican can win any elected office in this city. Yet, Jon Barela came close.
Martin Heinrich has a resume as thin as can be and in two years in Washington only distinguished himself by honoring the UNM Lobo’s basketball team in session. Other than that, Heinrich can be considered to be a straight ticket democrat vote. Jon Barela has a much more impressive resume, with actual Private sector experience, has campaigned as an independent thinker that would work for New Mexico first and performed well in debates. He came close but he lost to someone who has only distinguished himself as getting along with the democrat agenda.
This morning on Bob Clark’s 770AM morning show he had a “centrist” political blogger who may as well call himself Captain Hindsight in his political analysis. The point of this blogger and several echo callers was that the result of the election to New Mexicans is that Republicans must moderate and that Heinrich won because he did well by his constituency. This caused me to ponder exactly what each of these points meant.
The first tell of a liberal is that they identify themselves as something else and this blogger was no different. Every “moderate” plank identified by this “moderate” that Republicans must co-opt was a liberal policy. In politics, Republicans describe policies, policies meant to bestow freedom on citizens while democrats push programs meant to keep constituents dependent on their benevolence. With that stark a difference it is difficult to identify a truly centrist position. Dishonest liberals like this blogger, thinking themselves righteous, have co-opted the term “moderate” to hide liberal and progressive memes.
On to Heinrich doing right by his constituents, part of the blogger’s claim stemmed back to his time as a city councilor in Albuquerque. On that question the answer is it depends. Which constituents? This kind of trick is taken because this blogger, being a liberal, paints the entire district with a broad brush and assumes everyone shares the same values and views of government. The constituency that is served well by Heinrich is the kind that is either a recipient of government largess or approves of that method of governance. Plainly, Heinrich is good at giving out other people’s money. It is probably correct that Heinrich won thanks to this trait, that doesn’t mean that he does a good job.
It’s easy to be pessimistic when a candidate like Jon Barela can only get close against a hack like Heinrich but it seems to be the way things are in this district. The only reason why Richard Berry's the Mayor of Albuquerque is because it was a three way race against two democrats who may as well have been clones. The big government agenda put forth by Martin Heinrich and supported by many voters in Albuquerque is unsustainable and the benefits are an illusion, if this kind of candidate continues to win it might be time to take that transfer to Florida.
Martin Heinrich has a resume as thin as can be and in two years in Washington only distinguished himself by honoring the UNM Lobo’s basketball team in session. Other than that, Heinrich can be considered to be a straight ticket democrat vote. Jon Barela has a much more impressive resume, with actual Private sector experience, has campaigned as an independent thinker that would work for New Mexico first and performed well in debates. He came close but he lost to someone who has only distinguished himself as getting along with the democrat agenda.
This morning on Bob Clark’s 770AM morning show he had a “centrist” political blogger who may as well call himself Captain Hindsight in his political analysis. The point of this blogger and several echo callers was that the result of the election to New Mexicans is that Republicans must moderate and that Heinrich won because he did well by his constituency. This caused me to ponder exactly what each of these points meant.
The first tell of a liberal is that they identify themselves as something else and this blogger was no different. Every “moderate” plank identified by this “moderate” that Republicans must co-opt was a liberal policy. In politics, Republicans describe policies, policies meant to bestow freedom on citizens while democrats push programs meant to keep constituents dependent on their benevolence. With that stark a difference it is difficult to identify a truly centrist position. Dishonest liberals like this blogger, thinking themselves righteous, have co-opted the term “moderate” to hide liberal and progressive memes.
On to Heinrich doing right by his constituents, part of the blogger’s claim stemmed back to his time as a city councilor in Albuquerque. On that question the answer is it depends. Which constituents? This kind of trick is taken because this blogger, being a liberal, paints the entire district with a broad brush and assumes everyone shares the same values and views of government. The constituency that is served well by Heinrich is the kind that is either a recipient of government largess or approves of that method of governance. Plainly, Heinrich is good at giving out other people’s money. It is probably correct that Heinrich won thanks to this trait, that doesn’t mean that he does a good job.
It’s easy to be pessimistic when a candidate like Jon Barela can only get close against a hack like Heinrich but it seems to be the way things are in this district. The only reason why Richard Berry's the Mayor of Albuquerque is because it was a three way race against two democrats who may as well have been clones. The big government agenda put forth by Martin Heinrich and supported by many voters in Albuquerque is unsustainable and the benefits are an illusion, if this kind of candidate continues to win it might be time to take that transfer to Florida.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Day After
There was some good and some disappointing news from the election yesterday. Something I learned last night both in New Mexico and nationally is just how powerful democrat as a brand can be. As the results poured in, locally and nationally, it was a very good night for Republicans but there were many races that just left me a bit let down.
