The Post Techie Conservative

Super Bowl Randomness

2012-02-05T10:09:00.002-07:00

In honor of what is unfortunately the last football game for what will seem like forever, but good because that forever allows Tim Tebow to get better (and he will), some random stories from this morning.

Yesterday, the Patriots cut one of their wide receivers. The player took it well and since he played less than Chad Ochocinco, this probably wasn’t that surprising, other than it coming on the eve of the Super Bowl. The posting anticipated the thoughts of many who clicked through informing them that if the Patriots win today, the player will likely receive a ring.

On CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel asks “It's the Super Bowl -- so why are we talking about Irsay and Peyton?” The column is critical of what the author describes as the owner and current, but maybe soon to be ex, quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts sucking coverage from the vacuum of Super Bowl week. What isn’t clear is if the Colts story bothers Doyel so much, why is he writing about other’s writing about it and not writing about the only story that really matters according to him? Columns about over coverage of one topic lamenting typeface wasted on supposedly irrelevant topics are double irrelevant. There is no lack of room for every silly story out there any time and it’s not certain that the actual teams playing the game actually mind, irrelevant coverage, not about them, allows them to concentrate. How about Peyton Manning owning the conversation on his recovery, forcing Colts owner Irsay into reactionary mode? That dude knows PR and whatnot.

Deadspin, the sports gossip website, re-printed Drew Magary’s Super Bowl chili recipe. There was a Facebook post the other day from someone looking for a chili recipe, there seems to be several ingredients core to a chili recipe with the rest comprised of whatever kitchen scraps happen to be available. Drew is a fantastic writer and the only one worth reading at Deadspin.

Joe Posnaski at Sports Illustrated writes that this year’s Super Bowl is unusual, unlike any other. Greg Garber at ESPN writes that there’s an undercurrent of revenge from the game four years ago when these same teams last met in the Super Bowl. Who knows? We’ll all know in about eleven hours.

President Mortgage Counselor

2012-02-02T18:56:00.000-07:00

I wasn’t yet thirty years old when I bought my house, entering into a loan that would more than double my age if by some miracle of not wanting to ever move I were to pay it off. The paperwork required to apply for and then close on the loan was voluminous. It’s wasn’t easy and although the title company representative wanted to go home for the day and encouraged me to skip it, I read the entirety of the documentation. What do I want, a cookie? Of course not, I did what I was supposed to. Indubitably there was a lot of paperwork; it was for a contract with a shelf life of thirty years, 38.46% of the average life expectancy in this country. The most difficult part was the number of pages and the redundancy. There was a lot of legalese but even though I am not a lawyer, there was enough material there to make sense to a layman.

Today, for the umpteenth time during his term, the President offered up a personal story because, apparently, he can personally relate to anything that ever happens to anyone and is an expert on how everyone should do everything. The subject du jour was the difficulty of mortgage contracts and the introduction of a new boondoggle, the so-called “Homeowners Bill of Rights”. At one point during this introduhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifction:

“The president recalled his and First Lady Michelle Obama's experience buying their first home together - a process he described, humorously, as so complicated that the two of them would end up looking through the forms and asking "what does this phrase mean?" … "And that's, you know, for two trained lawyers," he laughed.”

So funny. As if the only reason there are foreclosures is because mortgage forms are too difficult and not at all to do with some people buying things that they can’t afford. As if the President and First Lady were mortgage lawyers in their previous careers. I don’t recall reading that in their qualifications. There are so many legal subjects and there aren’t any lawyers that specialize in everything. Because the profession relies on reading comprehension and because there is sooooooo much law, thanks to politicians simpatico with the President, it’s impossible for a lawyer to understand every subject. But, the thing is, it’s not that hard. There’s just a lot of reading in the mortgage process. Blaming the process is lazy and protects the irresponsible who didn’t even bother to read and comprehend it before signing.

2012 being an election year, the purported “Homeowners Bill of Rights” is nothing but a redistribution scheme vote buying device under the ruse of “caring”. Contract law is complicated and the reason why mortgage contracts are so long is because of that complexity, because of the law, of which the President happens to be in charge of the Executive Branch of. And introducing feel-good legislation that will only end up costing homeowners who pay their bills because they bought something they can afford because they won’t be eligible for the program. Yes there are unfortunate circumstances and exceptions but those cases make up a negligible percentage of who will take advantage of their neighbors by this program. You’re welcome. Of course, the President will take credit, and it will only cost more billions this country doesn’t have. Whatever, as long as he retains power for another four years.

President Jobs Counselor

2012-02-01T14:25:00.001-07:00

At an online forum hosted by Google this week (no, I will not type Google/YouTube. They are the same company. I would not write hosted by Chevrolet/Buick either. They are GM) the President was questioned by a woman who wondered why the country was issuing work visas for highly skilled foreigners while her husband, an engineer with a decade of experience, has been out of work for three years. The President, as he is wont to do, hemmed and hawed and eventually spurted out the following:

"If you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there, because the word we're getting is, is that somebody in that kind of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away."

This brand of gibberish feeds the oversimplified notion that some oppose the President’s policies and actions because it’s assumed that they think that he’s overwhelmed. The President has done this before, allowing a sympathetic audience member to hijack an appearance in order to vent on and demand an explanation for their personal misfortunes, and then he asks for that person’s contact information so he could look into it. There are more than 300 million people in this country and it’s folly to presume and egocentric for the President to believe that he can solve the problems of those 300 million people one by one.

While the stories the President hears may be sympathetic it’s not fair to focus resources on those who force themselves into the spotlight. We just don’t know the whole story of this unemployed engineer. What was he working on when he was laid off? Was it one of those laid off in lieu of firing things? Has he been on any interviews over the past three years? Is he willing to try other things? Has he tried other things? And, in what world is the President qualified to examine and assess the resume of an engineer? Perhaps to some the President looks good by feigning concern but it just seems preposterous on face and welcomes one to ask the President if he’s comfortable representing the competing interests of a country as populous as ours or if he thinks that he can be a micro-managing President to one person at a time, this week the jobs counselor for an engineer in Texas?

