“Jon Barela’s not on our side”…echoes one of Martin Heinrich’s increasingly desperate commercial attempts to cling to a House of Representatives seat that he will not acknowledge that he holds to fight for an agenda that he will not admit. Many political advertisements feature some play on the tripe phase “our” side, most of them in support of democrat candidates. What exactly is “our” side and what exactly is in “our” best interest politically?
The answer is as simple as it is confusing because it depends. It depends because not everyone everywhere has the same interests and needs and no one belongs to the same “side” as anyone else. One of the greatest dangers of a large and obtrusive government is that it picks “sides” and to do so implies that big government must pick against another “side”. And while government picking on one “side” may make the other feel better it will almost always hurt the other side too.
Take for example the government’s recent bailing out of bankrupt automakers. As a result unions received large portions of the companies while previous investors were shunned. Former investors and many others may never purchase a car from those companies which will lead to lower sales and what happens next time that the union side needs for the other to be punished for bankruptcy? The unions are on both sides, the next bankruptcy may lead to one or both automaker disappearing for good.
This isn’t the same thing as when the government does something to punish one side for doing something horrible to another side. There is a need for laws and as a society we have to protect unalienable rights; life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. And that’s the point; big government has a problem because it attempts to determine all of the right “sides” and in a relatively civil society the people all have different “sides” and can best determine what those are.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
The Tease that is The Onion
Most of the time “The Onion” as a political animal is liberal claptrap but every once in a while there is a surprising story and so it seemed to be with this headline:
This “productivity” thing is a myth, just because the congress used majorities in both houses and control of the executive branch to pass reams of impossible to comprehend measures doesn’t mean that it was any good and that they were the right things to do. I’m pretty sure I could get up early on Tuesday and knock over one hundred trash cans into the street in less than half an hour but that wouldn’t make me productive, it would mean that I was making a mess for others to clean up.
But I digress, on to the seemingly good article on typical liberal overreach and grandiose narcissism not to mention ignorance of the voters. Nope, I was wrong. Reading the article the democrat’s productivity included:
Onion, you tease me and then smack me in the head with predictable dribble and you wonder why I only check the site when I’m so bored that I can’t even sleep. If I wanted liberal claptrap I’d go to CNN or MSNBC, I want satire from the Onion damn it!
Democrats: 'If We're Gonna Lose, Let's Go Down Running Away From Every Legislative Accomplishment We've Made'This headline is similar to many storylines talking about just how “productive” congress has been the last two years in an attempt to control as many aspects of American life possible in two years with time off for vacation and ignoring constituents. And saddle foreseeable generations with debt that they can only hope to pass on, living just long enough not to have to deal with the worst consequences of.
This “productivity” thing is a myth, just because the congress used majorities in both houses and control of the executive branch to pass reams of impossible to comprehend measures doesn’t mean that it was any good and that they were the right things to do. I’m pretty sure I could get up early on Tuesday and knock over one hundred trash cans into the street in less than half an hour but that wouldn’t make me productive, it would mean that I was making a mess for others to clean up.
But I digress, on to the seemingly good article on typical liberal overreach and grandiose narcissism not to mention ignorance of the voters. Nope, I was wrong. Reading the article the democrat’s productivity included:
hard-won passage of a historic health care overhaul, the toughest financial regulations since the 1930s, and a stimulus package most economists now credit with preventing a second Great Depression.But it doesn’t ask if the health care overhaul is worth it or will even work as designed and that no one will even know until after 2014 when it actually begins. It doesn’t provide a metric measuring the “toughness” of financial regulations (as if such a metric exists). Nor does it mention that following the onset of “tough” financial regulations in the 30s unemployment exploded from less than 7% to over 25% by the end of that decade. Finally, the last contention is the silliest. Did they provide a roll call of all economists and then take a show of hands to prove that most credit he stimulus, which has not even met its claimed goals, with preventing a second great depression which almost nobody people can even imagine as they were not alive then and the schools don’t teach actual history anymore.
Onion, you tease me and then smack me in the head with predictable dribble and you wonder why I only check the site when I’m so bored that I can’t even sleep. If I wanted liberal claptrap I’d go to CNN or MSNBC, I want satire from the Onion damn it!
