But What if it isn’t true?

Former Governor Gary Johnson is set to announce his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2012. Personally I would vote for the former Governor over most any other candidate if not for his position on drugs, specifically for legalizing at least marijuana among others. Comedian Daniel Tosh was first to state that the only good reason to legalize pot is so that so potheads never have anything to talk about ever again.

Proponents of legalizing drugs have many reasons for their stance. Some are honest, it’s because they want use it. Too many insist on righteousness and making statements analogous to curing all of our societal ills by legalization, which to them are apparently caused by prohibition of drugs. These arguments are made up of straw men and are tired as they are unknowable. Let’s examine a few in regard to marijuana.

Why treat pot different from alcohol, they’re similar and alcohol’s even worse because of DWI. Some argue that pot is a “mellow” high and some people insist that they have a heightened awareness when they are high. That’s nonsense. THC, the active ingredient in pot is a psychoactive substance, and in that sense is similar to alcohol. The effects though are different and it is my opinion that alcohol is more readily moderated. DWI’s key component is intoxicated, some are attributable to pot already and it is reasonable to assume that more would be if pot were to be legalized.

The ‘war on drugs’ is a failure. Has there ever been a more misunderstood nebulous term than the ‘war on drugs’? What is it exactly? Its failure is often attributed to the fact that illegal drugs are basically abundant. Which is a fair point but in many districts there is little enforcement for many drug offenses. Education on the dangers of illegal drugs is counteracted many times over in popular culture. When there are no real consequences for casual use for many and it is glamorized in culture, why is it surprising that the ‘war on drugs’, whatever that is, is considered a failure?

Drug legalization has driven market demand higher than if pot were legal. This is just dumb. So dumb that it seems as though I made this one up, but no I’ve heard it many times before. This is just unknowable but in economic terms seems unlikely that the market for pot would shrink if legalized.

It will clear prisons of basically harmless drug offenders. This one may be true, but the prison population is not mostly made up of casual drug users, they typically get a slap on the wrist. Violent drug offenders, dealers and criminals who use their ill-gotten gains to purchase drugs make up the majority of drug-related prisoners. And if pot were legal those in prison for offenses related to it would likely be in there for something else.

It will raise tax revenue. If regulated by the state this one will be true, but the cost of regulation likely will equal or surpass in cost any new intake making this argument essentially null.

People should be responsible enough to make their own decisions in regard to what they ingest and inhale. In a perfect world maybe but unfortunately too many are irresponsible. This is not a perfect world and addiction is a serious problem and as a society we must determine a line in regard to psychoactive substances. I believe that marijuana and other drugs are over that line and should remain illegal. I think that the consequences outweigh the loss in freedom in disallowing some responsible citizens from being able to procure it.

And that’s my opinion. There are others who differ. If they want to use pot, that’s their preference and if they’re honest about that fact, fantastic. I still think they’re wrong. Making up all kinds of reasons and statistics meant to persuade is meaningless PR. Marijuana advocates are often very adamant in the righteousness of their many arguments, they never ask themselves the simple question, what if what they say isn’t true? What is true is that pot is harmful.

But What if it doesn’t Work?

Years ago I read an article reporting on a poll that purported to show that roughly 25% of scientifically selected respondents meant to reflect the general US population believe that the moon landing was a hoax. At this point I came up with a theorem that if this poll was true then 25% of the US population must be easily persuaded to believe most anything. It doesn’t mean that they’re all crazy; just that they can be easily persuaded to believe things that can be argued as plausible coherently but are demonstrably untrue. This theorem is the reason that there really isn’t any usefulness in having more than two large scale political parties and that it can actually be dangerous to have several of near equal size. This is because of that 25%, if you have five political parties close in size, all you need is 25% to win a plurality and those easily persuaded conspiracy minded folks get to pick those whom decide how to govern the rest of us.

After new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, along with that state’s bi-cameral legislature, was able to pass reforms (real, actual hope and change) limiting collective bargaining for the state’s public sector employees, democrats and “labor” activists (I apologize for the redundancy) promised to get back at the Governor and Republican lawmakers by way of recall elections. In Wisconsin, a politician can be recalled after they have been in office for one year if a petition signed by 25% of voters from their last election seeks it. Currently there are 8 Republican legislators being targeted for this summer with Governor Walker’s turn coming up early next year.

It’s all well and good to pitch a tantrum and gather signatures, but will it work? The hardest part of persuading 25% of voters to sign a petition will be finding them and collecting the signatures. Getting the right 25% to sign will not be a problem. Wisconsin isn’t North Korea, so probably close to 50% of voters didn’t vote for those up for recall anyway. The reason behind the hysteria is that state employees identify any effort to curb their ability to fleece the taxpayer as an affront to liberty, no matter reality. A sizeable portion of citizens in Wisconsin are state employees, and many more are tangentially reliant on state largess and all of them have friends and families which should help them get to that 25% number. Easily persuaded.

