In the pages of this August, more than once nearly abandoned pseudo politically related blog I have raised certain concerns with one Jon Barela, running for congress against Martin Heinrich, defender of New Mexico and our fine union against Jon Barela. Every time that I make note of some misgiving I always caveat with the fact that I look forward to voting for Barela as I would eagerly vote for the neighbor’s Doberman before letting Heinrich go back to Washington.
It’s not that Barela’s bad, I think that he’ll be a fine congressman and vote mostly favorably it’s mostly that I just don’t think I know enough about what he really thinks and what he would actually do. I think that newcomers to the political spectrum are great and all but it is all too easy to become enthralled only to be disappointed so I go forward with cautious optimism. And, I know what Heinrich thinks and I know (via email responses) what he thinks about what I think so again, a Doberman is preferable to that Pelosi clone hack.
Anyway, with that introduction, Barela has been airing better ads lately with one nit to pick, no fault of his own. In recent ads he has been touting himself and touted as by others as a supporter of small business. This is great but in reality an effective politician should be able to favor ALL business but in this anti-business climate created by many politicians led by our community organizer in chief it is just about impossible. Small business is apparently as pure as the wind driven snow.
All business is good. The UAW does not provide jobs; they take dues from members and use those funds to support democrats. Auto companies that create vehicles that people want is what creates jobs. Often demonized, Walmart employs more than a million people, enables families to afford better amenities and is out country’s best hedge against the Chinese. Think about it, we rely on low cost Chinese goods but just as that’s true, China is just as dependent on us to buy things from them. China needs Walmart.
To the point, ALL business is good. A market based economy is the freest and most prosperous and it is a stupid and ridiculous reality that we live in when a politician cannot acknowledge this truth because of the constant demonizing that has occurred almost constantly since the industrial revolution. It’s too bad but all too understandable that Jon Barela has to use “Small Business”, and it will always be that way because politicians need distractions.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Independent Sham
Perhaps the most curious of political affiliations is the “independent”. Many independents seem to be the oblivious, sophomoric and self-exalting types. As may be inferred from the previous sentence, I am generally no fan of self-described independents. Certainly there are those who are independent of specific affiliations that don’t much care to affiliate and vote in no discernible pattern, these are the harmless independents. The independents that earn my ire are those who describe themselves as such for the express reason of appearing reasonable, for being truly bi-partisan and for being above it all.
As someone who listens to a lot of talk radio nothing earns an eye-roll than a caller introducing themselves as “independent” and then spouting self congratulatory or democrat party clap trap. Many of these so-called independents fashion themselves as speaking for every other independent and for understanding what really needs to be done. Which is stupid on both counts because being truly independent means not adhering to groupthink and acknowledgment that there is no real “right” way for things to be done (government policy wise), just different ways to do things with different benefits, interests and results.
I don’t like everything that every Republican does or says nor do I support every initiative from the party and mostly due to that I am a loyal Republican. Every time someone has a thought that isn’t the same as anyone else, that’s independent but just because it is doesn’t mean that anyone is fully independent in every sense. There are two major political parties in this country and history seems to show that it is almost impossible for more than two to exist without other parties simply becoming slight variations of the first two. The Republican Party isn’t perfect but at least it doesn’t pretend to know how every person should live their lives like the party of the donkey.
As someone who listens to a lot of talk radio nothing earns an eye-roll than a caller introducing themselves as “independent” and then spouting self congratulatory or democrat party clap trap. Many of these so-called independents fashion themselves as speaking for every other independent and for understanding what really needs to be done. Which is stupid on both counts because being truly independent means not adhering to groupthink and acknowledgment that there is no real “right” way for things to be done (government policy wise), just different ways to do things with different benefits, interests and results.
I don’t like everything that every Republican does or says nor do I support every initiative from the party and mostly due to that I am a loyal Republican. Every time someone has a thought that isn’t the same as anyone else, that’s independent but just because it is doesn’t mean that anyone is fully independent in every sense. There are two major political parties in this country and history seems to show that it is almost impossible for more than two to exist without other parties simply becoming slight variations of the first two. The Republican Party isn’t perfect but at least it doesn’t pretend to know how every person should live their lives like the party of the donkey.
Mr. Obama Comes to Albuquerque
In what seems like a grievous error, President Obama came to Albuquerque today to hold some kind of heartland heart-to-heart in the South Valley to discuss goings on and have huevos rancheros and my invitation seemingly was lost in the mail.
It is heartening to learn that the sermonizer in chief considers New Mexico part of the heartland and made a stop in between Wisconsin and Iowa. And what better place to gather with supporters than the South Valley, a part of the city that many inhabitants of consider themselves oppressed while at the same time consuming more tax dollars than contributing, culminating in regular attempts to secede?
Best yet, we learned that the community organizer in chief is an amazing tipper, leaving twenty dollars for his to-go order of huevos rancheros at a local joint when the bill was about halfway past eight bucks. I certainly hope that some person who got to eat them enjoyed them. I know, harsh, but what more was that gesture than a photo op? The president travels with quite the entourage, and all he ordered was for himself?