The Class Participation Trap

2012-02-01T10:55:00.001-07:00

Class participation is quite the double edged sword. It’s annoying to be clichéd about it, but the truth fits it sometimes. Participating in a class is an excellent method to exhibit knowledge to the professor and discuss concepts with a class in order to better form understanding. It is also a way for grandstanding overbearing know-it-alls to filibuster and move the discussion to irrelevant tangents ensuring that class becomes tedious and off-point. It really requires a strong and organized professor to keep a course on track and if not, at least there’s the internet as a distraction. It gets worse if the professor has trouble avoiding tangents themselves. And double worse if they can’t even keep the material straight. A key phrase that is telling with regard to the direction the day will take is when a professor is discussing something and then casually states that they have no personal experience in the subject. The best will stick to the printed material closely to get through it. The others will muddle and veer towards more familiar territory attempting to make connections that don’t exist. That’s when it’s time to nap.

Contraceptive Costs for All! Use by Some!

2012-02-01T10:02:00.002-07:00

There has been much warranted discussion this week with regard to the federal Department of Health and Human Services rejecting employer conscious related requests not to provide contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” within insurance offerings. Literal churches are exempt but religious affiliated institutions including hospitals, universities and agencies are not and have one year to comply. HHS’s decision is abhorrent but predictable because those who made the decision don’t understand or respect the objections and appreciate that allowing exceptions can lead to a collapse of the system that they impose in that it relies on many not using the stated benefits, while having access to them, in order to cover the costs for those who do.

And those costs are what make this dictatorial edict even more erroneous. Cloaked under the presumptively incontrovertible auspices of ‘women’s health’ it dictates that erstwhile private, employer provided health insurance in the United States of America must offer contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” of charge and with no increase in premium. However, no matter the power of the federal government’s figurative magic wand, tangible goods are not “free”, and their costs will simply be shifted to others by virtue of lessened coverage. Those with less politically favorable conditions will be forced to pay more for their own health needs in order to pay for what the government decides should be “free”. And those who have entirely valid objections to that coverage will be coerced, by the power of the federal government, into violating their convictions in order to advance the ruse of “free” benefits to favored political constituencies.

Random Thoughts - 1/30

2012-01-30T13:50:00.000-07:00

Taco Bell’s got a “new” breakfast menu out and by “new” they mean re-introduced from some time in the past. From a look of the menu, other than a couple new items there’s a lot in there similar to what once was. Apparently this new menu was five years in the making. Yikes. Nexus, with the best fried chicken in Albuquerque has been in existence for almost a year, doubt they were planning six years ago.

Is there some kind of definable neurosis for the apparent anxiety many drivers exhibit as they approach a freeway exit? Is it that if they don’t immediately enter the exit lane once it’s there they think they’ll miss it or something? This neurosis seems to disable the ability of some drivers to either look behind them or use their mirrors. A couple of examples in Albuquerque include the 1-25 southbound Comanche exit and the I-40 eastbound Carlisle exit. There’s plenty of road for successful merges yet some paranoid drivers ignore whatever’s coming from the freeway entrance lane to make the exit prematurely.

What to do about a co-worker with strange habits? The person in the office next to mine likes bananas, which isn’t all that strange. However, whenever he finishes one he strolls into my office to share some inanity in a few words and then discard the expired skin into my trash bin. It’s really weird. When I consume anything in my office I don’t even dump it in my own trash but walk to the kitchen area to get rid of it. I’m left wondering what would constitute proper retribution.

Every time that I pass a cyclist on any road I analyze whether or not I would ride it. There was some consternation in the city recently because of a short section of a shoulder-less single lane road populated by industrial vehicles and with no lamp coverage being closed to cyclists. This road happens to run parallel to a dedicated bicycle trail. A trail I personally take nearly every morning as part of my morning commute during warmer months. Some cyclists don’t like trails and the law does open up the road to cyclists the same as motor vehicles. Riding on a demonstrably unsafe road because of dissatisfaction with a perfectly ride-able trail, for whatever reason, just isn’t wise.

Again, with the Licenses?

2012-01-27T18:07:00.001-07:00

It’s simply impossible to ever know what is in someone’s mind and for that reason it’s lamentable that our society seems to have embraced the impossible, good intentions. This embrace of the unknowable no matter the results is often paired with some who go past assuming to flat out stating the ill intentions of those that dare disagree with their positions.

This morning’s Albuquerque Journal published an opinion piece by a local resident stating that providing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants would increase safety on our road ways and unequivocally stated that those who oppose the act do so for reasons of prejudice. While it is a laudable goal to increase the safety of our roadways there is simply no way to prove that providing credentials to those in our state in contradiction to the law will do such a thing. And, it is not prejudicial to deny the rights of a citizen to a non-citizen. There are majorities of New Mexicans whom oppose the practice for any number of reasons and the federal government has passed yet to be enforced laws that render New Mexico licenses useless as a valid form of ID for federal purposes as a result of the practice.

Arguing on the side of unprovable good intentions while making judgmental statements that slander any opposing views is a definitive sign of a poor argument and the last resort of the desperate attempting to defend an illegal act. Today, a committee in the state legislature voted down a proposal along party lines to curb providing licenses to illegal immigrants. The lesson that New Mexicans can take from this, if it is indeed the desire of the populace to end this policy, is to elect legislators who will act on the will of the people and established law.