But what if it doesn’t work? After all the work required gathering those signatures, 25% isn’t enough to win election in a two-party system. Also, there’s no guarantee that from the time a person signed that they were committed to the defeat of that politician and that they would even vote in the new election if the recall petition were successful. Because of the 25% theorem it’s likely folly to assume that a successful petition will translate to a successful recall election.

That’s not to say that the politicians targeted shouldn’t be concerned. And, the democrat state laborers are not the only ones pulling this shenanigan. There are Republican backed efforts to recall democrat legislators but at least it’s because those legislators abdicated their duties and left Wisconsin for Illinois trying to force the majority’s hand. And, because the Republicans don’t have every state employee union in their back pocket their 25% will be more difficult to obtain. Most of the coverage on this issue is usually set as a warning to Republicans, but I wonder if the democrats have thought through everything, including what if they don’t win the recalls? You know, like how they didn’t win in the last general election.

Corporate Taxation

60 Minutes did a piece on businesses relocating to Switzerland, namely Canton Zug (by the way, it's pronounced "Tsoog"). A wonderful little city and tax haven right on the Zugersee, famous for producing Zugerkirschwasser, aka Zug Cherry Schnapps. Good with fondue. Anyway, I was surprised by the evenhandedness of the 60 Minutes piece. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, which is ridiculous for two reasons - 1) we're America, so we're supposed to demand low taxes, and 2) corporate taxation is dumb in the first place because corporations just pass the taxes onto the consumer, meaning we end up paying anyway. I hope they wise up in DC. Europe's ahead of the curve on this one.

Thank you Mr. Edison

Tonight I plan to honor one of the most prolific inventors of modern times, Thomas Alva Edison by lighting my home with perhaps his most important invention, the light bulb. What will differentiate tonight, between the hours of 8:30 and 9:30 PM, from every other night is that I will not only light the parts of my home that are occupied, I will turn on every light I own.

I was inspired in my tribute by the fake WWF’s “Earth Hour”. As notice of conflict, I am predisposed to dislike the WWF because they were able to convince a judge somewhere that anyone could possibly confuse the World Wildlife Fund and the World Wrestling Federation which led to the latter having to change its name to the asinine World Wrestling Entertainment. Anyway, I digress; the WWF’s “Earth Hour” is an effort to bring attention to climate change by having participants turn off all lighting and “non-essential” appliances for one hour during the last Saturday in March.

Besides the fact that climate change has been occurring on Earth for the billions of years of its existence and that there is no definitive (yes, that means scientific) proof of man-made (anthropogenic) climate change, it is of no matter to those faithful to the religion of global warming. “Earth Hour” may seem innocuous and a simple way to show your love for the planet that is both Al Gore and Captain Planet approved, but it is misguided. Turning off appliances is an implicit nod to the idea that humans are responsible for climate change and that their responsibility began with the industrial age.

My preference is to live in modern times and it is my belief that the advances the world has seen since the light bulb make our time miraculous and a blessing. If any of the hippies that participate in “Earth Hour” and faithfully follow the faked research “proving” man-made climate change wish to move to sub-Saharan Africa into a mud hut and be one with the land, they are free to do so. Advocating a meaningless, silly symbolic gesture is one thing and I can retaliate in the immature way mentioned above but the organizers of “Earth Hour”, “green” politicians and the advocate-scientists that have “proven” man-made climate change are attempting to convert new followers to keep their scam going and force the rest of us to live in a way conducive with cave men by taxing us to the point of poverty and banning everything that makes modern life possible.

And modern life was made possible by people like Thomas Alva Edison and I choose to counter “Earth Hour” with a tribute to his brilliance.

An Unfortunate Introduction

In marketing one acknowledged form of advertising is differentiation from the competition. This can be done in two ways, by stating the benefits of the advertised brand as being superior to another for the given purpose or by identifying shortcomings of the other. In politics it’s the latter tactic that is most often utilized. In many campaigns no one really knows anything about the real, actual stances of a candidate, just that their hobbies include clubbing baby seals while farting pure carbon into the fragile atmosphere and laughing. Personally I find this kind of campaign annoying because I abhor irrelevant gossip and because of the prevalence of these kinds of ads it’s incredibly difficult to really feel comfortable with any candidate.

With US Senator Jeff Bingaman retiring there are already two mostly-officially announced candidates from the Republican side with more likely coming. In a perfect world I think that the more candidates the better because it provides for a wide range of experience and opinions and can ensure that the best candidate will win and is well prepared for the general election. Unfortunately, because much of candidate advertising is negative it’s usually the candidate who is most unobjectionable to the majority of undecided voters, and it seems they don’t really care about policy and are too often swayed by gossip.

My preference at this time is for the fire-breathing former gubernatorial candidate Doug Turner to run, but he isn’t at this time and I have no objections to the current candidate and former US Representative Heather Wilson. Already though I find myself irked by candidate Lt. Governor John Sanchez.