No doubt dear leader praised the work of small business woman and once single mother Diane Denish and defender of New Mexico from Jon Barela Martin Heinrich for their tireless and unspecific efforts as good soldiers.
It is heartening to learn that the sermonizer in chief considers New Mexico part of the heartland and made a stop in between Wisconsin and Iowa. And what better place to gather with supporters than the South Valley, a part of the city that many inhabitants of consider themselves oppressed while at the same time consuming more tax dollars than contributing, culminating in regular attempts to secede?
Best yet, we learned that the community organizer in chief is an amazing tipper, leaving twenty dollars for his to-go order of huevos rancheros at a local joint when the bill was about halfway past eight bucks. I certainly hope that some person who got to eat them enjoyed them. I know, harsh, but what more was that gesture than a photo op? The president travels with quite the entourage, and all he ordered was for himself?
No doubt dear leader praised the work of small business woman and once single mother Diane Denish and defender of New Mexico from Jon Barela Martin Heinrich for their tireless and unspecific efforts as good soldiers.
For Some, Vick Unforgiven
An ESPN Page 2 regular feature called “The Weekly Best” the aim of which is to make recently relevant statements and then qualify them with the author’s opinion for those statements. Among this week’s statements is the following:
Many of these commentators take what it is that Michael Vick did, operating a dog fighting operation in Virginia, very personally and state as such that they will never forgive him. Trouble is, Vick owes none of these people anything and does not deserve feigned outrage based on conceit and misunderstanding.
Owning a dog fighting ring is repulsive, disgusting and illegal. Vick paid the price and more so than just about anyone else who was ever guilty of the same crime. And, it is folly to compare the dogs in these rings to a pet. These were dangerous dogs bred to be vicious and while they deserved better, Vick paid the price. What if any of these self-righteous types had the same upbringing as Vick? Different cultures have different standards and view animals differently. There are cultures that eat dogs, and in India, Cows are revered. In New Mexico, cock fighting was only recently banned.
I root for Michael Vick because he is a good football player and because he was made an example by an overzealous moralizing court system that punishes some (along with Martha Stewart and Plaxico Burress) celebrities beyond the pale. Vick may have several successful seasons left in the NFL and he does not deserve to be berated constantly over that time due to past sins for which an immense debt was paid. As a dog loving writer at SB Nation wrote, Michael Vick Is The American Dream.
Best reason to root for Michael Vick: Unless you're an Eagles fan, I haven't a clue.This throwaway line is just another in a long line of Vick haters blowing their tops over the Eagle QB’s success this season. This behavior is annoying and unfortunately will not cease until Vick is no longer in the NFL or in any type of public role. Vick went to prison for nearly two years for his crimes, which was longer than sentencing guidelines. He has paid his debt, what more do these so-called pundits want? Blood? Another Bankruptcy? Expulsion from society?
Many of these commentators take what it is that Michael Vick did, operating a dog fighting operation in Virginia, very personally and state as such that they will never forgive him. Trouble is, Vick owes none of these people anything and does not deserve feigned outrage based on conceit and misunderstanding.
Owning a dog fighting ring is repulsive, disgusting and illegal. Vick paid the price and more so than just about anyone else who was ever guilty of the same crime. And, it is folly to compare the dogs in these rings to a pet. These were dangerous dogs bred to be vicious and while they deserved better, Vick paid the price. What if any of these self-righteous types had the same upbringing as Vick? Different cultures have different standards and view animals differently. There are cultures that eat dogs, and in India, Cows are revered. In New Mexico, cock fighting was only recently banned.
I root for Michael Vick because he is a good football player and because he was made an example by an overzealous moralizing court system that punishes some (along with Martha Stewart and Plaxico Burress) celebrities beyond the pale. Vick may have several successful seasons left in the NFL and he does not deserve to be berated constantly over that time due to past sins for which an immense debt was paid. As a dog loving writer at SB Nation wrote, Michael Vick Is The American Dream.
Monday, September 27, 2010
But, the Other Guy is Worse!!!
Listening to campaign ads for democrats Diane Denish and Martin Heinrich the casual listener visiting Albuquerque might think that both are political neophytes that are simply caring individuals wishing to protect the citizenry from the purely political cartoon style villains Susana Martinez and Jon Barela. Is it any wonder why it is that most people are severely turned off by political campaigns?
Little more than a month to go and I am left wondering if these politicians will actually campaign on their accomplishments and what they actually want to do in office instead of attempting to scare voters too busy to pay attention with exorbitant charges against their opponents? Most galling is the fact that both democrats running for the highest profile offices in this election cycle have either been in or nearly were in the offices that they are running for and listening to their ads, you would never know.
Earlier in the election cycle, Gubernatorial candidate Denish had touted successes as a fighter of corruption as the Lt Governor over the last eight years that apparently were not believable or ineffective and have been replaced with ads touting Denish as a southern New Mexican small business owner and (for a period of time) single mother who is tired of the corruption in Santa Fe. The candidate simply disregards the fact that they have been Lt Governor for eight years, first ran for the post twelve years ago and was one contractor contributions to presidential campaign almost Commerce secretary scandal away from being Governor since early last year.