A Goalie's Blown Up Statement

2012-01-26T09:43:00.001-07:00

Recent gossip has it that the goalie from the Boston Bruins hockey team, the one that refused to join his teammates at the White House because of his issues with the federal government, may be on his way out of a job. There have been several examples of players/staff of championship teams not visiting the White House, some state their reasons. The goalie’s was simply put and he stated that his stance wasn’t political, by which he seemingly meant that his specific objections were not aligned with a specific political party, because his reasons for not attending could be considered aligned with his own political beliefs. Opinions on his statement were all over the place, some in support and others not so much. One commentator made the point that the goalie stating his right as a free citizen to not attend was dipping into scary libertarian ideals aligned with Ron Paul. That’s a lot to read into two words. This person is a free citizen and doesn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to. Some opined that the event at the White House is apolitical and because it’s tradition the player was somehow betraying his teammates by not going. This is silly, EVERYTHING involving the White House is political in every way and hanging out with teammates may be nice but in the end the only time in which it really matters is within real, actual team activities like you know games, practices and meetings. It seems that one’s opinion on the issue depends on their level of personal interest in the statement and reflects more on the commenter’s beliefs than this goalie’s. It’s too bad if this incident, which really doesn’t matter, leads to the player losing his current job but as the most valuable player from last season’s Stanley cup series he’s likely to find another soon enough.

Dispatch from an Alternate Universe

2012-01-25T10:58:00.001-07:00

That was quite a stump speech by that candidate, what’s his name, last night. I feel sorry for the incumbent, it can’t be easy to be them with this dude coming at him, full of righteous indignation about all those evils and what not. And, in front of such a fancy audience in a fancy venue to boot, makes him look kinda Presidential. All this not playing by the same rules and stuff, someone should really do something about that, it’s good that there’s someone able to tell us that some people don’t follow the rules, I’m sure he could do something about that, instead of allowing lawlessness to prevail under the current administration. How horrible is it that there are so many people barely getting by nowadays, being robbed by fat cats, I can’t believe that no one has ever done anything ever for anyone in that situation. We really should consider this guy, I didn’t catch the resume or anything but I think he must be the CEO of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler based on what he said, I didn’t even realize that they all merged. Someone with that kind of success really understands the evils of bailouts for failing companies, able to build the fast growing, largest and most innovative companies in the world. Oh, and alternative energy, how brilliant! Why aren’t those companies building these solutions and why isn’t the government investing in such things? Surely if that were done then we’d be literally swimming in alternative methods of powering things and stuff. And on the economy, this country, being really young must determine an economic system of some kind like he said, you know, one that will last and be fair and stuff. Wait, what?

State of the Same Old...

2012-01-25T09:41:00.000-07:00

In his state of the union address last night the President stated:

"We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them."

The President then went on to outline democrat style government expansion proposals by which these American values could then supposedly be reclaimed. The two biggest questions to my mind are, if everyone doesn’t play by the same set of rules, whom exactly is to blame, who is it that makes these ‘rules’? And, if there is a growing disparity in the outcomes of Americans, defined as ‘really well’ or as ‘barely get by’, why haven’t increases in government spending over the last three years done anything about it?

And it’s not just the last three years. For more than one hundred years the government has fiddled with regulations, the rules, and has introduced many programs supposedly designed to decrease disparities in economic outcome and yet the President, hardly for the first time, decries ‘rules’ and disparities and suggests what exactly? That we need more government ‘rules’ and government programs that, by not succeeding in stated aims, have failed time and again over many years.

If an observation were made without knowing the players of our country’s economic system, and the increase in government programs and rules as the input were to equal increased problems, not less, what would a reasonable conclusion be?

Weird from Baseball

2012-01-20T14:08:00.001-07:00

Fausto Carmona has pitched in Major League Baseball since 2006. In 2012 comes the stupefying news that:

… Carmona made a tearful apology Friday as he was released following his arrest for allegedly using a false identity to play baseball in the U.S. … the athlete's real name is Roberto Hernandez Heredia and … he is 31, three years older than he had claimed. …

What in the world? Imagine the story leading to this. Imagine all of the questions that will be left on the table following that story. That any person could live for an extended length of time under an assumed identity is difficult to comprehend. That a once Cy Young award candidate playing for the Cleveland Indians could live under an assumed identity for nearly half a decade, the second half of the first decade of the 21^st century, is absolutely astonishing. There have been more than a few instances of players in several major United States sports leagues found to have falsified their age, which I don’t even consider to be much to do as MLB isn’t little league and if with age comes decreased capabilities it’ll show and that point comes at different times for everybody. I have never ever heard of an athlete in a major sport who falsified their identity, and yet ‘Carmona’ is:

… the second Dominican player arrested in recent months for using a false identity. …

Very strange. Hopefully these gentleman have non-immoral reasons for their shenanigans, I bet that whatever the story turns out to be, it would make a great movie.

A Farewell to the Broncos' Season

2012-01-19T13:55:00.002-07:00

Following a drubbing inspiring an averted gaze, the Denver Broncos 2011 season ended. Broncos’ fans should consider the season a success after the team not just made it to the playoffs but also won a game there. Losing 45-10 in a divisional playoff game does sting but fans of a team that experienced Super Bowl losses of 19, 32 and 45(!) points before that extraordinary afternoon of the 25^th of January, 1998 don’t abandon following one bad game. On to next season!

Following the season, Broncos’ Executive Vice President of Football Operations John Elway had a press conference and named Tim Tebow starting quarterback for next season’s training camp. This news caused consternation in the division of the sporting press who seem to believe that Elway doesn’t want Tebow to be the Broncos’ quarterback, faulting the announcement for lacking support. It’s not clear exactly what Elway would have to do to demonstrate enough commitment to satisfy that crowd. Perhaps he could show up in a number 15 jersey and breathlessly declare allegiance to Tebow in poetry. Of course that wouldn’t change anything and so long as a simplistic cadre of journalists insist on finding a villain, Elway will continue in that role, in effect taking heat off the soon to be third year, 24 year old Tebow. And, since Elway has nothing to prove he’ll be just fine.

There are only three games left in the NFL season. It’s too soon. Go Broncos.

