Link of the Day

Many people have a strong attachment to their alma mater, take for instance the name of this blog, an ode to a place I haven't been to in almost nine years. Another example, Tennessee Titan's QB Vince Young got into a fight with a "performer" at a "gentleman's" club because they dissed the University of Texas. If you think about it. what about athletes who take off after less than a year? Bill Simmons has the answer at ESPN:

Mark Jones asks Wall what it means to be the first Kentucky player picked No. 1 overall. Um, I'm pretty sure it means nothing. He was there for eight months. We've had "Bachelor" relationships last longer than John Wall lasted at Kentucky.

A Theme Typified

On this blog I have characterized the Diane Denish NM gubernatorial campaign as a continuance of the Bill Richardson administration. A simple argument could be made empirically from the political standpoint that that for the last eight years Denish has “served” as Lt Governor in apparent lockstep with Richardson and four years earlier ran as Lt Governor in apparent lockstep with Martin Chavez’s losing campaign. Apparent lockstep because in twelve years either running for or in office as Lt Governor and not many people in New Mexico even know what exactly Diane Denish stands for or what she would do as governor. One must use those twelve years as an implicit endorsement and mirroring of the entirely political make up of professional politicians Chavez and Richardson. Even in political ads that are not misleading attack ads Denish characterizes herself as a corruption fighting business woman without any evidence of either claim. What business has she ever run? What and how, as Lt Governor, did she have responsibility for investigating anything? And what resulted of these investigations done by the Lt Governor?

One of the worst aspects of the last eight years of the Richardson/Denish administration has been the way in which partisan politics has invaded almost every aspect of state government. Cronyism and mischaracterizations about everything has occurred. No one can understand the state’s budget and where everything goes and what’s left or owed, Political donors from out of state have received lucrative state contracts and the number of political appointees with thinly described work duties has increased immensely. This kind of behavior erodes confidence in governance and results in deserved pessimism of the political class by the citizens of New Mexico.

When politics rules in government there is only the effort to maintain power and that diminishes actual achievements. Evidence abounds of this in the Denish campaign. So bereft of actual achievement over the last twelve years as a candidate for or as Lt Governor, Diane Denish has decided to instead attack Republican gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez for actual work she performed as the Dona Ana county district attorney. In the latest Denish identifies two cases where sexual predators were not identified in the predator registry. In a thirty second ad this sounds horrible and a dereliction of duty. And absent of context would certainly put Martinez’s credibility into question. However, it seems as though the whole story deserves longer than thirty seconds, in a response from a victim’s father:

the prosecutor did what was in the best interest of my daughter. In that case, I had moved my daughter to Nevada to a rehabilitation school to help her recover from her issues. I did not want to take her back to New Mexico and drag her through a trial and communicated that to the DA’s office when we discussed how to proceed. The plea agreement was in my daughter’s best interest.

So, the case involved a plead leading to a conviction that did not include registration as a sex offender because a father wanted to protect his daughter. Worse yet it appears that the New Mexico democrat party contacted this father soliciting his participation in the spot. Denish’s campaign denies contacting this person but it is hard to believe as the ad is hers. So, Denish’s campaign and the New Mexico democrat party are fishing for victims to attack their opponent.

There is only one word to describe this behavior. Slime. The democrat party believes they are justified because Martinez has run ads with victims that support her. This is nonsense and a hollow justification to act in the worst way possible. It is surprising that Denish, absent any actual achievements and attacking in a misleading way is about even in the polls. I hope that the people of New Mexico start paying attention and realize what happens when a lifetime politician is elected to office.

A Sign of Weakness

I’m not sure what to think of the following:

next month every student at Loyola Law School..will awake to a higher grade point average...The school is retroactively inflating its grades, tacking on 0.333 to every grade recorded in the last few years...to make its students look more attractive in a competitive job market.

It gets worse:

In the last two years, at least 10 law schools have deliberately changed their grading systems to make them more lenient.

At least I earned my too low for Raytheon GPA. This kind of thing does not produce better professionals; all it does is flood the market with poor entry level candidates in the high GPA pool. I am curious as to what law firms think of this, wouldn’t they avoid, or at least discount a little, students from law schools that publicize their grade inflation?

And another thing…

In the posting immediately before this one, I got lost in the focus on the Albuquerque City Council and their desire to plunge the city into further debt by chasing the silly dream of yet another Albuquerque “Event Center” that I forgot an important point directly related to the root of the whole story, specifically why city council wants to partner with APS:

Albuquerque Public Schools is about to drop some serious cash to turn a downtown church into a performing arts magnet school. The School board approved purchasing First Baptist Church near Central and Broadway for $11.3 million Wednesday night.