The Lt. Governor was in D.C. recently to discuss his “likely” candidacy and was featured in an article on the D.C. Caller titled “New Mexico’s John Sanchez: The Next Marco Rubio?” For those in Tierra Amarilla, Rubio is the freshmen senator from Florida who was the speaker of the Florida assembly and is a frequent writer in which he illustrates very conservative ideals. He’s awesome, basically.

In this article, the only thing about Sanchez that is considered similar to Senator Rubio is their Hispanic sounding last names. Other than that it is basically an attack on Heather Wilson. In it, Sanchez is quoted as saying that Wilson represents “the politics of the past” and then cites her record in congress as being “moderate”.

Most people don’t really know John Sanchez yet. Yes he is the Lt. Governor and had run for Governor in the past but likening yourself to a high profile conservative based on delightfully pronounced last names and assailing a political opponent because they’re a known quantity is not the way to introduce oneself. Who are you and why should I vote for you Mr. Lt. Governor? Why are you picking on former Representative Wilson instead of telling me what you would do besides using generic terminology? That’s what I want to know. It’s neat that you are an accomplished Hispanic (I consider myself in that same category) but it’s irrelevant.

Random Thoughts – 3/22

One reason (of many) no one ‘likes’ their health insurance (no matter the President’s opinion); because of the fact that the state regulates which prescriptions must be covered by any plan, if something you need isn’t something that has been regulated, it is likely not included and you will be stuck with the entire, likely comically priced bill. I run into this problem due to allergies. Twice a year for several weeks at a time the earth turns on me, robbing me of my ability to speak, breathe comfortably and think clearly. Once available by prescription over the counter medications, Zyrtec and Allegra, offer minimal relief but often lose effectiveness very quickly. My only relief comes from an inhalant that is only available in prescription form and I only learned of its effectiveness when given a sample. I had been prescribed this inhalant in the past but it was not covered by my insurance and I scoffed at the $100 bill for a month’s supply preferring to wait Mother Nature out no matter how miserable I was. Upon receiving the sample sweet relief was mine several days in. What to do about the bill once my sample runs out? The maker of the inhalant offers a $50 discount card which makes the price finally palatable to me. It’s strange though, smelling somewhat of shenanigans. Why would the manufacturer offer such a discount instead of just lowering the damn price by the same amount? Since no one cares what I think I’ll never know. But at least a solution is found in light of my worthless to my own ailments prescription coverage.

New Mexico Governor Martinez was supposedly dealt a blow when a bill not stopping the practice of giving state driver’s licenses to illegal aliens was not passed in the latest legislative session. Some self identified non-partisan group is making noise about some ‘compromise’ bill that would have made everyone happy and shot jelly beans into the air. This ‘compromise’ bill’s aim was to make it slightly more difficult for illegal aliens to receive driver’s licenses. Madness. In the end no bill was ever passed ‘compromise’ or otherwise so there was really nothing the Governor could have done with no bill to sign or veto. And no compromise should be made. 80% of the state is against giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and the practice is in violation of federal law. This stalemate just proves that there are more legislators that need to be retired for others willing to do the people of New Mexico’s business.

I saw two movies this weekend. “Ninja”, the first, was released quite a while ago and was delightful fluff. The story was silly and the plot lines were conveniently zoomed past to ensure that the viewer would have no questions. There were tons of well choreographed action scenes and everything was wrapped up in a nice package. The second movie I saw was “The Switch” about a dude stuck in the friend zone who ends up figuring a way out, by sneaking in as the surrogate donor for his friend’s pregnancy. Hilarity did ensue. And while the ending was sudden it kind of made sense if you’ve ever been in the friend zone. It was by far the best movie that Jennifer Aniston has been in since Office Space. As if the unwatchable “The Bounty Hunter” provided any kind of hurdle. And I don’t care that Jason Bateman plays the same character in every movie. That character is awesome and applicable to just about any situation.

“Big Love”, HBO’s fictional series of polygamists ended this past weekend and my review is mostly bleh. The final two episodes of the show seemed to be housecleaning, attempting to tie up loose ends and answer a ton of questions in regard to the point of the show. Much of this last season has been adding layers to an already complicated storyline and as with a lot of stuff being ignored in any hasty housecleaning, much of those layers and characters that made up the show were apparently forgotten. Taking a lesson from the supposedly controversial ‘Soprano’s’ finale, HBO apparently took a “if in doubt, take them out” approach with “Big Love” and finished off the main character. Or was he the main character? In the end a ton of plot lines seemed to beat the viewer about the head with the idea that a ton of stuff = woman’s empowerment and all that stuff starts with polygamy and the wives were really the center even though they never were that in any episode prior to the last two minutes. Kind of a weird ending, but couldn’t be thought of as boring.

Why Support “Public” Broadcasting?

