The Forced Purchase Canard

With discussions ongoing on net-neutrality or as I like to call it, congress taking Al Gore’s invention and ruining it with nonsensical burdensome regulations that what will ultimately lead to higher costs for less access, what needs more understanding ultimately is exactly what is meant by privacy on the interwebs. After all, privacy and equal access (whatever that means) are the stated goals of high-minded control schemes such as net neutrality.

An informative article in the Wall Street Journal online this morning makes an attempt at identifying ten internet privacy myths and then debunking them, most interesting to me is the following:

10) Targeted advertising leads people to buy stuff they don't want or need. This belief is inconsistent with the basis of a market economy. A market economy exists because buyers and sellers both benefit from voluntary transactions. If this were not true, then a planned economy would be more efficient—and we have all seen how that works.

This myth is oft repeated and typically put forth by democrat politicians as a protection for “the people” against the unscrupulous “big business”. In reality it is a misunderstanding of a market based economy by liberal politicians that apparently believe that “the people” are incapable of being responsible for their own behavior.

I know people that every time they have a dollar coming in have already spent two and the reason why they never drown in their debt is because of bailouts and “protective” mechanisms that keep them afloat. These people have no one to blame but themselves and should instead declare bankruptcy so that they no longer can get credit to buy things that they cannot afford. This instructional moment should serve as a moment of introspection and a learning experience. These types of people are too often deemed victims by power hungry legislators and “protective” actions invariably become ways for some to defer responsibility. While billed as compassionate, “protective” legislation is often anything but.

Much of the content on the web is offered at no cost to the consumer, paid for by directed advertisements. Without these advertisements there could not be any no-cost to the consumer services. These advertisements do not force the consumer to do anything. And when they direct the user to a product or service the consumer still does not have to do anything, it requires a conscious decision by a person to make a purchase. There is no coercion here and stating otherwise is a lie.

A Call to Action or Shoving off Responsibility?

Recently populating the radio waves are calls to action imploring citizens of Albuquerque to tattle on other citizens. The first concerns spills at auto salvage yards and the second concerns suspected intoxicated drivers.

Both of these initiatives are flawed in that they require people who may not have the proper grasp of the subject to make judgments that can adversely affect a business or an individual. This is an undue responsibility to non-experts and only invites false alarms reported by busy bodies.

No one advocates for the spilling of hazardous materials anywhere and it is difficult to believe, as the commercial implies, that auto salvage yards refuse to participate in monitoring activities. With a myriad of federal and local regulations there surely must be some way for authorities to verify compliance. A person unfamiliar with the chemicals in use and the conditions that lead to spills should not be left to make this determination. What also must be considered are property rights, the commercial almost goes to the point to encourage people to spy on private companies which could unnecessarily hinder legal action because of due process.

The program that the city of Albuquerque has in place for people to report suspected drunk drivers is even more troubling. Imagine the following scenario; a relationship goes sour and one party follows the other to a bar and after the followed leaves the follower immediately calls the reporting number and gives details about the first party’s path home. The first party may or may not be intoxicated and there is a fuzzy line concerning what constitutes intoxication. In this scenario the first party is right at that line where it is at the officer’s discretion to determine if a person is impaired. This person is not driving erratically and by subjective means may not be considered drunk by the casual observer but may be by an overly cautious or aggressive officer. Without this “tip” this person never would have been stopped. However it is now possible because of an act motivated by malevolence they will now be stopped and may be arrested for being impaired which could seriously damage this person’s immediate future.

This state does have a problem concerning drunk driving and everything must be done to counter it however a dedicated hotline will only cause more problems than it solves. Any thinking person recognizing a dangerous driver, no matter the underlying circumstance, can and should report that person through existing means. Having a dedicated line will only encourage misuse which will add strain to existing resources and has the potential to harm innocents.

Secondary as a concern is the question of the effectiveness of current regulations and their enforcement. Citizens pay a large amount of their incomes in order to support these activities and it is disparaging to citizens listening to these types of ads because it lowers confidence in those entrusted with enforcement when they must implore those who pay for services to perform them as well.

Tax Dollars to Send Baseball Player to Prison...

It was when I was 8 or 9 years old on a trip to the flea market at the New Mexico fairgrounds my parents bought me my first set of baseball cards. It was the 1987 Revco drugs all star pack featuring a couple dozen cards of standout players. Roger Clemens was one of the included players in that set and from that pack on I have considered myself a fan of Clemens. I have never been a fan specifically of any of his four teams and I think the theme of that pack of cards likely laid the road to the way that I am; more a fan of players in Major League Baseball as opposed to any single team.

Today, Roger Clemens finds himself under indictment for lying under oath to Congress before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform stating that he did not use steroids while a former trainer and a teammate asserted that he had. The charges under the indictment include “obstruction of Congress”, making false statements and perjury and are based on a grand jury investigation into Clemens that began hearing testimony more than 18 months ago.

The Congress show trials on the scourge of steroids in baseball, of course in the name of the children, all those years ago was unnecessary and wasteful and this indictment only furthers the valid point that the Congress spends too much time on things that just don’t matter and outside of their responsibilities. In this trial it is asserted that in the face of his denials Clemens knew exactly that he had used steroids in the past based on the testimony of others.

Based on others grilled by the Congressional panel who changed statements, if Clemens had later contradicted himself and apologized he would not have faced any further scrutiny while actually perjuring himself. According to sources he could face up to thirty years in prison on the charges. While it would be unlikely that he would be found guilty on all counts and there is much leeway in regard to sentencing guidelines the possibility of 30 years incarceration is completely over the top even if he is guilty.

No doubt detractors of Clemens, such as ESPN’s Sport’s Guy Bill Simmons, may view this news as a reason to celebrate, a reaction completely tied to emotion. Clemens, like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, to cite recent examples, are being trotted out for public ridicule and faces losing his freedom as he approaches his fifties (and could be into his eighties!) because Congress cannot help itself to wade into issues that it has no business in and then taking out convenient targets on politically motivated charges.

This is not justice; instead it is more proof that the US government is too big, disorganized and preoccupied to serve the citizens of this country. Here’s to Clemens beating this wrap and embarrassing Congress at the same time. And, here’s to more Obstruction of Congress, something that I think everyone can get behind. They need to be stopped.