Early yesterday afternoon my wife sent me a text message that she was attempting to convince a friend to vote for Susana Martinez, Jon Barela and Matt Chandler. This friend is very smart and sensible, and the reason why they voted straight ticket democrat after all was due to the nature of their work in renewable energy. In that sector and many others, these employees are told that their jobs depend on democrats in office. Such is the price of big government picking winners and losers in the economy. And democrats are big government and when democrat government picks winners, that same government becomes the best interest of those winners.
Susana Martinez won a resounding and pleasantly early victory. Martinez is a great candidate that the State deserves to learn more about over the next four years. My bet is that she will be a very good Governor. Steve Pearce won the seat in congress that he previously held handily, more so that the predicted toss-up. Dianna Duran won in a landslide (15 points!) for Secretary of State over Incumbent and embarrassment Mary Herrera.
Jon Barela (US House), Tom Mullins (US House) and Matt Chandler (Attorney General) lost close races against mediocre at best incumbents. Was it name recognition or was it the democrat brand? Or both, which may be the same thing? I think it’s the later. Barela ran a good campaign and was a good candidate but never could establish himself. Mullins is an excellent candidate and ran a great campaign considering his district but still lost. Chandler is also an excellent candidate who ran very well against the well established King democrat brand in New Mexico, hopefully he’ll be back.
Nationwide, California and Nevada prove the strength of the democrat brand. Sharron Angle was a great candidate, running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and lost by a much larger margin than predicted. California sent back know-nothing Barbara Boxer to the Senate and elected re-tread Jerry Brown as their governor against well qualified businesspeople. These results are disappointing because all three of these candidates had low ratings in their districts, but even with all of the problems their districts resoundingly went for more of the same. It is what it is. At least California went against the idiotic proposal to legalize marijuana.
There is now a lot of work to do. There were a ton of great Republican candidates and hopefully the freshman class in both houses of congress will do great things. Electorally, while there were disappointing results in some races, there is something to build on. Voters are more educated than ever and can only mean better candidates and better representation.
Early yesterday afternoon my wife sent me a text message that she was attempting to convince a friend to vote for Susana Martinez, Jon Barela and Matt Chandler. This friend is very smart and sensible, and the reason why they voted straight ticket democrat after all was due to the nature of their work in renewable energy. In that sector and many others, these employees are told that their jobs depend on democrats in office. Such is the price of big government picking winners and losers in the economy. And democrats are big government and when democrat government picks winners, that same government becomes the best interest of those winners.
Susana Martinez won a resounding and pleasantly early victory. Martinez is a great candidate that the State deserves to learn more about over the next four years. My bet is that she will be a very good Governor. Steve Pearce won the seat in congress that he previously held handily, more so that the predicted toss-up. Dianna Duran won in a landslide (15 points!) for Secretary of State over Incumbent and embarrassment Mary Herrera.
Jon Barela (US House), Tom Mullins (US House) and Matt Chandler (Attorney General) lost close races against mediocre at best incumbents. Was it name recognition or was it the democrat brand? Or both, which may be the same thing? I think it’s the later. Barela ran a good campaign and was a good candidate but never could establish himself. Mullins is an excellent candidate and ran a great campaign considering his district but still lost. Chandler is also an excellent candidate who ran very well against the well established King democrat brand in New Mexico, hopefully he’ll be back.
Nationwide, California and Nevada prove the strength of the democrat brand. Sharron Angle was a great candidate, running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and lost by a much larger margin than predicted. California sent back know-nothing Barbara Boxer to the Senate and elected re-tread Jerry Brown as their governor against well qualified businesspeople. These results are disappointing because all three of these candidates had low ratings in their districts, but even with all of the problems their districts resoundingly went for more of the same. It is what it is. At least California went against the idiotic proposal to legalize marijuana.
There is now a lot of work to do. There were a ton of great Republican candidates and hopefully the freshman class in both houses of congress will do great things. Electorally, while there were disappointing results in some races, there is something to build on. Voters are more educated than ever and can only mean better candidates and better representation.
Grüezi Mitenand!
is Swiss German for "Greetings, everyone". A lot has happened between the last time I posted and now, both in the realm of national/state/local politics and for me personally. As the 5 people who read this blog know, I moved to Switzerland a year ago, so I can blog with a bit of a Euro slant on American politics. Sometime I'll blog about how my views have changed or not, but for now - let's talk about what just happened.
[Keep in mind that the above was written right after the election, I am a lazy ass and didn't finish.]
Hello gridlock! I love it. When politicians are pissing on each other in DC, then they aren't pissing on us. The encroachment upon our individual liberties grinds to a halt when the wrench of gridlock is thrown into the machine of Leviathan. What remains to be seen is if Obama can adjust like Clinton did. I'm not holding my breath. Obama is a genuine douchebag with a superiority complex. You can see it in how he reacts to criticism.
Speaking of Clinton, I suddenly found myself missing the ol' boy. We hated him, but honestly - he was a consummate politician, so he did some good stuff. The semblance of fiscal responsibility that Newt & Co. foisted upon him was nice, and we need it again.