When one side of an argument resorts to dismissing the other by defining the other side’s position as an easily disparaged straw man it’s a clear indication that that side has no valid argument. A recent example of this type of posturing has surfaced recently as congress has moved to defund the corporation for public broadcasting (with the house already voting in the affirmative). The conservative side as defined by liberals seems to be two-fold. First, conservatives are too stupid to understand the high class, and therefore necessary, content of NPR and second that conservatives are “getting back” at NPR in defense of their colleague, Fox new contributor Juan Williams with momentum for defunding being driven by embarrassing comments coaxed out of NPR fundraising ex-personnel by an outfit called “Project Veritas”.

Let’s knock out these straw men in reverse order. I nearly spit out my coffee when the whole Juan Williams NPR firing fiasco was going on when he was described by many as the most conservative commentator on NPR. I’ve only listened to NPR briefly and have always been nearly instantly turned off by its programming either by boredom or being offended by their liberal commentary. All of my exposure to Williams has been on Fox news and if he’s a conservative then I clearly have no understanding of the term. To label Williams as conservative because of his employment at Fox news is silly nonsense. I believe that Williams is completely liberal, not that there’s anything wrong with that, and his new 7 figure contract (congratulations to him on that by the way) with Fox news after being dismissed by NPR hardly makes him a charity case.

On to the high class, indispensible content provided by NPR, and from PBS. If it’s so popular, so indispensible, why can’t it survive in the public sector? When I go to the toy store there are rows and rows of PBS branded toys sold at premium prices. The whole parents rioting and shortages of a popular toy at Christmas time was in large part originated by Tickle-Me-Elmo, a Sesame Street character toy. NPR supposedly has 35 million listeners, more than supposedly fat-cat Rush Limbaugh. Why in the world should I in addition to 88% of citizens in this country be forced to pay for something that none of us consume? Because only 10% of their listeners care enough to contribute to their unsustainable business model?

To pretend that NPR has no ideology is to pretend that no one does and to force supposedly free citizens to contribute to a network that they have no use for is asinine. If NPR really has so many listeners and provides such high brow content they should be able to lure advertiser dollars in the open market or be able to solicit some kind of subscription from listeners. If Sesame Street, Arthur and others can make many millions of dollars from toy sales they should be able to support PBS. When there were only three channels over the air and a dearth of radio perhaps the corporation for public broadcasting served an actual purpose. That is no longer the case. If they add value to society, let them prove it in the open market. Making the excuse that they can’t survive without subsidy is to insult their audience, and to the rest of us.

More NFL Mess

Last Friday the NFL Players Association (the NFL players union) decertified effectively closing negotiations and resulting in the current lockout of players from NFL facilities. News up to that point stated that the NFL had been active in providing new offers while the “union” demanded “the books” on the financial specifics of all NFL teams as a condition of continued negotiations. The decertification of the “union” was immediately followed by a class action lawsuit attempting to disallow the lockout led by popular NFL players Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Additionally, the “union” is actively discouraging this year’s draft class from attending NFL draft festivities.

The timing of the lawsuit, being announced at the same time as decertification and the show of the lead plaintiffs proves that the “union” is not interested in negotiations. They want to force the NFL to do their bidding by forming public opinion and playing on the sympathies of the court system. Taking a page from actual unions, they are forming a virtual picket line and attempting to intimidate future players from participating in an event that they have earned invitation to and may have been looking forward to for many years, the NFL draft.

A popular player, Adrian Peterson wasn’t being helpful to the “union” when he made incredibly short sighted comments in an interview on Yahoo sports:

Peterson called the NFL’s arrangement with his players "modern-day slavery" and a "rip-off." He added that players "are getting robbed"

What a mess. Peterson can attempt to walk back his comments but he said what he said and he comes off very badly as a result. Perhaps he did not mean for what he said to be made public but if it is what he truly thinks then it’s perfectly reasonable for it to be out there. His statements create a line where other players who desire to can choose to agree or disagree. As a statement it really demonstrates Peterson’s understanding, or lack thereof, of slavery.

Will the NFLPA’s tactics be successful? It seems likely as most of the sports media is complicit in force-feeding the public the “union” good, fat cat owners bad narrative. The “union’s” actions are very cynical and should be hurting their image but are being shielded by this narrative. Without the owners there would be no NFL and without the players there would be no league either but the league had to be there first for players to play. Millionaires comparing themselves to slaves demonstrate a stark separation from reality and excusing silly behavior because the owners are wealthier is a red herring argument without merit. For me personally the antics of the NFLPA and its unreasonable demands (for financial specifics) drown out their reasonable demands (not wanting an 18 game season). The owners are not sympathetic but at least seem to be acting in good faith while attempting to negotiate instead of the theatrics of the other side.

A lack of Responsibility

Following five hours of debate Wednesday evening the New Mexico state senate approved a bill to require fingerprinting, two documents to prove residency and license renewals every two years for those in the state illegally. Because there is not enough support in the state senate for an initiative that is supported by 80% of New Mexicans it seems likely that those in this state illegally will continue to be granted drivers licenses. Before considering the merits of either side, this issue must be framed within a simple truth. This discussion involves this state providing a benefit to people here illegally, as in, they have broken a law. For all the rhetoric one way or another we are talking about the allotment of a state benefit to non-citizen law breakers. For those who disagree with the law concerning who is and is not illegal, that is peripheral and irrelevant. The law is and state governments simply are not allowed to circumvent it at their convenience.