Negative Political Advertising
It would seem a good bet that if you went out to the street and asked any random person their opinion of political advertising you would likely be told that they are tired of how negative it is. Just a few minutes ago I was listening to the radio and the father of an old classmate of mine who happens to be the Sandoval county election something or the other was talking about how negative the campaign was and how it seemed to be the most negative campaign he has ever witnessed. For someone who is close to sixty years old that is quite a statement. In reality I seriously doubt that any election can really be considered to be the most negative ever mostly because of evolving standards and short term memory.
I will make the bold statement that I have never witnessed an election that was not negative and did not contain an absurd amount of negative advertising on most every advertising medium. Certain races certainly don’t lend themselves to it in any given election, take for instance the perfectly civil and boring race for land commissioner, but when considering an entire election, negativity abounds.
Why is this? Using the assumption from the above thought experiment most everyone at least publicly would disavow negative advertising; one would think that it would be advantageous to not be negative. But that isn’t the case for the very simple reason that negative advertising works, and it works both ways. Thanks to the multitude of ways the internet provides for a user to research, claims can be analyzed and either reinforced or discarded based on a user’s perception. Conversely, negative advertising can be used to create an image of a candidate, to define them in the mind of the uninformed voter; this is very useful in the case where a candidate is not an established quantity.
Take the case of one Jon Barela, running for the House of Representatives. Barela has never run for nor held elected public office although he has experience working for former Congressman Joe Skeen and served as an assistant attorney general. In the 90s Barela worked for Intel as a community and government relations manager. Intel is an international company with operations that span the globe. In his role, Barela worked with (surprise!) government and registered as a lobbyist as a result of some of his work. Incumbent congressman Martin Heinrich and various democrat interests have seized on these jobs to paint Barela as a “Politician” and “Lobbyist” who lobbied to send jobs to other countries. This is their campaign, to create an image of Barela for the public using the fact that Barela once worked for Intel in government communications (for its Albuquerque location) and because Intel hires people in other countries to work at their locations in other countries, Barela is therefore a lobbyist to send jobs to other countries explicitly and is a politician because he served in unelected public sector positions. Get it?
Every claim made by the loose associations presented by the democrat point of view are demonstrably false but because they are loose associations the fact that they are unserious can be downplayed by democrats. Catch-22 time. For democrats, it’s simple to promise not to negatively advertise because they are, in their own words, not guilty of it because everything they say is true because they are on the side of everything right and true. And everything said by a Republican is false and negative because they are evil and wrong. Take Heinrich for example, he is a politician by means of incumbency and attempts to paint his opponent negatively as a politician, the logic is impossible to deconstruct. And I wonder, what will come of Heinrich is he loses? Will he return to a private sector in which he has no experience? He could follow the path taken by other former democrat politicians, and become a lobbyist, but what is the politically correct term for a democrat lobbyist? After all, hearing it from them, they are on the side of right and good so in that affect if a democrat is a lobbyist they aren’t really a lobbyist just like they aren’t really politicians.
Negative advertising is rampant because it works. It just does. The people that are turned off by it have already made their minds up mostly and as a result it would take a lot for their candidate to offend them. This election is a mid-term and as such there are both a lot of high profile races and many initiatives on the ballot and only so much time in the day and all of these line items are competing for time and attempting to make an impression. Sometimes negative ads just stick long enough to limp a candidate or idea past the finish line. I doubt much new ground has been recently broken in this realm or that we will one day witness a world with no negative advertising.
I will make the bold statement that I have never witnessed an election that was not negative and did not contain an absurd amount of negative advertising on most every advertising medium. Certain races certainly don’t lend themselves to it in any given election, take for instance the perfectly civil and boring race for land commissioner, but when considering an entire election, negativity abounds.
Why is this? Using the assumption from the above thought experiment most everyone at least publicly would disavow negative advertising; one would think that it would be advantageous to not be negative. But that isn’t the case for the very simple reason that negative advertising works, and it works both ways. Thanks to the multitude of ways the internet provides for a user to research, claims can be analyzed and either reinforced or discarded based on a user’s perception. Conversely, negative advertising can be used to create an image of a candidate, to define them in the mind of the uninformed voter; this is very useful in the case where a candidate is not an established quantity.