Worse, the Lt Governor paints her opponent, Martinez, as someone who misused public funds for cronies, using as an example salaries and bonuses for the DA office in Dona Ana County. To most voters I think it can be assumed that they understand that the District Attorney’s office is paid for with taxes, public funding. On the second accusation, misusing funds, it is unbelievable that Martinez could have been elected from the primary and not prosecuted by democrat political hack Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General or the hacks at the Obama Justice Department. If these accusations are true, we should be more worried that the corrupt official portrayed in the Denish ads is not behind bars. And, that’s if the viewer/listener drinks the Kool-Aid transporting them to some laughable fantasy land where innocent Diane Denish was never around and did not participate in the Richardson administration, a disgrace to New Mexico as Governor due to cronyism and worse. If that’s the case, then Denish should be disqualified for incompetence.
Like his party compatriot, Heinrich has abandoned running on his record. Earlier there were ads portraying Heinrich as working to help and protect New Mexicans and gathering specific constituencies and hyper specific benefits secured for them without any mention of the actual bill. Again, it seems likely that these ads did not go over well and that viewers were smart enough to understand that Heinrich is nothing if not a rubber stamp for the national democrat agenda and has voted as such and the only group to benefit is government, at our expense. Heinrich’s latest ad imagines the policies of his opponent, Barela and lectures the viewer on these dangerous policies, and of course bringing up a caricature of President Bush, with whom Barela is in lock step.
Jon Barela has never served in elected office. He is a lawyer who worked for Republican congressman Joe Skeen many years ago. Heinrich uses the issues plank on Barela’s website that portrays simple values with nary a desire to hurt people and twists these bland statements into a cudgel claiming that Barela’s goal is to take away the livelihoods of New Mexicans. A pathetic caricature.
So, this is what we have from democrat incumbents, Republican criminal boogey men and purported loss of precious government “benefits” without any mention of their own qualifications. It’s perplexing to discern how either Denish or Heinrich have ever been elected to anything. New Mexico will be better served to return both to private life this November.
Little more than a month to go and I am left wondering if these politicians will actually campaign on their accomplishments and what they actually want to do in office instead of attempting to scare voters too busy to pay attention with exorbitant charges against their opponents? Most galling is the fact that both democrats running for the highest profile offices in this election cycle have either been in or nearly were in the offices that they are running for and listening to their ads, you would never know.
Earlier in the election cycle, Gubernatorial candidate Denish had touted successes as a fighter of corruption as the Lt Governor over the last eight years that apparently were not believable or ineffective and have been replaced with ads touting Denish as a southern New Mexican small business owner and (for a period of time) single mother who is tired of the corruption in Santa Fe. The candidate simply disregards the fact that they have been Lt Governor for eight years, first ran for the post twelve years ago and was one contractor contributions to presidential campaign almost Commerce secretary scandal away from being Governor since early last year.
Worse, the Lt Governor paints her opponent, Martinez, as someone who misused public funds for cronies, using as an example salaries and bonuses for the DA office in Dona Ana County. To most voters I think it can be assumed that they understand that the District Attorney’s office is paid for with taxes, public funding. On the second accusation, misusing funds, it is unbelievable that Martinez could have been elected from the primary and not prosecuted by democrat political hack Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General or the hacks at the Obama Justice Department. If these accusations are true, we should be more worried that the corrupt official portrayed in the Denish ads is not behind bars. And, that’s if the viewer/listener drinks the Kool-Aid transporting them to some laughable fantasy land where innocent Diane Denish was never around and did not participate in the Richardson administration, a disgrace to New Mexico as Governor due to cronyism and worse. If that’s the case, then Denish should be disqualified for incompetence.
Like his party compatriot, Heinrich has abandoned running on his record. Earlier there were ads portraying Heinrich as working to help and protect New Mexicans and gathering specific constituencies and hyper specific benefits secured for them without any mention of the actual bill. Again, it seems likely that these ads did not go over well and that viewers were smart enough to understand that Heinrich is nothing if not a rubber stamp for the national democrat agenda and has voted as such and the only group to benefit is government, at our expense. Heinrich’s latest ad imagines the policies of his opponent, Barela and lectures the viewer on these dangerous policies, and of course bringing up a caricature of President Bush, with whom Barela is in lock step.
Jon Barela has never served in elected office. He is a lawyer who worked for Republican congressman Joe Skeen many years ago. Heinrich uses the issues plank on Barela’s website that portrays simple values with nary a desire to hurt people and twists these bland statements into a cudgel claiming that Barela’s goal is to take away the livelihoods of New Mexicans. A pathetic caricature.
So, this is what we have from democrat incumbents, Republican criminal boogey men and purported loss of precious government “benefits” without any mention of their own qualifications. It’s perplexing to discern how either Denish or Heinrich have ever been elected to anything. New Mexico will be better served to return both to private life this November.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Condescending TV by Heinrich
So I have seen two recent commercials in support of Congressman Martin Heinrich and if there was a reason at all to support him in them, it didn’t come through.