The two primary arguments presented in support of conferring driver’s licenses to those here illegally are first that because obtaining a drivers license requires insurance our roads will be safer because of more insured drivers and second that we are all generally safer from criminals who take advantage of this law because they are now in the license database and can be tracked.

Is there any data that proves that there are fewer uninsured drivers on New Mexico roads? A NMSU study looked at numbers provided by the New Mexico MVD and the Insurance Research Council (IRC, a consortium of industry) showing wildly different results. While both show similar numbers starting in 2002, the IRC number remains close to an average of 29% while MVD data steadily declines to 10% in 2008. MVD’s data is related to registered vehicles with no insurance while the IRC’s is related to car accident data. Basically the study was inconclusive, as stated it its executive summary.

The second point is confusing. Why would the government need to use the driver’s license database to track criminals? Is it possible to obtain a license as a criminal? And if these criminals have obtained licenses prior to becoming actual criminals how exactly is it helpful to know that they were able to obtain legal documents in New Mexico? And, as a democrat initiative is it even believable that democrat lawmakers would support using the MVD database for this ill-defined purpose?

The biggest proponent of the second argument is democrat state senator Eric Griego of Albuquerque who is best known for being a perpetual failed candidate for mayor in Albuquerque and for calling every listener of 770KKOB AM news radio and every supporter of ending the practice of giving driver’s licenses to those here illegally racist. This basically means that Griego is a pandering politician without an actual argument, instead retreating to caricaturing those who disagree with his nonsense position with cries of ray-cesss.

New Mexico’s driver’s licenses are in violation of the federal REAL ID Act and the only reason lawful residents of our state can travel to and through the rest of the United States is because a do-nothing U.S. Congress continues to grant postponements to the law’s implementation. Criminals from other countries are making New Mexico their first stop to take advantage of well meaning idiocy to travel freely to commit crimes all over the United States. There is no justifiable reason to continue this practice and it all starts with one simple word: illegal. New Mexico should not be providing a state form of identification to those who are not here legally.

The German Mindset

One of my best friends here is a German guy, who I've known since NJ and is now here. One of the things I've really enjoyed is getting to know the German mindset from him - he's in his 40s, so he was born right after the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) postwar and has lived a varied and interesting life. I've found a lot to admire in the German mindset, which gives me a little pride, as I've got a Germanic last name anyway. Just a few bullet points that you might find interesting:

• It is impossible to overestimate the level of national shame the Germans as a people feel about the Holocaust and the Nazi regime's crimes. In fact, it was only until the World Cup in 2006 that public displays of the German flag and other sorts of nationalism that are common everywhere else became widely accepted. I occasionally see the German tricolor on display in (gasp) Switzerland, even. Anyway, the guilt and shame still are raw to many, even though they had nothing to do with it (because they were born after it happened). I'm paraphrasing a quote here, but a guy said it "felt like being the son of a criminal". I find this tragic.
• It's not just Germany, it's also Austria. I met an Austrian girl and asked her what they did for their National Day - she said maybe sing the national anthem before class, and that was it. No fireworks, no nothing. In Switzerland, it sounds like a freakin war zone. But the Swiss didn't produce Hitler and engage in genocide, so it's ok for them.
• Germans are a very conservative people, in the sense that they are very calculated risk takers. They tend to manage their money very well, which is probably why the Deutsche mark was so strong before they were forced to convert to the Euro. They have insurance for everything.
• Children are EXTREMELY important in German culture - I mean, they imported kindergarten to the US. Just as an example: in Berlin, if you jaywalk or cross against a "Don't Walk" light, you will get chastised, even if there is no traffic. Why? Because a child might see you and follow your example.
• I find Germans and German speakers to have a better sense of personal responsibility than Americans, which is sad given our founding principles. I've had people here tell me that they hear about ridiculous lawsuits in America all the time, that it seems that people can sue you for anything...I can only nod in agreement. Here it's not the case - they figure if you are a stupid jackass, then you suffer the consequences for it. For that reason, fun semi-dangerous stuff doesn't abruptly end due to some idiot.
• Germans like Barack Obama, just like all Europeans. But I think it's only because they despised Bush. I don't think they have much respect for Obama, but are afraid they will seem racist if they say so - plus, they don't want to offend any Americans.

Anyway, just a few things. I think a lot of our mindset is shaped by our language, so I'm sure the German language has something to do with how they think. I wonder if someone has done that kind of research...

Switzerland

The 2011 Index of Economic Freedom was published a while back, and I got around to checking it out earlier this week. As one can see by looking at the top ten, the USA - supposedly the beacon of freedom and individual liberty for the world - continues to drop, and is close to falling out of the top 10. My current country of residence, Switzerland, held strong at number 5 and is the top country in Europe. Here's a short summary of my relevant experiences regarding this.