The Cell Phone Ban is not the Answer

The Albuquerque city council is considering strengthening the city’s ban on cell phone usage while driving. Distracted driving is a serious thing and there must be laws on the book that discourage such behavior. The cell phone ban is inadequate to stop distracted driving and should be replaced with widely applicable, simplified legislation that is easy to understand and enforce.

The reason why city council has to add to the law is because the way it is currently written, a person who is stopped at a light or a stop sign and using their phone is technically not in violation. It leads one to wonder what will be next. After the latest spackling of a hole found by a defense lawyer where will the next one be found?

The most troubling aspect of this law is that it only applies to cell phones and not anything else that leads to distracted driving. It is confounding if considered in the context that distracted driving is really just another form of reckless driving – “driving with a willful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”.

Instead of making new laws, offenses that are applicable within the framework of existing laws should be punishable under existing law. Whenever new laws are considered they are more often than not lengthy and the longer they get the more holes exist. It better serves the public to simplify legislation.

The cell phone ban should be wiped from the books and in its place reckless driving statutes should specify the act of distracted driving defined as the operation of a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property because of any distraction.

The simpler the better and if the legal terms must be better defined, fine. Let the city attorney determine what is appropriate but remember to give them a strict word count limit and a list of words they can use so that drivers can comprehend the result.

Assumptions of Groupthink

Earlier this week the majority leader of the US Senate, democrat Harry Reid of Nevada made a statement about how he could not understand how any Hispanic could be Republican. After being questioned further on the subject Reid’s office sent out a statement clarifying that he meant he couldn’t understand why anyone would ever vote Republican because they are against Teachers, Police, Firemen, Bigfoot, Tinkerbell, Sunshine, Rainbows, etc.

These statements come from the leader of the United States Senate. Ostensively the US Senate is an august body comprised of noble and respected leaders. With a majority leader like Reid the Senate has become even more of a joke than low opinion poll ratings suggest.

On the original statement there have been some liberal commentators agreeing with the sentiment and there have been some conservative and Hispanic commentators refuting the comment and the senator. What is woefully missing from both sides is an ability to allow for the idea that Hispanics are free thinking people and as such, depending on many things come to political stances for many reasons. It is condescending for anyone, even with egocentric good intentions, to assign groupthink to any person or group because of ancestral origin.

Based on similar statements that I have heard throughout my lifetime it seems as though democrats are playing to an audience of certain groups that they assume buy in to this kind of talk. I happen to be Hispanic but my opinion amounts to almost nothing to democrats because I do not share their views on governance. It doesn’t matter how angry that these kind of comments make me because they don’t have my vote anyway. Because of this it appears that this statement was a calculated attempt at strengthening the assumptions of like minded voters. That the assumption is false is of no consequence.

In the clarification statement Reid peddles the tired liberal characterization of the Republican platform. An illustration of this came this week as congress was called back into session to vote on a 26 billion dollar funding of certain public sector jobs. Teachers were to benefit the most but the bill has a poison pill wherein the funds must be spent on expanded spending and on not recovering deficits in state budgets. The funding for the bill came from the roll back in expansion of food stamps to occur from 2013-1015. Democrats like Reid point to initiatives like this to prove that Republicans are against teachers but that just isn’t true. The funding for the food stamps program doesn’t exist yet, it is assumed savings. The gargantuan stimulus bill (targeted and short term) passed early last year still has not been fully spent and the democrat controlled congress would not allow the Republican suggestion to use unused stimulus funds. The Republican stance here was not to spend money that we simply do not have on programs that may not be necessary. It seems that to democrats; every teacher, police and fire fighter jobs must be funded no matter the state of the budget and without proper accounting. Worse yet these three hallowed positions are always used to cover other, less palatable political spending on public sector employment.

Friendly Gestures

More than once I have been told by female friends that they have few, if any, female friends for various reasons most of which seem to be stereotypical. A couple events recently relayed to me by my wife had me shaking my head and rethinking these stereotypes. Maybe there’s more truth than assumptions there.

One of my wife’s friends recently got married to her long time boyfriend and from what I could determine was every bit the bridezilla type.

In one instance the bride to be gave a list of instructions to the bridesmaids detailing every second of the wedding day. At face this was no big deal, who wouldn’t want to be more organized? Reading the actual instructions I was struck by the detail and the way it was written. It was incredibly insulting; this woman was treating her friends like infants. I thought about what would happen if a dude distributed this note to his friends. He would have no more friends.

This same bride prided herself on planning every detail and inviting every guest to her groom’s bachelor party. This poor dude already had a problem getting enough groomsmen evidenced by two of them questioning their presence throughout the wedding and before that he couldn’t even be trusted to enjoy himself at a party for himself by his friends. Thankfully I was not invited so I didn’t have to turn down the invitation. The bride remained in constant contact with the groom throughout the night, ignoring her friends at the bachelorette party and further emasculating him. I could just imagine a group of dudes only tangentially knowing the groom sitting in a room afraid of the bride. Yes, that’s correct they stayed home, probably playing pin the juevos on the whipped dude.

Another instance involves a friend of my wife who is looking into buying a new car. She was talking to a life-long, best friend of hers specifically about the friend's new-ish car that she had bought earlier this year. This best-friend of my wife’s friend proceeded to tell her that her car cost eight thousand dollars more than it did. My wife was astounded by the fake price of the car and asked me about it. I went to Edmunds.com to check it out and learned that at the trim level of the car there were no options so the base price of just over 17 thousand dollars was the final price. It was a strange lie. First because it was so easily found out and second because lying about the price of the car had no benefit. This is not a sought after car, there is no premium added by the dealer and no one would be jealous of someone who paid eight grand over sticker for a subcompact. It appears as though the best friend was trying to discourage my wife’s friend from buying the same car.

When I was in my last semester of college I almost bought the same car as one of my best friends and he went with me to the test drive. A dude would talk up his car and then brag about fleecing the dealer. By the way, the car I bought last fall, I bought for almost 5 grand under sticker. It’s wicked fast and looks awesome.