The first tout’s Heinrich’s “achievements” in the senate, not in any specificity, but in the kinds of generalities that are easy to feel good about because he has done sooooooooo much for New Mexico over the last two years. If one is gullible enough to mistake the publically stated intentions of legislation other than actual results then I suppose it would be easy to swallow this tripe. Make no mistake, Heinrich is obsessed with moving his career as a “Progressive” politician and is a total ally to the democrat leadership in Washington. His votes are the evidence and attempts to hide behind vague characterizations of happy motives with zero results.
The second ad is an attack on Heinrich’s opponent, Jon Barela in which the claim is made that Barela wants to take us back to the dark period of the Bush presidency. Oh, the horrors! In a stunning visual cue, a truck with a Barela ad on it backs up! Apparently Heinrich thinks that the voters are stupid. You mean go back to the lower unemployment and lower deficits and growing economy of the Bush years? Beginning with the 2008 campaign the democrats have attempted to sell the fiction that our country was in ruin and only they could save it. It was true that during President Bush’s term that there was too much spending but democrats who have spent even more become hypocrites when attacking those years. Most of the economic problems faced by the country came after the 2006 election when democrats took control of congress. Besides, some recent polls show that a majority of voters prefer President Bush today! What a dumb campaign commercial.
Heinrich has been nothing if not one of the most reliable democrats in congress for the speaker eagerly voting for legislation that will harm the country to include cap and trade, the stimulus, multiple bailouts and of course “Obamacare”. Both of these commercials demonstrate an out of touch person who views political opponents whom disagree with his preferred policies as cartoon villains. It seems as though he really believes that supporting legislation that has failed is still good based only on objective and assumes that the public can’t determine for themselves what to think. It is time that we send him home, wherever that is, or on to a democrat think tank where he can bask in his “achievements” while leaving us alone.
The first tout’s Heinrich’s “achievements” in the senate, not in any specificity, but in the kinds of generalities that are easy to feel good about because he has done sooooooooo much for New Mexico over the last two years. If one is gullible enough to mistake the publically stated intentions of legislation other than actual results then I suppose it would be easy to swallow this tripe. Make no mistake, Heinrich is obsessed with moving his career as a “Progressive” politician and is a total ally to the democrat leadership in Washington. His votes are the evidence and attempts to hide behind vague characterizations of happy motives with zero results.
The second ad is an attack on Heinrich’s opponent, Jon Barela in which the claim is made that Barela wants to take us back to the dark period of the Bush presidency. Oh, the horrors! In a stunning visual cue, a truck with a Barela ad on it backs up! Apparently Heinrich thinks that the voters are stupid. You mean go back to the lower unemployment and lower deficits and growing economy of the Bush years? Beginning with the 2008 campaign the democrats have attempted to sell the fiction that our country was in ruin and only they could save it. It was true that during President Bush’s term that there was too much spending but democrats who have spent even more become hypocrites when attacking those years. Most of the economic problems faced by the country came after the 2006 election when democrats took control of congress. Besides, some recent polls show that a majority of voters prefer President Bush today! What a dumb campaign commercial.
Heinrich has been nothing if not one of the most reliable democrats in congress for the speaker eagerly voting for legislation that will harm the country to include cap and trade, the stimulus, multiple bailouts and of course “Obamacare”. Both of these commercials demonstrate an out of touch person who views political opponents whom disagree with his preferred policies as cartoon villains. It seems as though he really believes that supporting legislation that has failed is still good based only on objective and assumes that the public can’t determine for themselves what to think. It is time that we send him home, wherever that is, or on to a democrat think tank where he can bask in his “achievements” while leaving us alone.
More Bogeymen...
After two days of listening to Rush Limbaugh hitch his wagon to Christine O’Donnell and listen to Sean Hannity becoming unbearable in his me-too-ism attacks on the “Republican” establishment I was hoping for a reprieve. I was wrong, so very wrong. Rush’s substitute (due to a cold) host Mark Davis took the microphone today and ran with it attacking columnists Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer who do not find O’Donnell to be an acceptable candidate.
From all I can tell, O’Donnell is the preferred candidate almost due solely to the resume of her opponent. Other than that, there is nothing. O’Donnell is a regular candidate, without no wins so far, and makes statements that are amiable to conservative interests but has no resume in politics. It is a great thing to get newcomers involved but in a position as important as senator it is imperative to have some experience, city council, state representative, mayor of a small town, something by which a person’s experience can be adequately judged with regard to their probable actions as a legislator. O’Donnell has none and won by virtue of running against a terrible candidate who was running for the general election and ignored the primary. He opponent could have learned a few things from John McCain.
Can O’Donnell win? Perhaps, her opponent is a self-described marxist and we will learn the preference of Delaware, which is their choice. I have read the pieces from Rove and Krauthammer and cannot find anything objectionable in their writing. It will be used by the opposition in painting O’Donnell in a negative light but so what? They are valid opinions and screaming against Republican bogeymen by Limbaugh, Hannity and Davis is of no benefit. It makes them appear to be unreasonable by not even entertaining opposing viewpoints and that’s a democrat game. Not one of these three has mentioned anything positive in regard to O’Donnell excepting her primary election victory. They should take caution in backing this candidate until they have something in their resume lest they set themselves up for disappointment.