The Swiss have 4 national languages (and really, English is an unofficial national language). There is a sharp political divide between the more liberal French speaking cantons (similar to US states) and the more conservative German speaking cantons. In a continent in which political, religious, and ethnic differences have led to bloodbaths, how do they manage to build wealth that is the envy of Europe?

For one thing, they stay out of wars. I was a big time war hawk on Iraq/Afghanistan at one point, now I've rethought that for the past 5 years or so. Death and destruction are not effective tools for economic growth. Sure, there's a time to fight, but staying out of war is best - maybe later I can expand on this.

However, in my opinion, the major reason is that Switzerland is the federalist country that the USA wishes it was. The cantons hold much more power than the federal government. As an example, my federal taxes here are very low, on the order of 3%. The cantonal and communal taxes (yes, we pay local taxes too) are probably about 10-12%. This, to me, is preferable for two reasons - communes and cantons have to compete for taxpayers (individuals and businesses), and therefore adjust their rates accordingly. The federal government would feel no such pressure. Canton Schwyz, for example, would probably tax me at less than 5%! Nice canton too, maybe we should look into moving... [added later, forgot to add this] The second reason is that taxes paid locally and on the cantonal level are far more likely to benefit the taxpayer than the taxes paid to Bern. This reduces the likelihood of government waste, because it essentially places the product (taxpayer funded crap) closer to the customer (taxpayer). It creates a high level of civic engagement too, which I find refreshing.

This is just one example. Sure, the Swiss have some economic quirks I find irritating - for example, they are highly protectionist and therefore meat prices are unbelievably high. But overall, it's a great example of how federalism should work. The Swiss are a people proud of certain uniting characteristics - Alpine culture, banking secrecy, neutrality - and use these to unite their federation of cantons in spite of the enormous differences that exist, particularly language.

I'll try and post more on observations from Europe. I think I've gotten to know, in particular, the German (and German speaking) mindset. Till then - Tschüss!

Finders Keepers and Cold Hands

Where was my head yesterday afternoon? Not anywhere that could be considered functional. It started following an hour-long session on the elliptical at the gym. As I entered the locker room to change I realized that I had left the key chain containing my membership card and padlock key in the tray attached to the machine. Fortunately it was still there when I went back, only costing me a couple minutes. It continued on my way out. After changing I made it all the way to my motorcycle before realizing that I had left my jacket in the gym, in the front right pocket of which was my driver’s license and credit card. I then put my gym shoes and clothes into my trunk bag and went back in with my gloves in my pants pocket to retrieve the jacket which was still there. Then things got somewhat interesting.

Jacket now on I made it to my motorcycle again only to realize that I had dropped my gloves somewhere along the way. I started to walk towards the gym again with my gaze fixated on the ground. Looking up again I could see about fifteen yards ahead a woman briskly walking towards her car with a pair of black Alpinestars motorcycle gloves, my black Alpinestars motorcycle gloves. She was about to try them on. Yes, this person was planning to take my gloves home, finder’s keepers.

I called out to inform her that I believed that she had found my gloves. Seemingly startled by my calling out she replied, “Oh, I was surprised that no one was looking for these” to which I said, “yeah, it just happened a second ago and I was walking back towards the gym to find them, thank you for finding them”. She handed them over and looked to be a little embarrassed (or was it disappointment in the loss of her new gloves, I’ll never know). I thought about a clever retort but didn’t much feel like it. It might have been momentarily satisfying to call out this person but in the end I was just glad that I had found them and didn’t have to ride home without any hand protection having to spend an appreciable amount on a replacement pair.

This situation reminded me of a recent post by one of my Facebook friends. Their small child had lost a camera on an outing and was never found so they were wondering what their friends would do if they had encountered a lost camera. My reply was that I would leave it where it was. I wouldn’t take it but I wouldn’t try to find the owner or attempt to find a lost and found or anything either. Learning after the fact that the question was in regard to a child’s lost toy I was somewhat embarrassed by my response as I remember what it was like to lose something. I revised my response to taking them to some place of authority wherever it is that the item is found, in anticipation of some kind of lost and found.

Finders keepers is a term referred to above and it may seem justifiable, but really, finding my gloves outside of a gym and that person didn’t think that someone would be looking for them? That person didn’t have to do anything with them. They didn’t have to take them inside and hand them to the staff at the front desk; it would have been perfectly acceptable to leave them and continue walking. But to just pick them up, assume ownership and rush to her car is disappointing. At least I got there in time.

Random Thoughts – 3/7

There is no worse non-life-threatening affliction in my opinion than allergies. I have been fortunate in my life to suffer nothing more than the occasional cold or flu or fever and nothing worse than some assorted broken bones. I left New Mexico and lived in Arizona from 2001-2005 and when I returned to the Albuquerque area I was met with severe allergies that I never before experienced. My reactions have returned this weekend and have been quite crippling. I have not been able to breathe through my nose, have a sore throat and headache. Zyrtec, Allegra and Zicam, nothing has helped. I hope that I can get this taken care of in a Doctor’s appointment I have scheduled later this week.