In Praise of Humdrum

2012-01-19T13:26:00.001-07:00

I’m not necessarily decided with regard to the winnowing Republican presidential field but it’s getting close and hopefully, by the time the primary makes its way to New Mexico there will be at least a couple candidates that aren’t Ron Paul to choose from including Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. I don’t necessarily mind Newt Gingrich but I’m just not inclined to vote for him over the others mentioned. Part of my inclination has to do with a quality that no one would accuse Gingrich of and is offered as a fault of Romney and Santorum; they’re boring. What a dumb and misguided criticism!

That’s right; I believe that it is imperative of our country to elect a boring President. President Obama was elected in part because of his ability to stir emotions based on his speaking style. And what good has the ability to deliver cheap words in copious volume served the current President and our country? My take from the President’s re-election campaign focus on an imaginary averted depression, political opponents and his predecessor to explain economic conditions illustrates that those cheap words haven’t done much.

It does no good for the country that the President can cause fainting and inspire groupies because fan boys have a terrible track record of thinking objectively because of their devotion. I prefer a President that forces voters to consider their actual records and the substance behind their words because that substance is a much better indicator of leadership than the ability to bring the shallow to tears with meaningless drivel. As a matter of fact, I prefer a President I don’t like for some reasons, so long as those reasons don’t matter or make it into legislation.

Caricature as Economics

2012-01-11T11:39:00.002-07:00

How economically illiterate has discourse in this country become that the premise of dismantling a company leads to enrichment is commonly accepted? That ostensively Republican candidates for President have taken to accusing another candidate of purposefully doing so while democrats go further by painting that candidate as gleeful in doing so with little retort is simply mind blowing. Many entities have attempted to explain many things over the last several days to include what Bain capital is, what they do and what the record of the firm was in regard to that type of business when Mitt Romney was there; alas it seems to be in vain as myth and delusion persist.

How greedy and envious has populist sentiment become that many willingly believe that there is actually companies that exist to take over other companies for the express purpose of closing them to destroy jobs and that there is tremendous profit to be had in that business? What explanation is there that can explain the notion that there is any money to be made in purposefully firing people?

Certainly there are people who have lost jobs as the result of a leveraged buyout or merger where the new owner made a business decision to eliminate some portion of the existing business and to them there is actual suffering because it is personal to them. This doesn’t mean that they lost their jobs as the result of a heartless corporate raider able to somehow profit by eliminating jobs. In a free market with consumers making decisions there is no guarantee that a job will last forever and companies do not exist for the purposes of providing jobs. A bought out firm may have been in a near bankrupt state before the buyout. A company may have a technology sought after by the new owner and excess capacity for manufacturing or capabilities redundant to that new owner leading to cuts. It’s not right, it’s not wrong and it’s neither fair nor unfair, it is what is in a free market capitalist economy that is more successful than any other kind of economic arrangement ever tried on a large scale encompassing millions of people in the history of the world.

The simplistic characterizations of the free market system only serve politics while dumbing down understanding of the real world. Yes, there are criminals in the world of finance. They are caught and punished for attempting to circumvent the free market. Gordon Gecko is a fictional character.

On to Next Year...

2011-12-31T13:42:00.001-07:00

We live in an interesting time politically. The national debt is fast approaching eight times the amount collected in taxes by the government with the year to year deficit tripling the year of President Obama’s inauguration and with 29% of the national debt having been accumulated during his three years in office. In order to simply get to the point where the country is broke the government would have to somehow collect taxes while completely shut down for almost eight years. No big deal says economists who tell us that the United State’s debt to GDP ratio is still less than Greece’s never mind the fact that our economy is 45 times the size of Greece’s. The public is told that the assorted and mostly unspecific sins of the previous administration are to blame for all ills, imagined and real, ignoring a record that can be easily researched. The public is told that the previous eight years were a time when inequality reigned and conditions were worse relying on short memories. Intentions are judged as a substitution for cost and consequences with unemployment augmented by the impossible to enumerate jobs ‘saved or created’ and improved by a shrinking workforce of discouraged former workers. Credit is claimed for the aversion of an imaginary depression by a President who considers himself the fourth greatest in our nation’s history and considers the definition of compromise as the capitulation to his policy preferences.

2012 brings with it an election for President to determine whether our country continues on current course or not. For many, 2011 was a forgettable year with simple stagnation being as good as it gets for those fortunate enough not to face drawbacks. It’s easy to blame others, the rich, corporations, greed, etc. for any problem that persists in spite of oversold political solutions. It’s more difficult to contemplate the real actual costs associated with those political solutions and compare them to any sort of tangible benefit. Because almost all government spending is considered mandatory it is difficult to conclude that massive course correction is possible on the scale necessary to ensure responsible government spending levels commiserate with its responsibilities and without confiscatory levels of taxation that might not even be enough to satisfy politician’s voracious appetite for goodies. On the precipice that our country faces an honest examination of the issues is paramount but will likely be overtaken by myths and name-calling as rent seekers attempt to maintain their place within the federal government’s favor.

While the reality can be discouraging there is some hope for optimism. The amount of information available to anyone has led to a much more educated populace aware of the structure of our government. Many saw through the nonsense of the Occupy Wall Street ‘movement’ and their sophomoric grievances regardless of the constant pandering by the mainstream news outlets. 2012 will certainly be a year of learning and a time to pay attention and participate. Happy New Year.

Not all 1% is Equal, Apparently

2011-12-30T12:55:00.001-07:00

There was an interesting conversation on the Rush Limbaugh radio program this morning between economist (and guest host) Water Williams and economist Thomas Sowell with regard to the 1% of Occupy Wall Street Fame. They brought up the curiosity that the protesters do not seem to resent high earners in the entertainment and professional sports fields even though they decidedly earn enough to be part of the dreaded top 1%. The conversation went to the point that it doesn’t matter because just like anyone else in that bracket their earnings are basically earned. And that is the point. I don’t understand why going to the movie theater costs so much because I consider it to be an unpleasant experience. I don’t understand why Miley Cyrus’s films are so much a larger draw than Mike Judge’s. I think that professional sporting events are prohibitively expensive and I don’t go very often as a result. But, enough people that aren’t me are willing to pay the costs allowing for large compensation. Practically, the large difference in pay between a starring actor in a movie and a crew member is no different than the large difference in pay between the CEO and staff member working within the corporation that makes the movie amongst other things. To my understanding the reason for the Occupy cult’s disability with regard to this understanding is in line with their general misunderstanding of reality and the economy and what exactly Wall Street is and does. That, and pure unadulterated jealousy.