So what’s the deal? As with anything involving the female world I’m clueless but with more stories like the above I start to understand my female friends a little more when they complain about their female friends.

Taxing the Wealthy?

One interesting aspect of politics is that it is completely fungible. Depending on one’s perspective a political stance can basically mean anything and it doesn’t seem to be something that is always consistent with an accepted line of thinking.

In a recent with a conversation with a friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative we talked about an issues that is in the forefront in regard to this fall’s election, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush in 2001 and 2003 that are set to expire next year.

In the context of this conversation I learned that my friend, who I thought was mostly conservative, is an advocate of tax increases and more specifically an advocate of raising taxes on “the wealthy”. I was appalled because that position is something that I will never support. Every time that I hear politicians rant against “the rich” not paying their “fair share” I am instantly turned off. I am not wealthy and if anyone commits tax fraud I believe that they are certainly not paying their fair share by literal definition.

My friend’s position is that because there are so many obligations of government, benefits and services, taxes must go up and that because “the wealthy” make so much they would not miss it so they should be taxed more. And with that my friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative changed to my friend who apparently is an advocate of big government.

Assuredly there is some validity in the first part of that argument, as government grows it costs more and as a result the money to pay for it must come from the taxpayer. That is how government makes money. Personally I disagree with that because I do not believe that every “benefit” of government is necessary and that the solution lies in a drastic reduction in spending. See, fungible, depending on one’s viewpoint.

The second part of the statement was the one that I found the most appalling. Anyone who honestly believes that “the wealthy” don’t pay their fair share is in acute need of study. In this country we have something called a “progressive” tax code that is comprised of six tax brackets. Using the brackets the higher a person’s income, the more taxes are paid on each ascending level. At the top of the bracket the earner pays each bracket on each slice of income and from the top up to the rest of their income is assigned the highest percentage.

An analysis of tax receipts shows that the top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of taxes collected while earning 22.8% of income on an average income of about $410k. The top 10% of income earners on average make $113k making 48.05% of income and pay 71.22% of taxes.

10% of income earners is a minority of citizens in our country and because they are earners are not likely to get any “benefits” from the government outside of paved roads, sidewalks and the common defense, what the government should be providing. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 3% of taxes and along with the people who do not pay any taxes basically have a majority voting block on the other 97% of tax revenue, voting themselves “benefits”.

This condition is a form of tyranny. On emotion alone it can be argued that this view is cruel or reflexively anti poor. This argument and how it is arrived to is the problem. Too many people make decisions made on emotion alone and doing so discounts reality leading to the countless problems that come from big government picking winners and losers and making too many citizens into dependents. It robs the freedom of people and it has an ill effect on many communities where too many people never have a chance because they are conditioned to believe that the role of government is to provide everything and when the government provides everything it only provides just enough and there can be no success.

There should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens and there must be accountability from those citizens to hold government to that promise. The low wage earner should strive to earn more as they gain experience and not be jealous of those that earn more and not making claims on the earnings of others. The pursuit of happiness is a core founding principle of our country. Over taxation and pitting us citizens against each other on the basis of income robs us of that pursuit.

This week...

It was a strange week and a busy week. There was a lot of news and most of it requires more waiting which I find especially frustrating because of my current work situation, which involves lots of waiting.

Brett Favre is back in the news. One day this week he was retiring. And the next he was going to play if he was physically able to. So, effectively nothing happened. But it was covered nearly breathlessly by the sports media for several days. Continue to stand by.

A judge in California strikes down the state’s Prop 8, defining state sanctioned marriage as between one male and one female or denying the right to marriage to gay couples depending on one’s viewpoint, because the traditional definition was no longer valid and of 80 “fact” findings of the judge, all agreed with his viewpoint. How convenient. This was a state judge so it now heads to the federal appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. Continue to stand by. The most sense I have read on this came from David Harsanyi:

isn't it about time we freed marriage from the state?...Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman -- or no one at all -- and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.

In the end though it’s all about government “benefits”. “Benefits” that I never seem to be eligible for and every day it becomes clear is simply a code word for the ability of the government to take from some and give to others for “the greater good”.

Last week the pricing for the Chevy Volt and the government “benefit” of $7500 towards that price was announced. The President hailed the vehicle as a beacon to our future. Others made fun of a car that costs more than twice as much as its gas powered equivalent that can only go 40 miles on a charge while others derided both sides and deemed themselves correct, in the middle. Whatever that is.

The First Lady, Mrs. Obama, took to Spain on vacation. Renting dozens of hotel rooms with dozens of friends. Some of it was on their dime. Much on ours, including Air Force 2 and the salaries and travel costs of up to 60 secret service agents. Interesting how the news isn’t reporting on this trip as much as President Bush was hammered for vacations at his own ranch.

It was the President’s 49th birthday this week and he celebrated by going home to Chicago and meeting with Unions and throwing fundraisers for democrat candidates. In continuing to blame President Bush for today’s economic circumstances the current President is actually calling out the former President, by name. How presidential. It makes one wonder when this president will actually be president, when exactly does history begin for President Obama?

And unfortunately, Denver Broncos linebacker and sack specialist Elvis Dumervil has torn a pec muscle. It is likely that he will miss the season. A bad sign for an inconsistent defense.

Criminalizing "Finders Keepers"...

From the “Would this even stand up in court file”:

Under the new Tac Plan, officers leave a backpack with items worth more than $2,500 at Gold and Fourth. If passersby take the backpack without reporting it to police, they are arrested and charged with felony counts of larceny.

The story linked is about how this plan, hatched by the Albuquerque Police Department, is on hold but I’m left wondering how it was ever approved. Surely APD has their plans reviewed by the district attorney and apparently this plan was, as the story states. As a matter of fact, the reason why this plan is being put on hold is not because it is clearly entrapment but because it was approved by someone who no longer works in the district attorney’s office.

It seems that APD is really reaching with this tactic because as far as I can tell, “finders keepers” is not nor has have ever been a crime. In the story the details of a bust are shared in which a man was arrested after officers followed him for more than an hour after he found the bag. So, on top of entrapment, APD is wasting officer’s time by having them follow people for holding on to something that they have found.