Heather Wilson is running for U.S. Senator next year. I still prefer the not as of yet running Doug Turner but Wilson is definitely candidate 1a and will make an excellent Senator if elected. Congressman Heinrich is supposedly running and would be a horrible Senator if elected and we can only hope that he abandons his House seat to run only to lose in the end.

All the talk about potential 2012 presidential candidates huddling in Iowa or New Hampshire makes me very politically grumpy. It is asinine that these two states effectively determine the general election candidates for president. The voting rights act, a relic from a much different time and place, is renewed even though it’s only purpose is to allow meddling lawyers in the justice department to micro-manage imaginary problems while two states get to pick from the full palette of candidates forcing their preferences on the rest of the country. I don’t care what ridiculous reason is given; no state should be allowed to have their primary so much earlier than other states. If these states want to hold their primary incredibly early they should be barred from releasing results until the rest of the states can.

When ever, in a business sense, is it acceptable to answer a question with a repeated statement that has nothing to do with the question or with the response ‘I guess’? I spent almost an hour today on the phone asking what I thought was a simple question and receiving an irrelevant statement containing information that I already know as a response. So I had to restate and re-wrap and finally restated what I thought and when I sought agreement was told ‘I guess”. I already knew what I already knew and didn’t know what I didn’t know so I asked the question and belligerent responses containing what I already know was all I got. Maybe it’s the allergies causing me to not say what I think I’m saying, making it so that I am asking something that is basically incomprehensible. Being allergic certainly does make me even grumpier in my dealings with people who absolutely refuse to write anything down or answer what should be a simple question definitively.

On the NFL inanities

I blame scripted entertainment, movies and television specifically. Earlier this week I watched the movie Wall Street in anticipation of watching the recently released sequel as if the first were a prerequisite. It is a perfectly entertaining pile of dreck that follows the typical narrative of corporate bad and unions good. Viewers have been allegorically beaten senseless by this narrative in just about every work related to either subject. In Wall Street corporate raider and general scumbag Gordon Gecko exploits the son of the uber-sympathetic everyman union representative Carl Fox. The problem with this narrative is that the characters are nothing more than fictional representations only useful for caricaturing a reality that cannot possibly be explained in 100 minutes. In the end this narrative shapes the perceptions of viewers causing them to view real-people as cheap, simple to characterize cartoons.

The current caricature of the moment is the “labor dispute” in the NFL with Commissioner Roger Goodell, 31 team owners and Green Bay’s shareholder representative as Gordon Geckos and Charlie Batch as the loveable Carl Fox union representative. Don’t believe me that this is the basic template? What about a poll on the Mike & Mike page showing 60% support for the players versus the owners? How do you explain a highly trafficked sports website’s resident columnist vomiting by keyboard the following:

Make no mistake, if you don't get to watch football next fall, it will be because 31 rich a******s (and whatever cheese-and-sausage co-op owns the Packers) have decided that they aren't rich enough. Period.

This type of opinion is nothing more than a reflection of the decades old narrative that has been spoon-fed to the public in television and movies. As if the NFL players association is in any way similar to any other union that has ever existed. As if the NFL as an enterprise is similar to any other company. Neither is and whatever division that exists between the NFL and the players association exists between those two entities and any agreement amongst them must be accepted by both parties as they decided to create a reality where both symbiotically exist. In a sense public opinion is important because they are after all the customer of the product and after years of subsidizing stadiums via tax dollars deserve to understand what’s going on. But as a private enterprise, the two parties must be allowed to negotiate in private. And as a symbolic stadium landlord (if your current municipality is so lucky to have subsidized such a thing) unfortunately you get to pound sand as your rent-seeking politicians are the ones who directed your contributions to building very large buildings that you have to pay ever increasing amounts to step inside of.

Perhaps it’s the contrarian in me but all this prototypical thinking; owners bad, players good makes me root for the owners. In truth I don’t blame nor do I cheer either side. The end result of no NFL is no good but at this point it is what it is. There was an agreement and in that agreement there was the ability to opt-out at a certain time. The party who could opt-out decided to do just that and now they have to re-negotiate the agreement. Both sides understand that there is a likelihood that prolonged negotiations could pre-empt sales of their product which could lead to angry customers doing considerable damage to the brand that is responsible for both side’s lucrative being. It seems reasonable to assume that in the end cooler heads will prevail and agreement will be reached. And if not, then they will face the consequences of their actions. But why think intelligently about it, when the sides can be split into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on fictional caricatures?

The Stale Situation

While the entire world as presented by the news media seems to be singularly obsessed with the incoherent ramblings of an actor, the consequences of his actions may lead to the dissolution of a genre of television that can be referred to as the all-too-literal situation comedy. There was once upon a time that I would have been disappointed to learn of the demise of the comedy, Two and a Half Men, but for more than a while it has served as nothing more than background noise in the absence of anything better on in the vetes household. But now The Cape airs opposite and something better is indeed on.