From all I can tell, O’Donnell is the preferred candidate almost due solely to the resume of her opponent. Other than that, there is nothing. O’Donnell is a regular candidate, without no wins so far, and makes statements that are amiable to conservative interests but has no resume in politics. It is a great thing to get newcomers involved but in a position as important as senator it is imperative to have some experience, city council, state representative, mayor of a small town, something by which a person’s experience can be adequately judged with regard to their probable actions as a legislator. O’Donnell has none and won by virtue of running against a terrible candidate who was running for the general election and ignored the primary. He opponent could have learned a few things from John McCain.
Can O’Donnell win? Perhaps, her opponent is a self-described marxist and we will learn the preference of Delaware, which is their choice. I have read the pieces from Rove and Krauthammer and cannot find anything objectionable in their writing. It will be used by the opposition in painting O’Donnell in a negative light but so what? They are valid opinions and screaming against Republican bogeymen by Limbaugh, Hannity and Davis is of no benefit. It makes them appear to be unreasonable by not even entertaining opposing viewpoints and that’s a democrat game. Not one of these three has mentioned anything positive in regard to O’Donnell excepting her primary election victory. They should take caution in backing this candidate until they have something in their resume lest they set themselves up for disappointment.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Bad Choices and Assumed Motive
A big problem with the President’s opinion deriding those that have reservations of the proposed Mosque blocks from the World Trade Center Ground Zero is the ignorant way he assigns the motives of those who think differently based on his own viewpoint. It would be different if every single person, 70 percent of the country by recent polling, thought exactly the same or only opposed the construction without saying anything or by making disgusting statements. No matter how much some may want to believe that all the opposition is malevolent, the facts just don’t support that conclusion. Many issues are complicated and anyone who ignores contrasting arguments doesn’t want to debate because it’s easier to demonize by playing on emotion rather than defending the abstract.
Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.
Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?
Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.
The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.
The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.
Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.
Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?
Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.
The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.
The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Good Sell-out
Today was almost a good day owing to the fact that about halfway through a meeting that always lasts longer than scheduled I thought that this really was going to be the day that it ended on time, even early. I was wrong. And I will always be wrong about this meeting. And unfortunately for me, over the next nine months I will be participating in an awful lot of these meetings.
The reason why is because these meetings are led by the most curious of people, the type of person that speaks almost entirely in puns and analogies. Of course, having the luck that I have I almost never understand the pun or the analogy which leads my participation to listening for anything useful and always replying that I have no further questions. It’s easy to never have any questions or anything to add when you don’t understand what is going on.
And after a while, I just don’t care anymore. There is supposed to be knowledge gained from these meetings but the person who was tasked with leading them just has no self awareness at all. I find myself thankful for the mute button when this leader starts touting his ability to keep projects on task and spouting euphemisms for time sucks when he could just talk about himself, oh wait, he is.
Add to that lack of self awareness an ability to talk almost endlessly and a disarming folksy tone and a desire to analogize the simplest of constructs into incoherent slush and you have yourself a real winner. The inconvenient truth is that I will happily continue my support of these meetings because while I dread them and am constantly annoyed by them they are led by the customer. This dude basically pays my bills and I am happy to sell out as my son needs milk and my Infiniti needs gas.
The reason why is because these meetings are led by the most curious of people, the type of person that speaks almost entirely in puns and analogies. Of course, having the luck that I have I almost never understand the pun or the analogy which leads my participation to listening for anything useful and always replying that I have no further questions. It’s easy to never have any questions or anything to add when you don’t understand what is going on.
And after a while, I just don’t care anymore. There is supposed to be knowledge gained from these meetings but the person who was tasked with leading them just has no self awareness at all. I find myself thankful for the mute button when this leader starts touting his ability to keep projects on task and spouting euphemisms for time sucks when he could just talk about himself, oh wait, he is.
Add to that lack of self awareness an ability to talk almost endlessly and a disarming folksy tone and a desire to analogize the simplest of constructs into incoherent slush and you have yourself a real winner. The inconvenient truth is that I will happily continue my support of these meetings because while I dread them and am constantly annoyed by them they are led by the customer. This dude basically pays my bills and I am happy to sell out as my son needs milk and my Infiniti needs gas.
Other People's Money
Recently dominating the news has been much discussion in regard to the expiring “Bush” tax cuts. The President has been espousing populist rhetoric about extending the cuts but only to those that make less than $200,000 dollars a year individually or $250,000 for couples. The administration’s stance relies on typical statist tripe in regard to the “costs” of these tax cuts and pontification on the worthiness of the earners in regard to keeping their own money. Of course, being statist, the administration apparently views these earnings as the governments first.
This view is dangerous and is tyranny as it represents a desire to divide the people of this country and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding in regard to the way that our economy works. On the costs of the tax cuts, these costs are simply estimations made on current data what ifs. These estimations are entirely fictional because they rely on assumptions that current conditions would be the same based on higher tax rates for some. This is simply impossible to prove. Second, by ignoring the fictional costs of retaining the tax cuts on the lower brackets their argument omits important information. Last, the 700 billion dollar over ten years figure provided does not carry any seriousness from an administration that spent more than that last year in a single act, the failed stimulus.