Is it genial to find a backpack with $2500 worth of items in it and not report it to anyone? Of course not but it isn’t a crime either. And what do the people that find the backpack and then return it to the officers standing nearby get, a cookie?

I get it, it’s rough if you leave anything of value somewhere and then after going back it’s gone and there’s no lost and found and no one has called to let you know they have it. But, you only have yourself to blame. I have lost things in multiple places and often I’m lucky and it’s either right where I left it or someone someplace found it and kept it in a safe place. Other times, it’s gone. And I only have myself to blame in that situation.

Another problem with this kind of plan is that it does not appear that after being caught, could the person arrested even be successfully prosecuted? Imagine the lack of laws in regard to “finders keepers” legislation that a competent attorney could drive a car through in court. Imagine a situation where the person arrested attests that they kept it for safekeeping until they got home in order to contact the owner in some way and because the officers arrested them before they could do that that they did not get to complete their plan. A lot of the charge has to be intent and it seems impossible to tell in this kind of situation. You know, contrived.

The purpose of the plan as stated is to stop thefts of personal bags in the downtown Albuquerque area. Tricking people who would not otherwise actually rob anyone by leaving a bag stuffed with valuables is dirty and can only distract officers from protecting ordinary citizens from actual criminals. This plan should never be awaken from its current slumber.

Take out WikiLeaks

In a column titled “WikiLeaks must be stopped”, the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen writes on a subject that I have often thought about recently as a result of the WikiLeaks website publishing of more than seventy five thousand US Military classified documents:

WikiLeaks is not a news organization; it is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies. These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism. The Web site must be shut down and prevented from releasing more documents -- and its leadership brought to justice.

Thiessen continues by outlining his reasoning for shutting down WikiLeaks, arresting the operators and the methods that are available to the United States government to do both. This article is more than overdue. It is hard to understand why the recently commissioned U.S. Cyber Command and/or the National Security Agency seemingly do not have the initiative and authority to remove WikiLeaks from cyberspace.

The owner of WikiLeaks is an Australian who travels through friendly countries in Europe and brags that his web site is impenetrable which surely can’t be true. There must be some government agency, specifically the two listed above that could have taken this threat and wiped it from the web. This gross criminal act, if another country did this it would be rightly considered an act of war, is not the first time that this site has posted classified U.S. documents and they even allowed U.S. and European newspapers to look at the current batch before they were posted online. There was plenty of warning and time for some government agency to take positive action to protect this information.

And in the absence of government action, why are there no patriotic hackers able to attack the web site as an act in service of their country? Certainly there are hackers in this country capable to taking out WikiLeaks and covering their tracks so that they cannot be found. It would be a source of national pride that some individual or group with the capability to do so would.

The opinion exists that much of the documentation is old and therefore not all that important. This opinion completely misses the point. The point is that a criminal has taken it on their own to illegally obtain and share secrets of our country. It does not matter that the harm done is less than if the documents were more current. That argument requires blind luck and the next time that WikiLeaks posts U.S. classified information that luck may not be there.

It is frustrating and pathetic that our government either can’t or will not confront the criminals that comprise WikiLeaks. It cannot be soon enough that the decision is made to take this criminal organization out and a visit to their website leads to a site not found error and the operators themselves are in jail.

Albuquerque takes a step towards limiting HOAs

Several years ago, shortly after moving into my first home, I found trouble with the homeowner’s association (HOA). It was my original preference to find a neighborhood that did not have an HOA because even though I had never lived within one everything I heard or read about them was negative. The whole concept to me seemed akin to signing up to be bullied by neighbors. My trouble was in regard to dead lawn in my front yard that was that way when I moved in; eventually everything was cleared up but not without much hassle.

Albuquerque City Councilor Isaac Benton will be presenting a proposal so that homeowners can xeriscape their yards even if a HOA covenant requires a certain amount of the homeowner’s front yard be grass. An attorney representing the Tanoan Community Association derides the proposal as government interjecting itself into “private” rights.

Let me be clear, there is no such thing as “private” rights in connection with a homeowner’s association. The only purpose served by an HOA is to allow power hungry control freaks to lord over their neighbors and dictate actual private rights. By sanctioning such burdensome organizations, our local governments have made it almost mandatory for the individual to cede many rights to these control freaks as a requirement of homeownership.

Take for example the story of a HOA in Texas that repossessed and auctioned a 300,000 dollar home for 3,500 dollars on account of 800 dollars owed in dues. This is tyranny. While letters were sent to the homeowner no one ever visited or called the homeowners to verify in person. These were these people’s neighbors, who wouldn’t have had to walk even a quarter mile to talk to them, taking their house over a negligible amount and selling it for a joke of a price. There was no court date, in Texas HOAs can take property without going to court. They can take property without due process. This is an abomination.

While this story is ending favorably for the original homeowners, it never should have happened. HOAs do serve the purpose of ensuring that people take care of their homes so that they do not have a negative effect on the property values of neighbor’s. If that is all that they did there would be no problem but as time has gone by HOA covenants have become epic tomes that would make the US House of Representatives envious by account of page count and doubletalk. All of this nitpicking results in the complete micromanaging of one’s homes, trampling rights and prizing conformity.

Adding to my personal insult, when I moved into my home it was accepted that some of the 206 dollars in yearly dues would be used toward common area maintenance. Since, I have learned that those common areas are very limited as I am charged with maintaining to their standard the common sidewalk areas immediately in front of my home. Additionally, while the HOA excels at sending threatening letters they have no teeth as evidenced by poor upkeep at homes within several hundred yards of my own.

So, what exactly do I pay 206 dollars a year for? For the pleasure of being harassed by self-important control freaks, that’s what. The proposal in front of city council is a good start and hopefully it will pass. The next step that must be pursued is legislation that limits what and what not HOAs can force on peaceful residents, ensuring that covenants are clear and of a reasonable length and that a responsible homeowner has some way of defending themselves within the law against these tyrants.

Wired's Defense of Nonsense

Almost two months ago I posted in regard to a mystical Wired magazine equation that attempted to prove just how much CO2 is produced by humans. The flaw with this equation is that it starts with a variable F, meant to show Global CO2 emissions, that was explicitly on both sides which means that any other variable in the equation does not matter.