Questions abound from this revelation. First, where does APS have 11.3 million dollars to make this purchase? Each day in the news there is some story about how APS lacks necessary funding and therefore teachers and student needs are near the edge of the chopping block. These sob stories are specifically targeted to ensure that us dupe taxpayers acquiesce to ever rising property taxes and endless bond printing.

Next, what exactly is the purpose of creating a performing arts magnet school? What need is there to create a school with the purpose of what was once extracurricular activities? It’s bad enough that many schools in APS currently are well below average scores in tests relating to the types of skills (reading, writing and math) that actually lead to successful citizens, why they feel the need to provide a school dedicated to something that not many can make a career of is baffling.

Finally, why must this school be located in downtown Albuquerque where property values are among the highest in the city? If there is the budget to create a new magnet school, one specializing in something that just isn’t very useful, why compound how bad this sounds by spending the most money possible? It conveys the idea that the APS school board is tone deaf and does not see itself as accountable to the citizens of Albuquerque.

Like a Starbucks across the street from another Starbucks

Comedian Lewis Black had a routine about the end of the universe that went:

…and if you walk to the end of the block, there sits a Starbucks. And directly across the street — in the exact same building as that Starbucks — there is… another Starbucks. There is a Starbucks across the street from a Starbucks! And ladies and gentlemen, THAT is the end of the universe.

That bit was on my mind this week when I read that the Albuquerque city council is proposing to “partner” with Albuquerque Public Schools on the purchase of an old church that has been on the market for the last five years in downtown Albuquerque for…. an “Event Center”. So says estimable city councilor Ken Sanchez:

This property, the location is ideal-- I believe-- for an event center… I truly believe in the best interest of the city, that we as a city should be partners in the acquisition of this property…Because I believe that the school alone will not meet the needs of this community.

I’m certain that Ken Sanchez (and Debbie O’Malley and the other genius’s on the city council who support this plan) know exactly how to meet the needs of “this” community. And certainly building an event center less than half a mile, easy walking distance and just about across the freaking street, from the Albuquerque Convention Center is a brilliant way to meet the needs of the community.

This idea of an “Event Center” in downtown Albuquerque next to the existing Convention Center and in a city that already has a large arena (the Pit) and multiple concert venues (Hard Rock Pavilion, Sandia Amphitheater, Sunshine Theater etc) needs an exorcist or something. It just won’t die. No matter how little sense it makes and no matter how many much higher priority items are underfunded, this irresponsible brainless waste of public funds remains in the consciousness of many including a worrying number of City Council members.

There is no reason for an “Event Center”. There never has been and there never will be. Unless what happened to downtown in the movie Gamer happens in real life and we need to rebuild. This idea needs to be thrown into the fires of Mount Doom where it can never again be resuscitated. The citizens of Albuquerque deserve more from their city council than a body politic that serves only to dream of new ways to waste public funds.

A Price of Honesty?

I wonder if we will ever know the details leading to the conclusion of the General McCrystal flap. The day before last there were reports that the General had tendered his resignation and shortly following his audience with dear leader that resignation was accepted and announced to the world. Confusion stems from the variance in reporting on this happening. Some report it as a resignation and others report that the General was fired. The report that the General had tendered his resignation seems to fit the former but there are more than a few writers who gleefully report it as a firing. As if saying somewhat disparaging things in to a once upon a time music magazine is worthy of being relieved of duty.

Honestly, I just don’t get it. I have worked in a military installation in the past and whoever was in charge of anything was always being talked about in an unflattering manner by whoever was working for them. These comments were not secret and no they were never published in a national publication but then no one is interested in gossip from one of thousands of military offices and how Lieutenant A thinks that they can do a better job than Major B.

Much of the words leant to supporting the eventual conclusion point to the seeming sacrosanct civilian control of the military and the assumption that this “disrespectful” action has a disparaging affect from the bottom up. This is an empty assumption at best. Not knowing anything my guess is that many in the military think just as poorly of General McCrystal as they do dear leader. The military is that large and just like any large organization there is no shortage of know-it-alls and egotist ladder climbers with a large variety of opinions regarding direction.