Most disappointing is the tenacity in which the President and his administration have taken to attacking a significant portion of the United States population. It is disgusting for the President of the United States of America to accuse decent Americans of being greedy and to tell them that they can afford it without seeking their opinion to cheering from crowds. This act is simply political in nature and is utilized in order to distract the populace from unpopular policies and actions. Because the higher income brackets represent a tiny minority of citizens the President does not believe that their votes matter and cynically believes that the rest of Americans will approve and encourage the demonizing of and taking from “them”.
If the action to only extend rates for some and not all tax brackets is carried out, it is tyrannical because the difference in tax rates will grow ever larger and will represent the will of an overwhelming majority confiscating the incomes of a small minority of citizens. By virtue of our current tax system and common sense, those with higher incomes pay more taxes and at a higher rate. Even if there was a flat tax, those with higher incomes would pay more taxes.
How it was somehow determined to be fair to pine for the incomes of others for ever increasing government “services” is discouraging and was inevitable, resulting from vote hungry politicians promising citizens spending that is neither warranted nor reasonable from a budgetary standpoint. The biggest problem with the tax cuts was that there was not a cut to government to balance any theoretical loss of government “revenue”. Political theatre pitting us against each other is a ridiculous distraction from the real issue and that is a government too big to sustain and too burdensome to understand.
This view is dangerous and is tyranny as it represents a desire to divide the people of this country and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding in regard to the way that our economy works. On the costs of the tax cuts, these costs are simply estimations made on current data what ifs. These estimations are entirely fictional because they rely on assumptions that current conditions would be the same based on higher tax rates for some. This is simply impossible to prove. Second, by ignoring the fictional costs of retaining the tax cuts on the lower brackets their argument omits important information. Last, the 700 billion dollar over ten years figure provided does not carry any seriousness from an administration that spent more than that last year in a single act, the failed stimulus.
Most disappointing is the tenacity in which the President and his administration have taken to attacking a significant portion of the United States population. It is disgusting for the President of the United States of America to accuse decent Americans of being greedy and to tell them that they can afford it without seeking their opinion to cheering from crowds. This act is simply political in nature and is utilized in order to distract the populace from unpopular policies and actions. Because the higher income brackets represent a tiny minority of citizens the President does not believe that their votes matter and cynically believes that the rest of Americans will approve and encourage the demonizing of and taking from “them”.
If the action to only extend rates for some and not all tax brackets is carried out, it is tyrannical because the difference in tax rates will grow ever larger and will represent the will of an overwhelming majority confiscating the incomes of a small minority of citizens. By virtue of our current tax system and common sense, those with higher incomes pay more taxes and at a higher rate. Even if there was a flat tax, those with higher incomes would pay more taxes.
How it was somehow determined to be fair to pine for the incomes of others for ever increasing government “services” is discouraging and was inevitable, resulting from vote hungry politicians promising citizens spending that is neither warranted nor reasonable from a budgetary standpoint. The biggest problem with the tax cuts was that there was not a cut to government to balance any theoretical loss of government “revenue”. Political theatre pitting us against each other is a ridiculous distraction from the real issue and that is a government too big to sustain and too burdensome to understand.
Friday, September 03, 2010
A Bad Teacher Complains, Should we Care?
Back in high school I had an elective called “Adventures in Supercomputing” that was supposed to be focused on teaching students computer skills and encouraging technology related careers. In reality it was an hour excuse to play games and surf the primitive, at the time (around 1996), internet. I cannot think of what the grading criteria for this class was and there just wasn’t much to it other than showing up most of the time.
The worst part of this course was the teacher, who mostly taught remedial math courses, with whom I never had any earlier classroom interaction. This teacher was the sanctimonious type often bemoaning the plight of the impoverished school teacher and their own selfless commitment to the cause. A frequent assertion of this teacher was that they could make twice their salary if they worked somewhere else and there were no shortage of offers. This statement was inferring that this teacher was sacrificing their and their family’s well being on account of us students and was meant to indoctrinate the idea that teachers are not paid enough or fairly.
One of my least enduring qualities rears itself whenever I think I’m being badgered or hinted at incessantly or tire of the same tired argument again and again; I say something that is not very kind. After about halfway through the semester and another sermon from this teacher about mythical high paying jobs for a high school basic math instructor I snapped, got up from my desk and asked, “Why don’t you leave, why don’t you take one of those jobs? If we are soooooooo difficult and you can do soooooooo much better away from here, why are you here? I think we would be just fine with you making all that money at one of those jobs. I don’t think they even exist”. After about five minutes of the teacher staring at me intently while their face returned from a deep red, they attempted to explain it as a selfless act, a sacrifice even and that we students really needed them. I rolled my eyes and went back to looking up scores on ESPN.com. Surprisingly I received an A in that class, I did show up most of the time…
I was reminded of that story recently when a friend of my wife’s friend, who is a bad teacher, trotted out the “teachers are under and unfairly paid” trope and added “merit pay is bad” in a Facebook posting. It reminded me of that story because it was the clearest memory that I have of a horrible teacher complaining about not being rewarded for being horrible. It seems as though the most vocal teachers, complaining about pay and testing and any number of things, are usually inadequate and are poor at presenting their case in a way that does not anger observers.