Anyway, I'll try and keep up with things here so Vetes isn't the only lonely poster.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Day
Or Happy New Governor Day New Mexico! Whoever wins the election today one thing is for certain, one Bill Richardson will soon be on a path to an uncertain retirement from New Mexico politics. Uncertain because it is would be impossible to guess as to what Richardson will do next. In statewide politics the only option that would not seem to be a demotion would be senator and it is doubtful that Richardson (or anyone) could beat Jeff Bingaman simply because he has been there forever and name recognition still rules in New Mexico. So what next for Richardson? It doesn’t matter, soon enough he will be gone tarnished from a life in democrat politics, good riddance.
What has been striking to me in this election cycle is the welcome quality of Republican candidates. All too often in politics many candidates are re-treads, multi-decade incumbents or flacks who have waited in line for their turn. While there are some Republican candidates who fit this mold (hello Steve Pearce) many are really quality people and I think are prepared for what may be new jobs tomorrow.
It all starts at the top with our likely new governor, Susana Martinez. Contrast Martinez with Diane Denish, Denish has been or campaigned for Lt Governor for the last twelve years. In her Ads Denish attempted to identify herself first as a corruption fighter, with no results, then as the owner of an unnamed small business and a single mother for a period time to an education reformer where nothing changed most notably results. Martinez is a successful DA in Dona Ana County who has been successful for many years in that role with a record that she could run on consistently throughout the campaign.
Notable differences in resume quality continue in House of Representatives candidates. Take Martin Heinrich, what has he ever done that even resembles experience in the private sector? He worked as an engineer at Philips semiconductors for several months and then worked at a camp, then as an unregistered lobbyist and city councilor before becoming a congressman. That’s the best the democrats have to offer. His opponent, Republican Jon Barela worked for a congressman, Joe Skeen, then for a major law firm in Albuquerque, then Intel and then opened his own successful company Cerelink.
Matt Chandler brings a fresh perspective to the Attorney General’s office compared to the legacy Gary King, who may be perfectly mediocre but has proven to be very politically motivated. In the North, Tom Mullins is an engineer who is truly conservative running against Ben Ray Lujan who has an even thinner resume than Martin Heinrich. In the South Steve Pearce is running for a seat he once held against businessman democrat Harry Teague and while this race seems different and one could assume that Teague would be business friendly, Teague has voted in line with democrat priorities (excepting certain politically motivated exceptions) and operates his business in the cartoonish ways his party attempts to paint conservatives.
There are many stories today about how many races the Republicans may win today and the best part is that many of the Republican candidates are no longer just the lesser of two evils but intelligent people that adhere to actual conservative governing principles which I believe will lead to a better state and country.
What has been striking to me in this election cycle is the welcome quality of Republican candidates. All too often in politics many candidates are re-treads, multi-decade incumbents or flacks who have waited in line for their turn. While there are some Republican candidates who fit this mold (hello Steve Pearce) many are really quality people and I think are prepared for what may be new jobs tomorrow.
It all starts at the top with our likely new governor, Susana Martinez. Contrast Martinez with Diane Denish, Denish has been or campaigned for Lt Governor for the last twelve years. In her Ads Denish attempted to identify herself first as a corruption fighter, with no results, then as the owner of an unnamed small business and a single mother for a period time to an education reformer where nothing changed most notably results. Martinez is a successful DA in Dona Ana County who has been successful for many years in that role with a record that she could run on consistently throughout the campaign.
Notable differences in resume quality continue in House of Representatives candidates. Take Martin Heinrich, what has he ever done that even resembles experience in the private sector? He worked as an engineer at Philips semiconductors for several months and then worked at a camp, then as an unregistered lobbyist and city councilor before becoming a congressman. That’s the best the democrats have to offer. His opponent, Republican Jon Barela worked for a congressman, Joe Skeen, then for a major law firm in Albuquerque, then Intel and then opened his own successful company Cerelink.
Matt Chandler brings a fresh perspective to the Attorney General’s office compared to the legacy Gary King, who may be perfectly mediocre but has proven to be very politically motivated. In the North, Tom Mullins is an engineer who is truly conservative running against Ben Ray Lujan who has an even thinner resume than Martin Heinrich. In the South Steve Pearce is running for a seat he once held against businessman democrat Harry Teague and while this race seems different and one could assume that Teague would be business friendly, Teague has voted in line with democrat priorities (excepting certain politically motivated exceptions) and operates his business in the cartoonish ways his party attempts to paint conservatives.
There are many stories today about how many races the Republicans may win today and the best part is that many of the Republican candidates are no longer just the lesser of two evils but intelligent people that adhere to actual conservative governing principles which I believe will lead to a better state and country.
Monday, November 01, 2010
So who's supported by Texas?
Now, this picture means nothing but in the Tejana and "Texas money" context, you can't tell me this picture from a Corrales roaming vehicle ain't funny...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)