Certainly partisan, to me this seems this occurrence is further evidence of the President’s thin skin. He summoned General McCrystal to “explain himself”, whatever that means, and was reported to be angry at these comments. And what about these comments? My reading of the article seems to reveal what the General and his staff thinks of the President, that he is basically a micro-managing yet indecisive leader. A dangerous combination that in my opinion is an accurate assessment of dear leader’s performance so far. In the end the end of General McCrystal’s military career appears to be a price of honesty.

Last person on Earth notices that McDonalds Markets Happy Meals with Toys

It was when I was a kid that I determined the marketing aim of McDonald’s toys. The summer of 1990 coincided with the release of Super Mario Bros. 3 on the NES and McDonald’s had such themed toys. Either my Mom or our Neighbor’s took me, my sister and our neighbor sister and brother at least once a week with the aim of collecting each one. I remember being annoyed when receiving a duplicate of a toy but that didn’t stop me from heading back again and again.

While today I cannot even entertain ingesting a McDonald’s hamburger without my stomach protesting, back then I went and went and went, eventually collecting probably at least two of each Super Mario Bros. toy, eating every happy meal that contained the toy. And each one of those toys is in some land fill today, under years of rubble. Did I go for the food? Of course not. And, at the tender age of eleven I knew why I went. The food was fine for me at that age, nutritious and nourishing enough (I’m here today, aren’t I?).

Anyway, this trip down memory lane was triggered by a story about some group threatening to sue McDonald’s over their toys:

…the fast food chain "unfairly and deceptively" markets the toys to children…

McDonald's marketing has the effect of conscripting America's children into an unpaid drone army of word-of-mouth marketers, causing them to nag their parents to bring them to McDonald's

When I read that I had to work to hold back the laughter. Really? Is this revelation to the so called “The Center for Science in the Public Interest” groundbreaking? How long did it take for this Orwellian named organization to come up with this?

Basically, the issue is with McDonald’s food and is just another attack on personal choice (emphasis added):

The fast food company made a pledge in 2007 to advertise only two types of Happy Meals to children younger than 12: one with four Chicken McNuggets, apple dippers with caramel dip and low-fat white milk, or one with a hamburger, apple dippers and milk. They both meet the company-set requirement of less than 600 calories, and no more than 35 percent of calories from fat, 10 percent of calories from saturated fat or 35 percent total sugar by weight.

CSPI argues that even if those Happy Meals appear in advertisements, kids order the unhealthier meals most of the time.

So, basically, this “CSPI” is a group of food nannies. And they will not stop unless their lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice as the baseless claptrap that it is. Well, they’ll never stop. Too bad. If they don’t like it, fine. Don’t let your kids eat Happy Meals but it is not appropriate for these nannies to limit the choice that my son has.

To Annoy Bingaman, or the Public?

So, who are these “Environmental Defense Action Fund” clowns currently littering the local AM airwaves hectoring senator Bingaman to pass climate legislation? According to their website, a link off of the “Environmental Defense Fund”, they are:

the lobbying arm of Environmental Defense Fund, a leading environmental organization dedicated to educating the public about sound environmental policy and promoting lasting solutions to protect the environmental rights of all people.

Environmental Defense Action Fund is guided by scientific evaluation of environmental problems, and the solutions we advocate will be based on science, even when it leads in unfamiliar directions.

We work to create solutions that win lasting economic and social support because they are nonpartisan, cost-effective and fair.

Seemingly fair minded as described in their own words this “action” fund is not exactly everything they describe themselves to be. The ads that are on local AM radio recently include a short message urging Bingaman to take action while making assertions that are more political than scientific, actually all political, in nature. This should not be surprising as this “action” fund is the lobbying arm of a democrat affiliated organization:

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) describes itself as an organization that "is dedicated to protecting the environmental rights of all people" by using a scientific approach that is "nonpartisan, cost-effective, and fair." Environmental Defense Fund is represented by its family of organizations, Environmental Defense, Inc., a 501(c)(3) organization, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, Inc., a 501(c)(4) organization. EDF is also intimately connected with other environmental and political organizations. Trustee Frank Loy currently serves as one of Senator Obama's "top environmental advisers" for the 2008 Presidential Campaign. This past year, trustee Douglas Shorenstein donated $272,100 to Democratic political objectives, including the Hillary Clinton and Al Franken campaigns. Trustee Joanne Woodward, wife of noted Hollywood star Paul Newman, donated significantly to both the Clinton and Obama campaigns. Until 2006, Teresa Heinz, wife of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), served on the board of trustees for EDF. Heinz is also the current chairman of Heinz Endowments, a part of the Heinz Family Foundation, one of the nation's twenty-five largest charitable foundations. Current EDF trustee George Woodwell also serves on the board of the NRDC. EDF reported raising $71.8 million for the 2006 calendar year, and reported receiving contributions totaling more than $94 million during the 2006 IRS filing period. Of that amount, the organization spent $18.9 million to promote their stance on climate change issues, and $19.5 collectively on land and ocean environmental issues.