Playoff Bound?

2011-12-30T11:58:00.001-07:00

The Denver Broncos are masters of their postseason destiny this week. Win and they’re in the playoffs. If the Raiders lose to the Chargers, they’re also in. Twin losses would make the Broncos more lucky than good and will unlikely lead to any kind of playoff success. The Broncos have had a difficult two weeks leading to the season finale losing by large margins to the Patriots and the Bills behind turnovers and porous defense, two traits absent in their six game winning streak. Sports commentators itching for an end to Tim Tebow’s success were provided ammunition to point out flaws in his game and just as he was said to have been credited too much when the team was winning he was loaded with much blame in defeat and definitely played at a lower level.

This week’s opponents, the Chiefs are quarterbacked by Kyle Orton, the former Broncos starter benched in favor of Tebow earlier this season and unceremoniously cut several weeks ago to save Denver from paying his salary. Orton ended up being claimed by three teams after being cut and has played well for the Chiefs. Because of the history it is impossible not to consider the implications of Orton wanting to extract ‘revenge’ against the team that cut him but it’s not too certain. After all, what scenario would be better for a soon-to-be free agent quarterback? Sitting on the bench for a team with zero interest in resigning them, or being cut in-season and starting for a new team a week later as an audition for future suitors? Orton was not playing well for the Broncos and he is in a better personal situation. Because of his knowledge of the Broncos, Orton could provide advantages for the Chiefs this week but it doesn’t seem as though there is much of a motive for revenge, other than the bothers associated with moving.

Whatever happens will happen this week and the Broncos couldn’t ask for better conditions. They, after all, know as much of Orton as he does of them and the game is in Denver against a team that they have already beaten this season. I will be cheering for a Raiders loss like I always do but I don’t want Denver to enter the playoffs by default, go Broncos.

Random Hours

2011-12-29T13:29:00.001-07:00

The other day I found myself somewhere where I usually am not, visiting in-laws, and wasting time going to the post office in order to send a watch back for warranty repair that did not work. On the way back my wife offered to take me to her hometown’s finest coffee spot which we learned was closed driving past. She apologized for the missed opportunity deriding the random hours of the shop. I’ve heard this particular description of a store’s hours more than a few times and figure that enough is enough. Beyond bemoaning the characterization I will in the next paragraphs describe what random hours would be.

What’s the big deal exactly? There is none, I just happen to wince at the concept of ‘random hours’ as a statistical industry worker and it seemed like something fun to write up. After all, it’s unlikely anyone actually means that the hours are actually random; they aren’t random to shop keeps and workers at the place that is open during somewhat unconventional times for some potential consumers. And if they never opened at times convenient to anyone they wouldn’t be open for very long anyway.

What could truly random hours look like? A shop keep could create an acceptable range of starting hours and then assign each to an integer. Using a random number generator on a computer, say Excel’s RANDBETWEEN() function, they would draw a uniformly distributed random number between the lowest and highest integers assigned to the starting hours. A uniformly distributed integer is a whole number that is drawn between the minimum and maximum of a group of numbers. These random draws are expected to be uniformly distributed, each of the numbers are equally likely to be drawn at any time, and as the number of draws grows larger each number is expected to be drawn an equal number of times. Once the shop keep had the random open time ready they could then perform a second random draw correlating to the number of minutes to be open. That would be random.

That’s a lot of drivel to debunk the idea that there are places that exist with owners who open at completely random hours. It won’t comfort those who can’t fathom the idea that they, as a bored out-of-town one time customer diverted off the main road isn’t exactly a lucrative customer base.

What if it isn't covered?

2011-12-29T11:41:00.000-07:00

Obamacare requires most health insurance plans to cover the cost of what is determined by HHS to be preventative health care. This mandate is popular because it is considered free and there are many people of the opinion that preventative health care should be cost free to the end consumer, some holding that opinion even if the end consumer has no health plan coverage. The notion of ‘free’ health care exists as the triumph of good intentions over logic and reality. And in a society more concerned with intentions than reality this nonsense will likely persist.

There are innumerable reasons why there is no such thing as ‘free’ health care and it should be obvious as health care services are tangible goods. Every regulation the government passes designating certain aspects as being cost-free increases the cost of coverage and actually hurts some people. Preventative care is only preventative to people who will have those health problems designated by the government. Paying for those services out of an insurance policy removes coverage for other services. Those with health problems not considered significant enough to mandate coverage for will suffer for it financially and health-wise. Just because certain ailments may be considered to be statistically irrelevant to government bureaucrats doesn’t make it so to real, actual people.

Government only knows how to apply anything in broad strokes, with federal government’s the broadest. Health care is a very individual decision and government mandates removes the individual from that decision. With no responsibility for an intimate decision and no knowledge of the real actual costs associated with it the citizenry will only become more ignorant of the health care market which will only lead to increased cost and no mechanism for individual needs to be met. Obamacare means hoping that if one ever requires some kind of health care that it is considered necessary by the government.

Are they Really a Weasel?