Being monks in the secular religion of global warming/man caused climate change the editors at Wired cannot help themselves from further obfuscation. In a reply titled “It Is What It Is” from the August 2010 issue, they state “Of course the two sides are equal-that’s what scientists call an equation”.

On the face of things, that is true but what the editors neglect is that an equation is to show that one can arrive at a value by calculating some combination of other values. If the right side of the equation relies on the same exact value as the left side and contains other values that cancel each other out, those other values are meaningless.

Let’s look at an example. Ohm’s law, V = IR can be written as V = I * V/I which means V = V, but it is not written that way because current (I) and resistance (R) are tangible quantities and so long as two values are known, the third can be determined. From the way it is written, the user needs to know I and R to determine V or the left side is determined by known values on the right. Wired’s equation tries to show how to calculate the left side but it requires that left side to solve itself (by way of being explicitly on the right) which is ridiculous. This is forcing the issue by using unknowable values that can be whatever the user desires because if A = B*C/B*D/C*A/D all you’re proving is that A = A and B, C and D never matter. B, C and D can literally (H/T Sean Hannity) be anything. And if one plays with the equation on the Wired website that anything is used to show that the Earth is always doomed because humans are awful.

To Wired, this doesn’t matter. Like every other climate alarmist instead of acknowledging the obvious they mock inquiries into their methods and continue to push mythology. The title of the response should have been “It Is What It Is And You Should Believe Us Just Because, Ignore What You Know, There Is Nothing To See Here”. And these are not the droids that you are looking for.

While Wired sticks to nonsense equations I will stick to my earlier statement;

This is a perfect illustration of why many don’t take warmmongers seriously anymore. Why should the public believe in this stuff if the purveyors treat us like imbeciles?

In search of clarity

In an interesting business turn recently I had the pleasure to ask in all seriousness if someone who was looking for me to give them something if they were indeed looking for me to give them something. This seemingly strangely worded account stems from one of my deepest desires, the desire that those I interact with tell me exactly what it is that they want and why. It is a perplexing and much too common occurrence that someone wants something but for whatever reason determines that the best method to get that something is to obfuscate.

It all started with a University that was looking into obtaining a software application that my company developed for a particular class and to be used in lab. The initial query came in the form of an email and was worded in a way that could be taken in multiple ways. And multiple ways were taken by several people in my company’s chain of command evidenced by the Office Space style way that I received the same note from multiple people imploring that I rush to take care of this business opportunity.

While my boss’ boss read it as a possible large sale and even the prospect of a development partner (!?), I read it from the beginning as someone looking to us to give them product and support. This read of the request was apparent to me because the request was wordy and mentioned the word agreement many times, non-monetary benefits to my company for participation and an appeal to the CEO of the company who, tangential interest in the purpose of this particular school. Not exactly a sales inquiry.

Several days after responding by email and phone the representative of the school called and we spoke about it for several minutes. Details of the class and flattering comments of the software were shared by this representative while not once mentioning that his purpose was a hand out. While I do have the almost supernatural ability to recognize winks and nods over the phone and in writing I won’t respond to them. I asked the representative to send me an email detailing their proposal, stressing the importance of clarity.

When that email came it again was heavy on platitudes while empty on details. This led to my question, asking specifically if what was being proposed was the dispatch of software at no cost and finally the representative replied in the affirmative.

It could be thought that because I knew exactly what was going on that this whole episode was not necessary and while valid is beside the point. There is no reason why adults need to hide their intentions when talking business with other adults. There is no reason for a University to hide their intentions and it is not uncommon for companies to provide students with complementary products, after all I bought a calculator for college based on experiences with one that I used in high school compliments of the manufacturer. Let me be clear, I want to be asked.

It is not too much to ask for someone looking to solicit something for nothing to tell you what exactly they want. This kind of behavior is much too common and it is confusing as to the cause. It seems almost as if there are some people that believe sharing their true intentions would lead to a negative response. It is beyond puzzling why making the other person guess while hiding those intentions is better. Whatever happens in the future it is certain that I will stubbornly continue to always insist on clarity.

Unfriending Congress

There have been several times over the last year where I found myself motivated to write to the congressional delegation of New Mexico, always in fierce opposition to some ridiculous expensive, wordy and unread legislative “framework”. Neither senator’s staff, Udall nor Bingaman, has ever responded although Bingaman’s office did put my address on their spam email list. Thanks for that. I have received responses from representative Heinrich’s office, informing me that everyone else wants what I don’t and that my opposition likely stems from a misunderstanding and that I will be appreciative some day when my life is enriched by the congress’ benevolence. Needless to say, I’m not exactly enamored with my state’s representation.

This morning there were two columns on National Review Online discussing the apparent antipathy congress has shown towards much of their constituency and how that has led to a distrust and even intense dislike from that constituency. Victor Davis Hanson explores ethical issues and the current congress’ inability/refusal for contemplation:

Recent polls show that more than 70 percent of the public holds an unfavorable view of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) wins about a 10 percent approval rating; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has similarly rock-bottom poll numbers…Why this astounding — and growing — disdain for our lawmakers? After all, Congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past, such as the House post-office and check-kiting messes, the Charles Keating payoffs, and the Abscam bribery…But lately, Congress seems not merely corrupt, but — far more worrisome — without apparent concern that it has become so unethical.

This is certainly believable as one avenue. In the last week, anyone who happened to pay attention, was able to witness former House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel (D, NY) dismissing charges against him stemming from failure to pay taxes and taking advantage of his position for illegal perks. It is debatable though how many people pay attention, Rangel could be thrown in prison tomorrow and would likely sail to re-election.

While the corruption angle is a valid one it is not the most important one simply because, as Hanson mentions, congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past. The most detrimental aspect is that many of these criminals are often re-elected. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Bought a Third Term-NY) reminded people that Rangel had done so much for NY. If certain areas continue to hire these people then they deserve what they get.