It is surprising that this group would target Bingaman who has put forth “The American Clean Energy Leadership Act” in his role within the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. This act features everything that the democrat funded group is looking for so obviously they are attempting to get the rubes in New Mexico to support their senator’s ill-advised legislation.

Oh, and China (the country building 2-3 coal plants per week over the next ten years) leading the United States in clean energy is as believable as Iran seeking nuclear material for peaceful means. It’s too bad that control freak political organizations wishing this country back to the stone age spend so much, it’s good that the stations here get the money, but after the tenth time today it’s tempting to take a bat to the radio.

The Tough Guy President

Perhaps the best observation thus far on President Obama's sophomoric comment this morning on the Today show with Matt Lauer:

And I don't sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar; we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.

Came from Rush Limbaugh guest host Mark Davis this morning who described the comments as:

Urkel channeling Jay-Z

Right on for Davis. What an idiotic thing for a United States President to say. Symbiotic once again of the unpreparedness of this administration to do anything with any professionalism. It seems to get worse as time goes on, it's tough to imagine how bad it will get with more than two years left of this.

Libertarian sees pro drugs everywhere...

The best thing about the tea party movement is its narrow focus. Out of control spending on ever expanding government is something that should cause concern for any responsible person. Once someone understands that just because the federal government can print money doesn’t mean that it can just pull it out of thin air without borrowing it from the future and correlates that with their own future and that of their family’s, an awakening occurs. There are certainly other interests within the tea party but a concern over big government is the cause that brings it together.

The reason why this is the best aspect is because with a singular focus the tea party can be more successful. Part of the reason that it exists outside the Republican Party is because the GOP, like the democrat party, is large and encompasses a ton of different ideas while trying to please everyone on everything. What that does is open up the dictionary to the other side to define the ideals of the other. Name calling and poorly thought out characterizations always follow, where a democrat will say something like “you’re a Republican so you think this” without any proof.

Similarly, if there is a movement with a positive reputation like the tea party; egotists who assume that everyone agrees with them project their personal views onto the movement. In a column on National Review Online, “The Tea Party and the Drug War” by Jeffrey A. Miron lectures that if the tea party believes in “its principles” then it must support the legalization of non-prescription drugs. Silly libertarian pot heads, they never stop do they? Miron paints the tea party group as election kingmakers and introduces his libertarian academic exercise on the benefits of legal drugs with:

voters will want to know where the (tea) party stands not just on the economy but on social issues. A perfect illustration is drug policy, where conservatives advocate continued prohibition but libertarians argue for legalization. Which way should the tea party lean when this issue arises?

If the party is true to its principles — fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, and free markets — it must side with the libertarians.

The author does explain why in the perfect fantasy clean room of pure libertarian thought how fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government and free markets correlate with drug legalization. The problem is, as with most pure libertarian thought, that it is purely academic delusion. If there has ever been a society with at least three hundred million people that was able to thrive without crime, with liberty and fiscal responsibility with and because of legal drugs what is its name and where is it located?

Drugs ruin lives. And the ruinous culture of drug use cannot be only attributed to their prohibition. The war on drugs has been a losing fight for the most part but that does not mean that it is a fight not worth having. There is no proof that drug use is not restrained by prohibition nor is there that costs would lower if they were legal. Drugs hurt users and slowly ruin their lives. It is simply a fantasy of recreational drug use proponents that legalization will solve so many problems and not intensify them. It is sad that they never give up and that they fit any movement or argument to their favor in a display of narcissism.

The only argument that has ever made sense in regard to the legalization of drugs came from comedian Daniel Tosh:

I think we should legalize marijuana in this country, so potheads have nothing to talk about ever again.

The crux of the argument is that those who want to fasten their movements onto the tea party and define what they are from their own viewpoint should just stick to their own movement and accept that they just don’t have as much support as they think they should have.