Take the case of one Jon Barela, running for the House of Representatives. Barela has never run for nor held elected public office although he has experience working for former Congressman Joe Skeen and served as an assistant attorney general. In the 90s Barela worked for Intel as a community and government relations manager. Intel is an international company with operations that span the globe. In his role, Barela worked with (surprise!) government and registered as a lobbyist as a result of some of his work. Incumbent congressman Martin Heinrich and various democrat interests have seized on these jobs to paint Barela as a “Politician” and “Lobbyist” who lobbied to send jobs to other countries. This is their campaign, to create an image of Barela for the public using the fact that Barela once worked for Intel in government communications (for its Albuquerque location) and because Intel hires people in other countries to work at their locations in other countries, Barela is therefore a lobbyist to send jobs to other countries explicitly and is a politician because he served in unelected public sector positions. Get it?
Every claim made by the loose associations presented by the democrat point of view are demonstrably false but because they are loose associations the fact that they are unserious can be downplayed by democrats. Catch-22 time. For democrats, it’s simple to promise not to negatively advertise because they are, in their own words, not guilty of it because everything they say is true because they are on the side of everything right and true. And everything said by a Republican is false and negative because they are evil and wrong. Take Heinrich for example, he is a politician by means of incumbency and attempts to paint his opponent negatively as a politician, the logic is impossible to deconstruct. And I wonder, what will come of Heinrich is he loses? Will he return to a private sector in which he has no experience? He could follow the path taken by other former democrat politicians, and become a lobbyist, but what is the politically correct term for a democrat lobbyist? After all, hearing it from them, they are on the side of right and good so in that affect if a democrat is a lobbyist they aren’t really a lobbyist just like they aren’t really politicians.
Negative advertising is rampant because it works. It just does. The people that are turned off by it have already made their minds up mostly and as a result it would take a lot for their candidate to offend them. This election is a mid-term and as such there are both a lot of high profile races and many initiatives on the ballot and only so much time in the day and all of these line items are competing for time and attempting to make an impression. Sometimes negative ads just stick long enough to limp a candidate or idea past the finish line. I doubt much new ground has been recently broken in this realm or that we will one day witness a world with no negative advertising.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Discernable Differences
During Saturday’s evening newscast on local ABC affiliate, KOAT 7, there was a question posed to both candidates seeking to be New Mexico’s next State Auditor. The question was in regard to shrinking state agency budgets and how each candidate would work with this reality. This was an instructive moment in that it proved to be an effective delineation between democrat and Republican governing policies. Republican candidate Errol Chavez’s argument was that the State Auditor’s office must do more with less. Democrat Hector Balderas’ argument was that the state would suffer irreparable harm from current funding to the State Auditor and that it should receive more money.
And that’s it in a nutshell. Gimme gimme gimme, more more more is the sum of democrat policy. Everything is never enough and if cuts come or funding doesn’t increase the apocalypse will ensue and of course police, firemen and the children always suffer the most.
And that’s it in a nutshell. Gimme gimme gimme, more more more is the sum of democrat policy. Everything is never enough and if cuts come or funding doesn’t increase the apocalypse will ensue and of course police, firemen and the children always suffer the most.
Random Travel Thoughts
I was watching some news special on these new body scanners in which the poor reviewer, in some secret bunker and not anywhere near where the actual scanning is being done, is subjected to vivid depictions of everyone’s private areas and they mentioned that if you go through the scanner you won’t get patted down. This was of interest as I went through a scanner the other day and immediately following was told that I had to be patted down. I want an explanation TSA.
What is it with car rental companies messing with the body type designations of their freaking cars? In my itinerary, the mid size car I was supposed to get was described as a “Pontiac G6 or equivalent”. Pontiac doesn’t exist anymore but a G6 is the exact same car (minus badging) as a Chevy Malibu, which is in the same class as a Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Hyundai Sonata and Mazda 6 among some others. I was rented a Nissan Sentra, what anyone else on the planet would describe as a freaking compact. This is a horribly dishonest practice and all the rental car companies do it, so why don’t they all just be correct, is there some advantage in ticking off customers at first encounter?
Panama City Beach, Florida is a great place to visit and is very easy to navigate. I ensured that I had pages printed with all of my intended destination addresses on it for my GPS and I didn’t need it once. Being a tourist destination the actual beach front is dominated by hotels, making beach and near-beach front property expensive and kind of undesirable.