First, are teachers unfairly or poorly compensated? In New Mexico, the average teacher salary is nearly 42 thousand dollars and comes from 31 percent of tax revenues directed towards education. This is for nine months of employment, accounting for 12 months this extrapolates to an equivalent of nearly 56 thousand dollars. That does not sound too bad. The unadjusted figure (42k) is almost four times the federal poverty line (11k) so it is hard to believe that teachers are impoverished. More to the point, being a teacher is a choice and it's not like those choosing to become teachers have no clue in regard to their earning potential. They knew what they were getting in to.
Most difficult is the fact that it is almost impossible to determine what is right for teacher pay. Because education is absolutely dominated by the public sector there is no reliable market for teachers so we have no way to determine the right salary, what is it really worth to the consumer? Ask any of the complainers and they don’t have an answer either. It seems as though there will never be a salary high enough and because bad, self-righteous teachers are never introspective they just do not know how bad their preening on this subject looks to the average citizen, many of who would love to make 40k a year and have three months off.
Another argument that makes teachers look bad is when they denounce merit pay tied to testing initiatives. It would be unfair to tie the salaries of teachers only to the testing results of their students without any other metrics or considerations but it is misguided to ignore them as an important piece. Questions arise when teachers seem so skeptical of testing and deny any share of culpability when the dropout rate approaches fifty percent and some who do graduate can’t even read.
Teachers are a fundamental part of our society and it is imperative that they are compensated fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately the public sector dominated union infested education system we have will not allow for serious discussion. The public is told to shut up and hand over their wallets with no better results time and again. It is easy to think that it may be time to blow up the system and start from scratch.
The worst part of this course was the teacher, who mostly taught remedial math courses, with whom I never had any earlier classroom interaction. This teacher was the sanctimonious type often bemoaning the plight of the impoverished school teacher and their own selfless commitment to the cause. A frequent assertion of this teacher was that they could make twice their salary if they worked somewhere else and there were no shortage of offers. This statement was inferring that this teacher was sacrificing their and their family’s well being on account of us students and was meant to indoctrinate the idea that teachers are not paid enough or fairly.
One of my least enduring qualities rears itself whenever I think I’m being badgered or hinted at incessantly or tire of the same tired argument again and again; I say something that is not very kind. After about halfway through the semester and another sermon from this teacher about mythical high paying jobs for a high school basic math instructor I snapped, got up from my desk and asked, “Why don’t you leave, why don’t you take one of those jobs? If we are soooooooo difficult and you can do soooooooo much better away from here, why are you here? I think we would be just fine with you making all that money at one of those jobs. I don’t think they even exist”. After about five minutes of the teacher staring at me intently while their face returned from a deep red, they attempted to explain it as a selfless act, a sacrifice even and that we students really needed them. I rolled my eyes and went back to looking up scores on ESPN.com. Surprisingly I received an A in that class, I did show up most of the time…
I was reminded of that story recently when a friend of my wife’s friend, who is a bad teacher, trotted out the “teachers are under and unfairly paid” trope and added “merit pay is bad” in a Facebook posting. It reminded me of that story because it was the clearest memory that I have of a horrible teacher complaining about not being rewarded for being horrible. It seems as though the most vocal teachers, complaining about pay and testing and any number of things, are usually inadequate and are poor at presenting their case in a way that does not anger observers.
First, are teachers unfairly or poorly compensated? In New Mexico, the average teacher salary is nearly 42 thousand dollars and comes from 31 percent of tax revenues directed towards education. This is for nine months of employment, accounting for 12 months this extrapolates to an equivalent of nearly 56 thousand dollars. That does not sound too bad. The unadjusted figure (42k) is almost four times the federal poverty line (11k) so it is hard to believe that teachers are impoverished. More to the point, being a teacher is a choice and it's not like those choosing to become teachers have no clue in regard to their earning potential. They knew what they were getting in to.
Most difficult is the fact that it is almost impossible to determine what is right for teacher pay. Because education is absolutely dominated by the public sector there is no reliable market for teachers so we have no way to determine the right salary, what is it really worth to the consumer? Ask any of the complainers and they don’t have an answer either. It seems as though there will never be a salary high enough and because bad, self-righteous teachers are never introspective they just do not know how bad their preening on this subject looks to the average citizen, many of who would love to make 40k a year and have three months off.
Another argument that makes teachers look bad is when they denounce merit pay tied to testing initiatives. It would be unfair to tie the salaries of teachers only to the testing results of their students without any other metrics or considerations but it is misguided to ignore them as an important piece. Questions arise when teachers seem so skeptical of testing and deny any share of culpability when the dropout rate approaches fifty percent and some who do graduate can’t even read.