2011-12-22T14:41:00.000-07:00

Writer Gregg Easterbrook has a running meme through his ESPN Tuesday Morning Quarterback column titled ‘Weasel Coach Watch’. The Weasel Coach is basically defined as a coach, mostly college football, leaving a position before the conclusion of a season and their contract. Easterbrook is hardly the only writer who takes the occasion of coaches moving about for what ostensively is a better job to hammer out a pious column calling out the so-called offender. To me, it’s difficult to get worked up about it happening. Mostly because it’s a common occurrence and the composition of the college football season lends itself to it. Basically with prime recruiting season starting during that time in between a college team’s final regular season and bowl game, college teams actively attempt to hire coaches during that time. It’s also difficult to imagine that a coach, no matter how tenured, wouldn’t leave when they have to for a new, preferable opportunity (that is, based on the timeline and requirements of the new job) for whatever reason. Certainly it’s tough for continuity but those same coaches can be fired at any moment. Perhaps there is an effect on the players who remain but they are young adults and no matter how disappointed they may be, a coach leaving does not diminish their abilities or status on the team. While ‘weasel coach’ might make a good headline, it’s really just a person attempting to do better for themselves.

Blowhards out in Force

2011-12-22T11:08:00.001-07:00

For whatever reason the field of sports writing seems to lack the ability to resist sensationalism, rushing broad judgments from single games and overindulging with inane rhetoric with regard to anything considered contentious. The last week of NFL games provided two happenings for typical overreach. Following the Packers losing to the Chiefs, all of a sudden a team that was to that point undefeated (and now 13-1) were vulnerable, provided a ‘blueprint’ (whatever that is) of how to beat them, were no longer Super Bowl favorites and their Quarterback had irretrievably damaged his candidacy for league MVP. No matter that the Packers lost to a real, actual NFL team, one with a poor record but still a professional team and that their quarterback still had a decent game and that the phrase ‘any given Sunday’ really holds meaning in the NFL. Second, many sports writers/commentators seemed to take 6 weeks (Denver’s 6 week winning streak) of frustration out in one day following the Broncos loss in Denver to the Patriots. The barbs were out, writers who insisted that the Broncos were winning in spite-of their quarterback Tim Tebow, who thought that the quarterback was receiving too much press along with those who disapprove of his personal life had at it with reckless abandon. Colin Cowherd, on his radio show and on ESPN’s Sports Nation, a Tebow detractor, was basically unlistenable due to smugness. Grantland.com’s Charles P. Pierce wrote a condescending and obnoxious true-believer anti-Christian missive on Tebow’s religion.

It has been said before that sports writers seem to have a chip on their shoulders because of a perceived lack of respect because of what they cover, games. Also known is that while there are many outlets for sporting journalism, it’s not exactly an open field and fierce competition for readership is thought to encourage exaggeration. Of course, it could simply be that some writers are foolish. It’s impossible to know exactly the reason for so much know it all, concocted seriousness judgmental flimflam passed off as writing associated with sports. Certainly every person’s opinion is allowed no matter how disrespectful, it doesn’t make it readable and the only solution is to become a better headline reader to avoid wasting any time and providing eyes to those pieces.

Burnt Pants in Santa Fe

2011-12-16T20:18:00.001-07:00

A long time ago, George Costanza once taught us “it's not a lie if you believe it”. More recently, Attorney General Eric Holder testified to congress that “Lying has to do with your state of mind”. Even more recently, Albuquerque State Representative Sheryl Williams Stapleton apologized to Governor Susana Martinez for a derogatory (considered racial by the race obsessed, but was really a dumb, crude and ugly nationalistic slur) comment made about a certain someone whose office is on the fourth floor of the state capitol (where Governor Martinez’s office is) but, according to Williams Stapleton, definitely wasn’t about Governor Martinez.

After not resigning when it was discovered that Representative Williams Stapleton was double dipping on the taxpayer dime, receiving compensation for working at Albuquerque Public Schools when actually working in Santa Fe at the capitol not for APS, Williams Stapleton has confirmed that she will not be resigning for this spiteful comment directed at an unspecified person whose office is on some fourth floor somewhere but was categorically not directed at but was apologized for to Governor Martinez.

Say it ain’t so Gary…

2011-12-16T14:19:00.000-07:00

Once upon a time I found myself taking part in the selection of a replacement for a management job I was leaving. Someone who wasn’t right for the position, for a multitude of reasons, applied and was interviewed as a courtesy. When that person wasn’t hired they reacted in a negative and callow way. Their view was that he wasn’t given proper consideration even though he was the most qualified. In reality he wasn’t qualified and there were better candidates. It was admirable that they were ambitious enough to try but that person, in their vanity and lust for authority, behaved in a way proving the selection group right.

We have reached a similar point with former Governor Gary Johnson. Mr. Johnson was a good governor for New Mexico. Certainly there are some who disagreed with certain policies but no one agrees with anyone on everything and he left the state in great shape financially. Leaving office almost ten years ago he has given speeches in support of libertarian causes but has not done much else related to politics. Having mulled the decision publically Mr. Johnson entered his name into the Republican primary for President. Unfortunately he never gained any traction and has been omitted from almost every primary debate so far because of national polling numbers less than the margin of error effectively reducing his campaign to a statistical flourish in terms of voter support.

Mr. Johnson meets all the required qualifications for President and he was an effective and conservative Governor; the only positions causing many voters concern included libertarian leanings towards drugs, foreign policy among others. Perhaps the combination of being Governor of a sparsely populated state, mostly out of politics for nearly ten years and having no discernable national political profile doomed his candidacy. Even with the base qualifications he just did not resonate with enough potential voters to matter in the primary which is the most important qualification of all.

Mr. Johnson has decided otherwise telling a local news program:

"From what I see and hear on the ground, I think a lot more people embrace this message than not, and the Republicans certainly aren't even letting me be heard,"

Mr. Johnson has decided to seek the office as the libertarian candidate blaming a conspiracy against him for his lack of support in the Republican primary. New Mexico is a swing state and while it does not have many electoral votes they will count in a close race. Mr. Johnson is willfully ignoring reality thinking that he would have any chance to do anything other than hurt the eventual Republican candidate towards earning New Mexico’s, and possibly other states, electoral votes. It is of the utmost importance next election year to select a sober and responsible candidate who can defeat the incumbent and sore losers running on distant third party tickets splitting the right-ish vote won’t help.