Flying can be simple or it can be difficult and one of the biggest contributors to the outcome is the awareness of the person sitting next to you on a flight. Larger people are the worst to sit next to. It’s not their fault, they’re just really big people and the seats just are not big enough to contain them. One of my quirks is a need for personal space and I was stuck with an older woman sitting next to me last week from Dallas to Albuquerque with no sense of space whatsoever. It was so bad that it was as if she could have been sitting on me. I’m certain that this woman understood how uncomfortable I was and used that to take up even more space, ensuring that I couldn’t use my right arm to aid holding up the book that I was reading. On approach she stuck out her arm, pointing out the window between my face and my book. What a jerk. These people need to be stopped.
What is it with car rental companies messing with the body type designations of their freaking cars? In my itinerary, the mid size car I was supposed to get was described as a “Pontiac G6 or equivalent”. Pontiac doesn’t exist anymore but a G6 is the exact same car (minus badging) as a Chevy Malibu, which is in the same class as a Ford Fusion, Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Hyundai Sonata and Mazda 6 among some others. I was rented a Nissan Sentra, what anyone else on the planet would describe as a freaking compact. This is a horribly dishonest practice and all the rental car companies do it, so why don’t they all just be correct, is there some advantage in ticking off customers at first encounter?
Panama City Beach, Florida is a great place to visit and is very easy to navigate. I ensured that I had pages printed with all of my intended destination addresses on it for my GPS and I didn’t need it once. Being a tourist destination the actual beach front is dominated by hotels, making beach and near-beach front property expensive and kind of undesirable.
Flying can be simple or it can be difficult and one of the biggest contributors to the outcome is the awareness of the person sitting next to you on a flight. Larger people are the worst to sit next to. It’s not their fault, they’re just really big people and the seats just are not big enough to contain them. One of my quirks is a need for personal space and I was stuck with an older woman sitting next to me last week from Dallas to Albuquerque with no sense of space whatsoever. It was so bad that it was as if she could have been sitting on me. I’m certain that this woman understood how uncomfortable I was and used that to take up even more space, ensuring that I couldn’t use my right arm to aid holding up the book that I was reading. On approach she stuck out her arm, pointing out the window between my face and my book. What a jerk. These people need to be stopped.
Rental Car Review - Nissan Sentra
Because of the nature of my work I travel regularly and part of that nature includes renting different kinds of small cars labeled as mid size by the rental car company. As a long time reader of many car magazines I have always wanted to do a car review and while I have no experience and no equipment to help in any testing activities I may as well start now.
Last week I was fortunate to visit beautiful Panama City beach Florida (for work?) and the “mid size” car awaiting me was a late model Nissan Sentra sedan. The Sentra was of interest to me because I personally own a Nissan, a 2009 Infiniti G37 sedan. Stepping into the Sentra I was struck by the similarities in cabin size and basic ergonomics, while the Sentra is a very different car from my own I was comfortable stepping into the Sentra because of the familiarity, just about every control was in the same place and similar in operation to those in my own car. The materials were of a less-costly variety compared to the G37 but worked well.
I did not verify but I believe that the Sentra was equipped with a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) mated to a small four cylinder engine. A CVT transmission is similar to an automatic and differs where in place of fixed gears there is some kind of gearing set that allows for nearly infinite ratios, instead of the typical automatic’s four to six total, between a typical low and high gear in a traditional automatic. CVTs work by changing the gear ratio constantly to maintain a nearly steady rpm at most any speed which leads to increased fuel economy. The Sentra seems to accelerate faster than reality would likely indicate thanks to another CVT fuel saving measure which accelerates hard when moderate pedal pressure is applied to an RPM much lower than redline before rapidly changing ratios. This gives the Sentra a sporty feeling.
The Sentra that I rented had about fifteen thousand hard rental car miles on it and there was, surprisingly, almost no noticeable wear throughout the car. Seats were supportive and the manual adjustments were simple, not bad considering I’m spoiled with 12 way power adjustments in my G37. The steering wheel tilts but does not telescope but wasn’t a far reach and has simple radio and cruise controls at 3 and 9. Mirror adjustments were electronic and the gauges were clear and easy to understand. Radio operation was without issue and the sound system was impressive for a car of this price. The interior is very quiet for a compact car on the road with very little tire or engine noise. Front passenger space is ample, much larger than one would guess from the outside. Rear seats are less roomy and knee space could be an issue for taller passengers.