The most important detail starts with a more informed electorate. With the internet anyone can be as informed on any subject in relation to what the government is up to as desired. And being informed it is possible for the individual to understand how what congress does affects them directly and how to identify political posturing and nonsense. Stephen Spruiell examines an example of nonsense:

Judging from the previous remarks of key Senate Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid isn’t likely to get enough votes for the energy bill he unveiled this week. Even without carbon caps or renewable-energy mandates on utility companies, Reid’s bill is too much of a job-killer to pass…Reid settled on a different strategy — a political one. He put forward a bill that eliminated the $10 billion cap entirely, even though that likely dooms the bill’s chances. “They’re hoping it will be defeated,” says a GOP Senate aide who works on energy issues. “They have the talking points ready about how it’s the Republicans’ fault. But this is going to be a little bit harder for them to put on the Republicans when we had an alternative bill they rejected out of hand.”

It can and will be argued that because National Review is a conservative magazine their opinion is biased in this regard but anyone who actually takes the time to examine the issues and the way that congress works will understand that this is the way that the democrats operate. They have complete control of the house and have a 59-41 seat advantage in the Senate, meaning they need not one Republican vote for anything. They would need one Republican vote in the Senate for cloture (the procedure to move a bill to the floor for a final vote) but there is no example of them not getting past that threshold. Further evidence can be found in examining the comments of the President and the leaders of both chambers of congress, every problem we face and the lack of a solution is because of the Republican boogeyman.

This is an old story and as more and more of the electorate becomes informed and shares knowledge in casual conversation the less this tactic will work. That’s the glass half full view. The half empty view wonders if enough of the electorate cares enough to become informed and with gerrymandered house districts how much does it matter? After all, how many congressmen have been re-elected after being sent to prison? Starting this November we will learn which direction is correct. Mr. Heinrich, I am not the only person in NM-1 that does not care for the democrat utopia.

Pro Stupid Lawsuit Rhetoric from Sports Media

Apparently it is beside the point that Tennessee Titan coach Jeff Fisher’s ex-employer scorned fueled lawsuit is frivolous and pathetic because USC head coach Lane Kiffin is a bad guy. Fox Sports’ Kalani Simpson:

This is someone saying loudly, publicly, "I don't like that guy." And, "This guy is such a jerk, I want it entered in some kind of court record."… it seems to be that maybe this is just who Lane Kiffin is, this is what he does, this is how people react to him, this is the chaos that seems to swirl constantly around him. This is what you get when you hire him, along with Monte, his much beloved football genius of an old man, and Ed Orgeron, perhaps the best recruiter on God's green Earth.

Yes, because that is the appropriate way to deal with someone who is a jerk, defined as such because he hired someone who worked for you, have it entered in a court record. Simpson goes on even more:

And he just splattered all over (new USC athletic director) Pat Haden's first week on the job…Look, Lane. Buddy. Sweetheart. You're at USC now. You don't have to try so hard…It's OK to tweak people, to be a little bit of an instigator. See Spurrier, Steve…It's not OK to actually get served with legal papers.

So, it is actually some type of unforgiveable crime for a pathetic lawsuit to be filed against them? Simply ridiculous is this line of opinion.

It’s even worse when the author is respectable, from CBS Sports’ Ray Ratto:

The Tennessee Titans-USC (read: Lane Kiffin) lawsuit is yet one more reminder why Kiffin's scorched-sport policy, while completely suicidal, is so much fun to watch…What we enjoy is Kiffin's absolutely mad dash to be the man he once shared a hatefest with -- Al Davis. ..In other words, he wants to be hated by all people not currently in his employ, and if he can manage it in time, to be feared by those in his employ. There is no other explanation for the number of ways he seeks out the disapproval of others, and how swiftly he achieves it.

Ratto dawns his psychiatrist hat and determines for us that Kiffin has some pathological need to be hated and that explains all of these nefarious transgressions, the latest of which was to hire someone?

What is it with USC coach Lane Kiffin and the vitriol that he endears in the sports media? Watching Pardon The Interruption this afternoon Tony Kornheiser, on an unrelated subject, had to mention that Kiffin had never done anything. Seemingly to further the idea that Kiffin does not deserve the job that he has. Every time Kiffin is mentioned there is some sports writer preening about the right way to do things. It is strange and unfortunate.

Buying your car

Government Motors is soon to release the Chevrolet Volt the first mass produced Hybrid vehicle primarily powered by electricity. This type of drive train is typically referred to as a “plug in” Hybrid. The way that it works is that on a full charge the car can travel up to forty miles. That “up to” being quite the caveat as it is determinant on weather, traffic, and the driver’s right foot amongst others. After this “up to” forty miles has been exhausted there is a small four cylinder internal combustion fossil fuel oil derived gasoline engine that works as a generator to propel the car another 300 miles.

The big announcement today was the pricing, at 41,000 dollars which appears steep for a car that cannot be described as large, fast, comfortable, luxurious or competitive amenity wise with the Volt’s price peers. But wait, there’s more:

applying the U.S. federal tax credit will whittle $7500 from the purchase price

Which means that after taking into consideration a U.S. federal tax credit, the Volt’s price is reduced to 33,500 dollars. Huzzah. But wait, there’s even more:

The first buyers of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle with extended-range capability will be eligible for one of 4,400 free home charging stations. The program will provide Volt owners with a 240-volt charge station from either ECOtality, Inc. or Coulomb Technologies. In many cases, it will include the cost of home installation. The projects are made possible with a grant of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds from the Transportation Electrification Initiative administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)…."For Volt owners who want to install a faster 240-volt charge station, we expect the Department of Energy project to save $1,000 and $2,000."

What does it all mean? It means that every single Chevy Volt buyer will get to dip into the pockets of their fellow taxpaying citizens to the tune of seven thousand, five hundred dollars and if they are among the first 4,400 they get to help themselves to another one to two thousand more. You’re welcome leeches.

This is a testament to both government waste and the lack of market viability for this kind of vehicle. I don’t care one way or another in regard to anyone’s choice of vehicle but I certainly will never believe that it is acceptable for anyone to dip into my pocket to help with that purchase. It is my money that is being thrown at immature technology that is supposedly environmentally friendly but in reality is just a political control measure intended to put people into the vehicles preferred by certain constituents that otherwise would be unfeasible without federal “incentives”.