In an age where people who are unknown can become celebrities overnight through internet videos it is difficult to believe that Gary Johnson’s message is being withheld by dark forces. Because of vanity he won’t accept the reality that he is not a viable candidate for President for the reason that almost everyone prefers someone else. Mr. Johnson should reconsider this decision.

Affordable means what now?

2011-12-09T13:35:00.000-07:00

A recent affordable housing initiative was launched to much fanfare. Comprised of 180 homes in Santa Fe, Las Cruces and Deming, this initiative is a partnership of UnitedHealth, a private health insurer, contributing $22M and the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, a “quasi-public entity” contributing the remainder of the $50M. Let the self-congratulations begin! Or should it?

First, why exactly is UnitedHealth ‘investing’ in these homes? It has nothing to do with their core business and is an awful lot for the company to fork over only in the name of community do-goodery.

Second, why does it cost so much? 50,000,000 dollars divided by 180 homes is about 278 thousand dollars per home. Doesn’t that seem a bit much for a so-called ‘affordable home? According to Trulia, the median home price paid in Santa Fe is 226 thousand dollars. And not all of the homes are set to be in Santa Fe. 120 of them are to be located in Las Cruces and Deming both with median home prices of about 145 thousand dollars? If the 180 houses are divided by location and multiplied by those locations’ median home price the result is 31 million dollars.

Why is it that an affordable house costs 17% more than the median home price in one of our state’s most expensive to live in cities? And why is it that an affordable home initiative funded mostly though a “quasi-public entity” costs 38% more than the median home price of their neighborhoods? And why is no one asking these questions? Could it be because affordable housing is the perfect cover, dissuading inconvenient questions?

Passing Debt

2011-12-09T13:15:00.000-07:00

The so-called ‘debt counseling’ industry is a vexing parasite reliant on the gullibility of the irresponsible. Perhaps some people are too simple to understand the concept of credit. Maybe though, it’s that many people who find themselves in trouble financially as a result of credit default are just careless and willfully disregard the terms of the contracts they sign in order to pretend that they didn’t understand. People looking for excuses for their own bad decisions find their match in credit counseling which is often paired with deals to restructure their debt, which is just another term for allowing deadbeats to circumvent their financial obligations under the auspices of victim-hood.

One advertisement states that mortgages should be illegal because they rip people off. This claim is then elaborated on; that over the course of the loan it will cost as much as the cost of the home in interest and fees. Anyone who has secured a home loan, who can also read and do a little math, understands this and it is a bitter pill to swallow but it is what it is. The length of a home loan is typically thirty years. There is no entity that can lend the cost of a home over that time without charging for it. Because of inflation that initial outlay is not worth what it is today thirty years from now. There is an option for those who do not want to pay the cost of borrowing, don’t. Save up and purchase whatever it is outright. Ignoring reality and demonizing the mortgage mechanism may be emotionally satisfying to the self indulgent but it is a complete misrepresentation.

Another advertisement encourages listeners to call in order to learn ways to handle their debt. They should call because of the advertised firm’s years of experience helping people figure out how to get their debt under control. How difficult is it really to understand that the way to handle debts is to pay them off? That if a contract is signed requiring payment for some service, in this case the lending of money with binding payment terms, that is has to be paid back? Credit counseling allows the utterly irresponsible to feign ignorance at the expense of the prudent.

It isn’t the fault of the banks for lending money within boundaries regulated by the federal government. Unfortunately, in an era where individuals are judged on the impossible to articulate such as ‘intent’, irresponsible borrowers are not held to account for their transgressions. That’s because it is easier to blame a faceless corporation than take responsibility.

Refusing to Make Things Up

2011-11-30T14:05:00.000-07:00

What is it with everyone playing mind reader on everything ever said by anyone? I was all set to berate Former Utah Governor and US to China Ambassador Jon Huntsman following a headline from the Boston Globe titled “Jon Huntsman refuses to rule out possibility of independent candidacy for president”. Not wanting to illustrate illiteracy I read the article and in it, technically kind of and sort of based on some leading questions from a reporter Huntsman doesn’t rule it out. But there isn’t any kind of solid reporting on the relevance of the question other than his moderate stances. If there were any explicit signs from Huntsman other than assumptions based on flimsy premises then the question would be valid. As is, it’s just a waste of space masquerading as news intended to unnerve voters looking to elect a new President who know that an ostensibly conservative independent could sink the Republican challenger to President Obama next fall.

Feeling Superior by Failure

2011-11-30T13:47:00.001-07:00

In the time past the ‘failure’ of the so-called congressional “super committee” meant to determine some kind of deficit reduction for the federal government much news on the subject is consumed of finger pointing blaming political parties, think tankers and tea partiers. Never mentioned is the question of if there was some kind of agreement if it would have even been adopted by both congressional houses and eventually signed by the President.

The apparent failure was foreseen by many making the committee a joke. The House of Representatives passed a budget this past spring containing budget cuts much greater than those that were to come from the committee and it has never been brought up in the Senate, the same Senate that has failed to pass a federal budget in more than two years. How anyone paying attention could think that a subset of congress could come up with what has so far proved elusive, namely any kind of budgetary restraint, and then have it prove acceptable by their peers is absurd.

Compromise is well and good on positions where there exists some daylight. On matters budgetary one side is dedicated to cuts while the other is dedicated to higher taxes. There really isn’t a middle ground there because once raised taxes effectively justify what is viewed as excessive and irresponsible spending. And as put forth by advocates of big government funded by increased taxation on some believe their position virtuous and cuts only justify their opponent’s characterizations of excessive and irresponsible spending.