Over the course of two days and almost eighty miles I averaged an almost unfathomable 34ish miles per gallon in all city driving. Excellent for someone who almost always hovers around the city EPA rating in anything and even worse in a rental car, they are the fastest cars in the world after all. Overall I was impressed with the Sentra, it’s a nice car that offers many perks above its basic transportation price and I’m not even upset anymore that it was rented to me as a “mid size”.
Last week I was fortunate to visit beautiful Panama City beach Florida (for work?) and the “mid size” car awaiting me was a late model Nissan Sentra sedan. The Sentra was of interest to me because I personally own a Nissan, a 2009 Infiniti G37 sedan. Stepping into the Sentra I was struck by the similarities in cabin size and basic ergonomics, while the Sentra is a very different car from my own I was comfortable stepping into the Sentra because of the familiarity, just about every control was in the same place and similar in operation to those in my own car. The materials were of a less-costly variety compared to the G37 but worked well.
I did not verify but I believe that the Sentra was equipped with a Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) mated to a small four cylinder engine. A CVT transmission is similar to an automatic and differs where in place of fixed gears there is some kind of gearing set that allows for nearly infinite ratios, instead of the typical automatic’s four to six total, between a typical low and high gear in a traditional automatic. CVTs work by changing the gear ratio constantly to maintain a nearly steady rpm at most any speed which leads to increased fuel economy. The Sentra seems to accelerate faster than reality would likely indicate thanks to another CVT fuel saving measure which accelerates hard when moderate pedal pressure is applied to an RPM much lower than redline before rapidly changing ratios. This gives the Sentra a sporty feeling.
The Sentra that I rented had about fifteen thousand hard rental car miles on it and there was, surprisingly, almost no noticeable wear throughout the car. Seats were supportive and the manual adjustments were simple, not bad considering I’m spoiled with 12 way power adjustments in my G37. The steering wheel tilts but does not telescope but wasn’t a far reach and has simple radio and cruise controls at 3 and 9. Mirror adjustments were electronic and the gauges were clear and easy to understand. Radio operation was without issue and the sound system was impressive for a car of this price. The interior is very quiet for a compact car on the road with very little tire or engine noise. Front passenger space is ample, much larger than one would guess from the outside. Rear seats are less roomy and knee space could be an issue for taller passengers.
Over the course of two days and almost eighty miles I averaged an almost unfathomable 34ish miles per gallon in all city driving. Excellent for someone who almost always hovers around the city EPA rating in anything and even worse in a rental car, they are the fastest cars in the world after all. Overall I was impressed with the Sentra, it’s a nice car that offers many perks above its basic transportation price and I’m not even upset anymore that it was rented to me as a “mid size”.
Monday, October 18, 2010
Random Thoughts
On the radio this morning were reports in regard to all the work done in congress this past session. I listen to the ESPN affiliate here in Albuquerque, the Mike and Mike radio program and they subscribe to the AP radio news. AP as an objective newswire is a joke as there is neither so-called big government progressive policy nor leftist politician whom they can’t stump for. Anyway, the big news today is how the jus adjourned congress was the most “productive” in modern times. Stupid. It’s similar to how many district attorneys are judged by conviction rates instead of whether or not justice was done. It doesn’t matter how many thousand page bills the House of Representatives passes, it’s whether or not it is necessary and does anything as intended. Basically the rule should be first, do no harm. Taxes are going up. Unemployment is up and the national debt is a black hole.
The president loves to mention that the evil Republicans are counting on “progressives” staying home or some such nonsense. Such is the conceit of a politician who assumes that every correct thinking person agrees with his point of view. It’s amazing that the president cannot envision a world where in someone who disagrees with his policies has a point. Pathetic.
In reviewing the New Mexico gubernatorial debate, Diane Denish’s campaign is summed up by the AP radio news as calling Susana Martinez a liar. That’s exactly what a resident wants in a governor. Martinez has recently begun polling past 50% and all that is left for Denish is to make things up and unfurl personal attacks.
The democrat congressional campaign committee has an ad staring an elderly New Mexican woman ending “I don’t truss theeess Jhoon Barela”. The target is the evil Jon Barela and his support for taking away Social Security. Old habits die hard for donkeys I suppose.
The president loves to mention that the evil Republicans are counting on “progressives” staying home or some such nonsense. Such is the conceit of a politician who assumes that every correct thinking person agrees with his point of view. It’s amazing that the president cannot envision a world where in someone who disagrees with his policies has a point. Pathetic.