If the Chevy Volt is the future then sell it without incentives and let it lead us into the “alternative” energy future that features electricity that is produced using such “alternatives” as coal and natural gas. There have been some who chuckle at the high price because the snobs that will buy it can be thought of as rubes for buying at such an untenable price. That’s nonsense as well. If that rube will pay a premium for a hippie status symbol, let them pay 7,500 dollars more and buy their own damn charging station.

Thanks, but Seriously, No Thanks

Yesterday afternoon on my bike ride home my front tire’s tube blew out in a loud pop leaving the tire loosely applied to the rim of the wheel with tire sealant, the tube and a liner flapping as I attempted to stop. I was unable to stop, veering instead to the right of the bike trail and promptly falling down. Being lucky there was not too much damage to myself, a jammed thumb and some scratches on both legs. As for my bike, the full extent is yet to be fully explored. There are some scratches that don’t affect anything and the rim is roughed up but may still be useable, even the tire seems to be in an almost unaffected state. Earlier that morning I had aired up the tires and suspect that I may have added too much pressure for the afternoon heat. Or perhaps it was a combination of things, after all the tube in that tire had been in place for more than a year so age could have contributed. It’s hard to tell when a blowout occurs.

Shortly after falling, another cyclist who was on the same trail was kind enough to stop and ensure that I was alright and offer assistance. He offered to sell me a spare tube and presumptively I could have used it to get home but I didn’t much feel like riding anymore and the tires on his own bike being more narrow than my own I wasn’t certain that the tube would have fit.

If that were the balance of my interaction with the other cyclist there would be nothing to write about, however I have no such luck. Shortly after offering the tube the other cyclist, no doubt based on an assumption of helpfulness, decided to inspect my wheel in order to diagnose the problem that led to the tube blowout. His first assumption was that the sidewall was not properly installed. As kindly as possible I mentioned that the tire had been seated for more than a year and mentioned again that I was fine and appreciated him stopping and assured that I had everything under control. Undeterred, the cyclist condescendingly began to offer multiple maintenance suggestions all of which were either basic or even common sense to any cyclist.

At this point the encounter became strange and insulting. The other cyclist assumed that I was unfamiliar with the proper operation of my own bike. There was no reason for this assumption at all. While I am not a bike mechanic I am familiar with maintaining a bike and have built several while replacing complex components on others. Now, the other cyclist had no knowledge of my experience so he couldn’t know what I knew but why treat me like a child? I have a nice bike with quality mid-range components. It doesn’t squeak and is in very good condition (with some new scratches). There was no reason for this person to make the judgment that he did.

It is an all too common occurrence nowadays. It seems as though there are many people that believe that they are being helpful by being condescending and making the assumption that everyone else is an idiot. It is not helpful and when someone turns down your help, it’s not because they don’t know any better and require your sage advice, it’s that they have the situation under control and can make their own decisions.

A Scorned NFL Coach Sues

It seems as though most people agree that the world of sports is not an essential matter of society. And with that the life or death pontifications in regard to sports goings on by some sports opinion columnists at best appear sophomoric. While it is easy to point out the shortcomings of these columnists, what cannot be missed is the material they have to work with. A perfect story for ridicule dropped yesterday:

Southern California coach Lane Kiffin says he was surprised by the lawsuit filed against him and USC by the Tennessee Titans after he hired away one of the NFL team's assistant coaches.

Kiffin hired Kennedy Pola on Saturday to be offensive coordinator and running backs coach for the Trojans.

Titans coach Jeff Fisher said he was upset by the fact that Kiffin didn't contact him before reaching out to Pola.

On Monday, Tennessee Football Inc., the company that owns the Titans, filed a suit accusing Kiffin and USC of violating Pola's contract.

It is difficult to get one’s mind around this; a professional football team is suing a college football team of violating the contract of an individual by hiring him. If there is any dignity left in our court system this bogus suit will be dismissed with prejudice as soon as it is reviewed by a judge. How could any contract state that another entity could not reach out to an individual for another position and if they did, that the other entity would be in breach of that individual’s contract?

It appears that Titan’s coach Jeff Fisher has had his feelings hurt and has filed a lawsuit in order to be made whole emotionally, which is ridiculous. Fisher, as the longest tenured coach in the NFL, is supposedly highly respected and above reproach but in this instance comes off as small and mostly whiny. In pursuing a lawsuit in this matter, he seems to be doing the equivalent of a person suing the current boyfriend of an ex-girlfriend for taking her out. Yes, it is that silly.

So, in this case sports begets silly and opinion writers have it served on a platter. USC coach Lane Kiffin is a convenient whipping boy so it will no doubt feed the narrative that he has no regard for the “rules” or “etiquette”. Kiffin has ascended to this position by taking a different, likely preferable to him, job and being accused of violating minor NCAA rules. Let’s be clear the NCAA rulebook is at least as lengthy and inane as the federal income tax code. The only thing Kiffin is guilty of is taking advantage of favorable circumstances and not sucking up to sportswriters.

Kiffin offered a job to someone who already had a job. That person determined that they preferred the job offered by Kiffin over the one that they already had so they changed jobs. The previous employer may have been caught by surprise but how do we know that this person had not been looking? How do we know that the person had not voiced a desire for more responsibility or pay or concerns in their current position? We don’t and it doesn’t matter anyway. And while the previous employer may be upset over the way this transpired it is nothing more than juvenile for them to sue the new employer.

Ken Sanchez, union candidate

Power hungry as usual, Albuquerque City Council President Ken Sanchez desperate to keep his name in the news has decided to ignore reality in labeling Mayor Berry’s negotiations with the many unions “representing” city employees a “failure”. The fantasy laden, reality ignorant plan presented for the budget presented by the city council is simply unsustainable and is irresponsible. Tax revenues are down and the city unions only exist to maintain the status quo and ever increase salaries regardless of merit or monies taken in. Pay cuts are lamentable but the fact that the Mayor was able to avoid layoffs and keep pay cuts to less than two percent is admirable.

As usual, Sanchez is preparing himself for a mayoral run and is ensuring the endorsement of all the bloated unions the city is straddled with. Fortunately that tactic did nothing for Martin Chavez in the last election and one can only hope that in this regard, history repeats itself.