All the finger pointing is simply an attempt at feeling self important and superior. There is no guarantee that tax increases will increase revenue to the government and no one ever went broke not spending what they did not have. Buying into the blame narrative is not seeing the forest for the trees. The composition of our government’s legislative and executive branches is made up of representatives duly elected by the people. One side had complete control for two years leading to a historic change in one half of the legislative branch leading to deadlock. Priorities in the legislative branch are led by ideologies and the current stalemate will not cease until we the favor a side

Warranted Skepticism

2011-11-30T09:48:00.001-07:00

Two recent experiences have proven instructive. Both have provided reason to question credentials and given reasons to better understand a situation before making assertions. First I am working on a group project in lieu of a final in one class. 80% of the group segmented the real actual work and went off into their respective corners while the remaining 20% awaits input from the group to paste into a final document. In a recent meeting, this 20% took up an inordinate amount of time for a proven unproductive member to blather on about what “we” should do with the project speaking in a pejorative tone offering vague and confusing suggestions. This 20% happens to be a manager at an engineering firm specializing in the subject of the course and their experience would be invaluable if they only would offer real, actual examples instead of talking about how much they know. Their speechifying took a condescending tone when they decided to offer career advice on the assumption of the 80% not yet starting engineering careers. Nevermind that the program is targeted towards working professionals and that the group is made up of mostly working engineers, including myself with ten years experience. The old saying about making assumptions proves itself again, no one should ever assume a lack of experience, especially when they should know better.

In another class the final features an exercise that was not discussed in class and differs from methodologies provided in the text. This same issue came up in the midterm. The professor is cryptic with regard to these issues but fortunately students are allowed any references and are able to find ample help if they have the ability to execute a competent web search. Beyond cryptic the professor states in class that they do not work the problems beforehand even though the midterm problem solution was found on the professor’s website, unchanged since 2002. I got it partially wrong, because I did not understand the solution and went with what I knew based on the class text and notes. This professor spends an inordinate amount of time discussing their own brilliance in class including “beating” other professors in academic forums and numerous awards from conferences below his stature. At the same time tells stories about not working problems that are sourced from text books, repeated from previous semesters and require research because they cannot be solved within the parameters of the class.

It seems that if a person spends more time talking themselves up than providing anything tangible or constructive, it’s probably because they aren’t as good as they think.

The Presidential Adulation Fallacy

2011-11-29T13:37:00.001-07:00

As a different Republican Presidential candidate has assumed front runner status at somewhat regular intervals throughout the primary campaign a narrative has developed that it is primarily the result of an electorate unsatisfied with their choices. This narrative takes the premise that many voters are searching for a candidate that checks all their boxes, to basically be all things to all primary voting Republicans. It’s impossible to know for certain as it’s impossible to read minds and get millions of people to agree on anything. While it may seem like a popularity contest, anyone who’s been stuck behind an indecisive person at Taco Bell knows that some people have difficulty choosing from a menu with a bunch of similar options. Perhaps what these polls are measuring is not exactly whom those questioned are going to vote for but whom they like at the moment as they learn more about them.

This is a good thing because it means that the voters are scrutinizing each candidate and learning as much as possible. It is also preferable because there is nothing more grating and dangerous than a large portion of the electorate falling head over heels for a candidate. The next president, just like each before them, is a human being above everything else and not a savior. Ours is a country ruled by fellow citizens in shifts by the discretion of their peers. It is better for the electorate at large to have some dislike of our leaders because they cannot be everything to everyone and should not only be elected by granting favors nor by a cult of celebrity.

Five and One

2011-11-28T13:51:00.002-07:00

First things first. Good luck to Kyle Orton in Kansas City. The record speaks for itself. Recent Broncos history tells us however that recent optimism should be cautious. After all, the Broncos started 6-0 in Josh McDaniels’ first year as coach only to implode. However, it’s difficult not to be exuberant with the Broncos. While aerial fireworks may be lacking their rush heavy offense takes up a lot of time tiring out opposing defenses, allowing their own to rest and opening up passing options. That rested defense has been playing superbly. A few seasons Denver has had good starts for their D, only to see it deteriorate over the length of the season. This time their defense is getting better as the year goes on. And no matter the criticism of his game, Quarterback Tim Tebow is winning and seems to inspire the entire team. The most persistent argument is the assertion that it can’t last, that Tebow cannot continue to play at this level. This is inevitably true, what professional football player remained on the field forever? None, because it ends for everyone. It’s just a matter of when. With an increasing command of the Broncos offense and improving passing statistics as the games progress Tim Tebow is proving to be a good quarterback and no matter when it ends, it will be fun to watch.

So, Why is a Foreclosure?

2011-11-28T11:28:00.000-07:00

The dreaded radio blurb has reared its ugly head again this morning. After being kicked out and then re-welcomed to UNM park spaces, after obstructing traffic in several high volume roads the cadre of generally aggrieved miscreants is back. Under a slightly new name, Occupy Albuquerque losing the Un- prefix, whatever that meant, was reintroduced this morning by a ten second 770 KKOB news blurb. In this latest incarnation the Occupy folks are planning to discuss amongst themselves ways to stop foreclosures. To which I wonder, really? The idea that a bunch of know-it-all incoherently and continuously aggrieved layabouts with no practical understanding of how and why things are will actualize any kind of constructive solution is laughable.

Protesting the existence of foreclosures and blaming faceless entities for foreclosing on homes ignores the real issue. Foreclosures occur when some kind of change, to income, to market conditions, to mortgage terms, leads to a mortgage loan recipient to be unable to meet their financial obligations on the mortgage. Following negotiations with the loaning entity and unsuccessful attempts at selling the home above the value owed the loaning entity forecloses on the mortgage taking possession of the home resulting in a degraded credit rating for those whose loan was foreclosed that requires many years to build back up.

For many, changes are completely unforeseen and there are programs to help those in extenuating circumstances. They are supposed to be a very small minority. Recently, the number of foreclosures has increased greatly, effectively mimicking federal housing initiatives forcing lenders to decrease standards for what is considered credit worthy leading to more demand in the home market leading to higher prices. It may be attractive for a person to follow the minimum guidelines and buy as much as permitted but it is not prudent. The loan recipient must be responsible for understanding their capacity for repayment. The loaner cannot be expected to hold their customer’s hand and cannot discourage anything within federal guidelines because to do so is illegal.