When it first aired it was funny, interesting and different. And many years later after changing nothing, it is the complete opposite; unamusing, boring and derivative. What went wrong was that the show outlived its usefulness after a few years, addicted to high ratings which seemed to have made the creators resistant to any meaningful change. It’s impossible to blame the creators for their adherence to a strict formula as the show continues to garner top scripted comedy ratings year after year.

Sitcom is a compound made up word short for situation comedy, which is typically referred to as a group of recurring characters in a common environment who find themselves in farcical situations. Hilarity ensues. Rinse, lather, syndication. The failure of Two and a Half Men is in that it is an all-too-literal sitcom meaning that the entire show is predicated on a very specific situation that for the purposes of the title can bear no variance whatsoever, therefore the characters can never change and nothing different can occur. This can work in a cartoon, like the Simpsons, but not for long in a live action show.

CBS, the network which airs Two and a Half Men is a master of this genre, their half-hour comedy offerings are littered with examples. How I met your Mother, a decent show is so stale and riddled with false starts related to the show’s premise that if Henry Winkler guest starred for some shark jumping off the Hudson River, no one would be surprised. It might have already occurred. Mike and Molly and Mad Love, two shows about the romance of a specific couple are basically interchangeable minus the settings and specific characters and can never veer from that romance. Rules of Engagement stars a perpetually engaged couple whom are always talking about a wedding that never comes. All rubbish.

The only comedy on CBS that is currently watchable is The Big Bang Theory which follows a group of Physicists, an Engineer and one Physicist’s actress object of affection as they mostly do nothing. It will grow stale as well, but after a longer time and for normal reasons, the characters will get old. Being a physicist is a career and not a situation. And it’s plausible that a socially awkward group of friends would likely be long-term roommates. And that hilarity will often ensue. Friends and Seinfeld proved in the 90’s that shows based on basically nothing have the longest shelf life and one can only hope that the demise of Two and a Half Men will lead to more shows based on generalities rather than the hyper specific.

Random Thoughts - 3/1

Albuquerque Public Schools commissar Brooks is looking to institute random drug testing for extra-curricular students at La Cueva high school, in response to problems with drugs and misbehavior within the school’s athletic programs. Unfortunately this effort is nothing more than a “we must do something” response that avoids actually dealing with the problem. Random drug testing is a stupid response imposed as it is supposedly a “fairer” way to deal with drug problems. All random testing does is harass innocents and only applying it to one school and one section of students within that school ensures that pot-smoking athletes will just quit and blend back in to the general student population. It is not profiling to apply probable cause to test those suspected of using illegal substances and it is not reasonable to only test only some students in one school. If drugs are that much of a problem testing should be widespread. So-called ‘random’ tests are very much akin to frisking elderly women from Topeka at airports as if they were terrorists, pointless. Tepid measures like this is the reason why the so-called war on drugs is so often cited as a failure.

I have been reading the ESPN the magazine fiction issue in recent days and while some of the stories are somewhat entertaining they are mostly incomplete, incoherent or just not very good. The best story in my opinion was about a 40ish recreation league basketball player who decides to stop being a bum. I had o imagine my own ending though because the story just sort of veers off a cliff where an ending could be, isn’t clear and makes no sense. What’s striking is how monolithically liberal any political mentions are. There is a what-if scenario involving former President Bush being chosen as MLB commissioner paving the way for a diplomatic President Gore, a first-person story of Giant’s pitcher Brian Wilson’s beard reminiscing its days changing the world with Castro. How juvenile and ridiculous. It will always be wishful thinking unfortunately to imagine a world with sportswriters that stick to sports.

Donald Trump was interviewed today on the Rush Limbaugh radio program because of his recent speech at CPAC as a perspective Republican nominee for president in 2012. What a train wreck that would be. Trump meandered for about twenty minutes making generic fear mongering arguments without offering any solutions outside of blaming China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, etc for everything and anything without really explaining why. Fortunately he has less than a sliver of a chance in a GOP primary.

Red light cameras have come to Rio Rancho. The first’s at Unser and Northern Blvd and the other at Unser and Southern Blvd. Drivers have 30 days to get their speeding in, remember to wave at the camera boxes, before they start to count and sending tickets. Citations will be made for those driving 11mph or more over the speed lime or running a red light as programmed into the boxes.

Overturning an odd statute, the New Mexico state senate has approved a bill allowing the sale of alcohol before noon in restaurants and bars. Well, sort of overturning. The noon requirement will still be in effect for stores that sell liquor for purposes of off-site consumption. Proponents of the noon requirement state that it aids efforts to crack down on drunk driving, which while happy thinking is nonsense. It would have been better to lift any restrictions based on time as they are essentially worthless. The only way to curtail drunken driving entirely is to completely eliminate alcohol consumption. Which is impossible. A nonsensical law like the noon requirement is only another “we have to do something” response that does nothing to help.