Sports and Politics with a Wiff, again

On his ESPN radio talk show this morning, The Herd, Colin Cowherd waded into the world of politics in order to analogize a brash and ugly attack on the recently departed George Steinbrenner. Cowherd decided to share his opinion that he did not understand why any “regular” person would support Steinbrenner because he did not care about “regular” people much like former President George Bush did not care about anyone making less than 40 grand a year because he only cared about big business. Adding to that tripe, Cowherd went on with the oft spouted rubbish that “regular” people that don’t have six figure salaries shouldn’t admire successful people like Steinbrenner, Bush, (Donald) Trump, et al because they don’t care about them and that “regular” people don’t understand their own interests when they support the aforementioned.

It truly is a pity that Cowherd, not unlike most sports media members, doesn’t have the ability to avoid subjects that he doesn’t have a clue about. By most accounts Steinbrenner was a complicated person and certainly was not liked by many he crossed paths with. With his passing last week there have been many stories about Steinbrenner making a difference in the lives of many “regular” people. Cowherd’s main point was that Yankee games are too expensive and while that is true, almost all major sporting events are too expensive for most people with a family. To many fans, television is the most common way to follow a team and with that there is no substitute for success, defined in sports as winning and championships and it cannot be said that the Yankees under Steinbrenner’s tutelage lacked either.

Worse yet, bringing in the silly stereotypical caricature of President Bush as the big business cheerleader weakened an already weak hissy fit. Like Steinbrenner, President Bush made a positive difference in the lives of many “regular” people, like me, personally. The best way to look at this is in terms of campaign contributions from big business which perennially benefits democrats and to look at the affiliations of many titans of big business, names that include Gates, Jobs, Buffett and Soros, all democrats.

Cowherd is good on radio but is difficult to listen to when he makes personal attacks without acknowledging the whole person that was George Steinbrenner and drags our former President into the mud to make an ill-conceived and ultimately incorrect point.

If you don't know, why not ask?

Recently I found myself enjoying an evening with friends when like a foul smell that wafts in quickly and without notice a friend of a friend came by and soured the mood by looking at my side of the table and stating “you’re tea baggers, aren’t you?” with a giggle. I looked at my friend to my right and we both looked like we had just driven by a dairy after morning coffee on a humid day. This hippie liberal jerk interloper was no doubt bringing up the political tea party movement with the oft used smear erstwhile used to denote a vile bedroom act. Personally I have never been to a tea party event, not because I do not agree with the idea, but mostly because I am lazy and am not a fan of crowds. I think that the movement is honorable and a commendable exercise in the face of current governmental excess.

While the offender is not a member of my regular circle of friends I have known them for a few years and they are known for every once in a while wading in with inane comments disparaging my political views so there was no surprise. The curious thing is that this person has no clue whatsoever about what it is that I truly believe. Over the years I have been privy to various lectures by them in regard to the nobleness of being “liberal” or “progressive”, living in mud huts and the sustainable lifestyle with disdain for oil, “consumption” and “big business” but when it comes time for actual conversation, they leave or shout down any kind of differing opinion as disrespectful. Basically my aura, labeled as conservative, is enough for this person to deduce my every opinion as evil and not worthy of examination. And I mean every, to this person every aspect of the world has some kind of political tie and they seemingly believe that to be conservative is to be wrong in all matters.

It is frustrating that this person has no idea what I actually think about anything. At least I have listened to them time and again about what their beliefs are. This type of one sided argument seems to be typical of my interaction with self described progressive liberals. I have some progressive friends but I cannot seem to get anywhere when it comes to actual discussion of issues. There seem to be two kinds of people that I interact with. The first, typified by the hippie liberal jerk above, tend to lecture on their ideals mostly in an ill-defined egocentric kind of way, while not welcoming of other views and often impugning opposing views in a disparaging manner. The second type openly, and often with heralded self-regard, declares as “progressive” but never discusses anything with regard to politics or policy. To the latter I have no idea what they think beyond that they believe that being progressive is in itself inherently superior.

To me, caricature like mischaracterization and insult passing without discussion is empty because meaningful discussion is a good thing and a way to test one’s convictions and belief system. It can be a way to learn new things that may challenge or can clarify the reasons why a person thinks the way that they do. For whatever reason many of my close friends either identify themselves as conservative or at least appear to be so and when it comes to subjects involving politics or policy we disagree as often as we agree and this leads to often fascinating conversations. I relish the chance to learn from people I respect and look forward to the opportunity to defend what I believe based on the strength of my convictions and intellectual rigor.

Another reason that any type or political or policy related conversation is considered impolitic seems to be that many people believe that such discussions become harsh and argumentative. While the premise may have some truth to it, it is often a debate and there is nothing wrong with a debate becoming contentious. Debates are supposed to be challenging and while there are certain lines that should not be crossed that doesn’t mean that this kind of talk should be disparaged. Obviously it is not a good thing to get into a heated conversation with someone who can easily lose their head.

It would be a better and more solid more argument to call me a nasty name if the offender at least made the effort to listen to my opinions rather than infer them based on caricatured assumptions. Conversely I would like to know what and why it is that self-described progressive liberals believe what they do. I would like to have the conversation where someone can explain to me how a Keynesian stimulus works while citing historical examples instead of just saying that it does in the face of all proof and logic. Instead of being called a cretin for thinking that welfare for the most part is a bad thing I want to know why it is that some believe it is a good thing. Unfortunately, I doubt things will change, so I will refrain from holding my breath.

Link of the Day

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

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

A Theme Typified

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Sign of Weakness

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

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

It gets worse:

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

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

And another thing…

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

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

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

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

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

Like a Starbucks across the street from another Starbucks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Price of Honesty?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To Annoy Bingaman, or the Public?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Tough Guy President

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

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

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

Urkel channeling Jay-Z

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

Libertarian sees pro drugs everywhere...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Barela on the Bob Clark Show

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

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

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

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

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

Really? You didn't see THAT coming?

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

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

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

Quite the sob story, right?

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

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

Wired’s mystical global warming equation

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

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


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

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


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