Jon Barela on the Bob Clark Show

With Susana Martinez winning the Republican primary for Governor here in New Mexico and a whole slate of at least conservative-ish candidates ready to go I began to contemplate campaign contributions and any other such things that I might do in support. I was glad to see that Martinez won so easily but was a little disheartened that Weh did so well and that Doug Turner could only muster about ten percent of the vote. Turner was, to me, tied with Martinez as a quality candidate. Anyway, I mentioned that because I was thinking to myself this morning listening to Jon Barela, GOP congressional candidate, on the radio that Turner would’ve made a fantastic congressional candidate.

I thought of this for two reasons. First, I believe that Turner’s gubernatorial bid was doomed by a lack of political experience. And while he is a successful businessman, it’s in PR, not exactly the type that foretells success in executive office. So, it just didn’t matter that he had a detailed understanding of the issues, a feasible plan for governance and an unmatched penchant for rhetoric. Too bad. I think Turner’s qualities and relevant experience would translate very well to a congressman.

Barela has a lot of experience so he is a resume filling candidate. And his opponent Martin Heinrich is not a very good representative, which helps. Listening to Barela though is mostly just blah. He talks and talks and has very long winded answers to questions but never seems to really answer any. He really lost me this morning when he started to discuss the recent Arizona immigration related law. He is not a supporter and to me, just wasn’t able to explain his position beyond Karl Rove doesn’t support it, it will shift Arizona's immigration problems to New Mexico and that Police officers aren’t qualified to determine immigration status.

These are very poor reasons. Lets tackle them from the bottom up. How hard is it to notice that a stopped person doesn’t have valid ID, registration and insurance and can’t explain (for whatever reason) what they’re doing in the US and for how long? His middle excuse is probably valid and should be a concern, but blaming Arizona for protecting themselves without taking responsiblity for what New Mexico can do is simple minded. Finally, Karl Rove is a political operative and he is focused on the mechanics of winning elections and believes that supporting the Arizona law alienates Hispanic voters (I think he’s wrong).

So, Jon Barela will get my vote. But mostly because he’s running against Martin Heinrich. Barela ran unopposed in the primary and when I think about Doug Turner running his first campaign for freaking governor in a crowded field, I admire him, but also can’t help but think about what might have been.

Really? You didn't see THAT coming?

From the New York Times via WSJ.com's Best of the Web column:

Like many middle-class families, Cortney Munna and her mother began the college selection process with a grim determination. They would do whatever they could to get Cortney into the best possible college, and they maintained a blind faith that the investment would be worth it.

Today, however, Ms. Munna, a 26-year-old graduate of New York University, has nearly $100,000 in student loan debt from her four years in college, and affording the full monthly payments would be a struggle. For much of the time since her 2005 graduation, she's been enrolled in night school, which allows her to defer loan payments

Quite the sob story, right?

She recently received a raise and now makes $22 an hour working for a photographer. It's the highest salary she's earned since graduating with an interdisciplinary degree in religious and women's studies.

$100,000 for a degree in religious and women's studies, and she's surprised that she just wasn't handed a job allowing her to pay back her loans? Nuts. This kind of silliness reminds me of someone I knew in Tucson who got a masters in education from Arizona as an out of stater in special education and was frustrated as to why they couldn't pay back their 100,000 dollar loan. Duh.

Wired’s mystical global warming equation

Apparently the writers of Wired, monks in the secular religion of anthropogenic global warming feel the need to convert all of the infidels. Unfortunately, they get a little too hung up in their own beliefs without considering how silly fear-mongering has become. Yes, climate change is real. The climate has been changing for the entirety of the Earth’s existence in one way or another. That’s a time frame commonly accepted to be about 4.54 billion years. For all the tenacity of these monks of man-made climate change there just isn’t any concrete proof.

In the June issue of Wired there is an equation that the writer presents as proof of how much CO2 is produced by humans and is wrecking the planet’s climate. Let’s take a look:


I was sitting in an airplane when I came across this and asked myself, “Self, does something look funny here?” And I replied, “Self, I do believe you are right to be suspicious.” So, using every pre-algebra student's favorite method (substituting and canceling things out) I proceeded to look more carefully:

Global CO2 emissions = GCO2
Global population = GP
Gross world product = GWP
Global energy consumption = GEC


So, the equation proves that Global CO2 emissions = Global C02 emissions. Got that? This is a perfect illustration of why many don’t take warmmongers seriously anymore. Why should the public believe in this stuff if the purveyors treat us like imbeciles? Ridiculous. I’m sure that someone out there can send me a rebuttal of like ten thousand words proving that I just don’t get it. But, I do. As Homer succinctly put it, “Just because I don't care doesn't mean I don't understand”.