Teachers are a fundamental part of our society and it is imperative that they are compensated fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately the public sector dominated union infested education system we have will not allow for serious discussion. The public is told to shut up and hand over their wallets with no better results time and again. It is easy to think that it may be time to blow up the system and start from scratch.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The importance of a good Cruise Director
It is my ever unchanging opinion that the role of cruise director (organizer, leader) is important to any type of group activity be it business or leisure and that any person who immediately volunteers or vociferously seeks this post should be locked out of the room and only let in once the agenda is set. Almost every time there is a person who actively seeks this role, they turn out to be a control freak know-it-all who only ensures that nothing gets done or that nobody has any fun.
Traveling in large groups for leisure can be difficult because if there is no set agenda, like on a cruise, it can be difficult to come to consensus on what to do. This kind of situation can even get worse when there is a group of people that don’t know what they want to do and can only disagree with what anyone else wants to do. This is a problem and needs some kind of cruise director to keep things moving along or else the entire trip will consist of people staring each other exchanging “I don’t knows” and being bored.
The aggressive type is the wrong choice as cruise director for leisure because they never seem to have the capacity to mitigate disagreement or consider all the options with regard to the people involved. It always seems to be the case that the aggressive types only consider what they want which invariably is the opposite of what anyone wants so the cruise director seems to think they deserve and of course do not receive any appreciation because everyone else is miserable and having no fun.
In business the cruise director is tasked with “herding cats”, taking disparate groups within a single company or multiple companies and focusing a project so that it adheres to its scope and deadlines. Individual companies and IEEE type working groups assign titles like project or program manager and offer courses like six sigma which gives out karate like “belts” for attending courses on and adherence to high-minded albeit vague principles.
Adherence to vague principles and reams of work-making paperwork to track that adherence seems to attract the overly bureaucratic control freak type, the worst possible choice for the business cruise director. Meetings will be absolutely wasted with discussions about philosophies, inane policies, leverage, platitudes (rabbit holes anyone?), synergy, adherence to irrelevant project management guidelines and discussions about how to appropriately talk about the project while never actually discussing the topics of the meeting.
The bureaucratic project manager is quick to jump to conclusions and always seems to proclaim a mastery of subject matter before it can be explained to them by actual people in the know. They completely monopolize meetings (which always go over time) by attempting to referee discussions when it is not warranted and incorrectly reiterating everything that is said by any party because they believe that they are the only person that really understands all viewpoints while the really understand nothing. In the end the participants are frustrated, hopelessly behind and wishing for the project manager to contract laryngitis or some kind of flu.
Inadequate cruise directors are the bane to anything getting done anywhere. In the leisure sense it leads to a rash of boring outings and indecisiveness. In business it’s entirely to blame for projects taking way too long to complete and costing much more than necessary. Many projects only get done entirely in spite of bad cruise directors. It is important to either get in on the ground floor and be a part of the selection process in the beginning or be wary that you will either regret not staying home or be sick of platitudes and never be able to get any work done.
Traveling in large groups for leisure can be difficult because if there is no set agenda, like on a cruise, it can be difficult to come to consensus on what to do. This kind of situation can even get worse when there is a group of people that don’t know what they want to do and can only disagree with what anyone else wants to do. This is a problem and needs some kind of cruise director to keep things moving along or else the entire trip will consist of people staring each other exchanging “I don’t knows” and being bored.
The aggressive type is the wrong choice as cruise director for leisure because they never seem to have the capacity to mitigate disagreement or consider all the options with regard to the people involved. It always seems to be the case that the aggressive types only consider what they want which invariably is the opposite of what anyone wants so the cruise director seems to think they deserve and of course do not receive any appreciation because everyone else is miserable and having no fun.
In business the cruise director is tasked with “herding cats”, taking disparate groups within a single company or multiple companies and focusing a project so that it adheres to its scope and deadlines. Individual companies and IEEE type working groups assign titles like project or program manager and offer courses like six sigma which gives out karate like “belts” for attending courses on and adherence to high-minded albeit vague principles.
Adherence to vague principles and reams of work-making paperwork to track that adherence seems to attract the overly bureaucratic control freak type, the worst possible choice for the business cruise director. Meetings will be absolutely wasted with discussions about philosophies, inane policies, leverage, platitudes (rabbit holes anyone?), synergy, adherence to irrelevant project management guidelines and discussions about how to appropriately talk about the project while never actually discussing the topics of the meeting.
The bureaucratic project manager is quick to jump to conclusions and always seems to proclaim a mastery of subject matter before it can be explained to them by actual people in the know. They completely monopolize meetings (which always go over time) by attempting to referee discussions when it is not warranted and incorrectly reiterating everything that is said by any party because they believe that they are the only person that really understands all viewpoints while the really understand nothing. In the end the participants are frustrated, hopelessly behind and wishing for the project manager to contract laryngitis or some kind of flu.
Inadequate cruise directors are the bane to anything getting done anywhere. In the leisure sense it leads to a rash of boring outings and indecisiveness. In business it’s entirely to blame for projects taking way too long to complete and costing much more than necessary. Many projects only get done entirely in spite of bad cruise directors. It is important to either get in on the ground floor and be a part of the selection process in the beginning or be wary that you will either regret not staying home or be sick of platitudes and never be able to get any work done.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)