In reviewing the New Mexico gubernatorial debate, Diane Denish’s campaign is summed up by the AP radio news as calling Susana Martinez a liar. That’s exactly what a resident wants in a governor. Martinez has recently begun polling past 50% and all that is left for Denish is to make things up and unfurl personal attacks.
The democrat congressional campaign committee has an ad staring an elderly New Mexican woman ending “I don’t truss theeess Jhoon Barela”. The target is the evil Jon Barela and his support for taking away Social Security. Old habits die hard for donkeys I suppose.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Random Sporting Thoughts
What’s the deal with all the seriousness in sports, second guessing and assumptions in regard to whether or not something done worked or did not based on something that really doesn’t matter all that much? It seems as though sports is taken much too seriously these days and while there are certain aspects that affect society as a whole like drugs and health, the point is that sports are and should remain a distraction. They are an addition to real life and not a substitute nor companion to it.
Tons of commentary on 49ers coach Mike Singletary yelling at QB Alex Smith during the team’s last game. Did it matter? Some commentary focused on the “psychological” damage done to Smith while others praised that it caused Smith to play better. Is either point true? No one can tell for sure. One thing’s certain, QB Smith is not ten years old and probably isn’t all that damaged from being yelled at by another adult and likely has plenty of motivation to play his best. Football, like any sport has its ups and downs and countless things affect play even during a game leading to different outcomes by the minute.
Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas is under scrutiny in some circles for taking a game off and later admitting to faking an injury in a preseason game so that his back up would get more minutes. Screaming sports moralists are supremely offended at Arenas for committing some grave sporting sin, faking to get out of a game. A preseason game that he may not have played much of if he had participated is what these moralists are talking about.
Last week on Pardon the Interruption ESPN NFL Commentator Ron Jaworski spoke about his new book and mentioned that it would be beneficial to anyone wanting to succeed in sports or business. The mention of sports I glossed right over but the mention of business piqued my curiosity. A person who has always been involved in sports can really help someone in real world business? Perhaps in motivation but as a whole I seriously doubt it. Jaws is a nice guy and his book may be entertaining but sports operate in kind of a bizarre economic reality. The money in sports may as well be monopoly money wherein the sums tossed about may as well be imaginary to regular people. How can anyone involved in only sports business even contemplate how to provide bananas, grown in Latin America, picked, shipped, distributed and displayed in a local United States supermarket for 50 cents a pound when a ticket to a single football game is pushing 200 dollars?
Tons of commentary on 49ers coach Mike Singletary yelling at QB Alex Smith during the team’s last game. Did it matter? Some commentary focused on the “psychological” damage done to Smith while others praised that it caused Smith to play better. Is either point true? No one can tell for sure. One thing’s certain, QB Smith is not ten years old and probably isn’t all that damaged from being yelled at by another adult and likely has plenty of motivation to play his best. Football, like any sport has its ups and downs and countless things affect play even during a game leading to different outcomes by the minute.
Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas is under scrutiny in some circles for taking a game off and later admitting to faking an injury in a preseason game so that his back up would get more minutes. Screaming sports moralists are supremely offended at Arenas for committing some grave sporting sin, faking to get out of a game. A preseason game that he may not have played much of if he had participated is what these moralists are talking about.
Last week on Pardon the Interruption ESPN NFL Commentator Ron Jaworski spoke about his new book and mentioned that it would be beneficial to anyone wanting to succeed in sports or business. The mention of sports I glossed right over but the mention of business piqued my curiosity. A person who has always been involved in sports can really help someone in real world business? Perhaps in motivation but as a whole I seriously doubt it. Jaws is a nice guy and his book may be entertaining but sports operate in kind of a bizarre economic reality. The money in sports may as well be monopoly money wherein the sums tossed about may as well be imaginary to regular people. How can anyone involved in only sports business even contemplate how to provide bananas, grown in Latin America, picked, shipped, distributed and displayed in a local United States supermarket for 50 cents a pound when a ticket to a single football game is pushing 200 dollars?
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Random Thoughts
I was searching for something beginning with NM this morning and what caught my eye is that the description of the state of New Mexico website was in regard to the so-called stimulus. I clicked because I was curious and noticed lo and behold the first item on the State’s website is in regard to the so-called simulative recovery act. Is that the best New Mexico has to offer, really?
Also on the page is Governor Richardson’s governing philosophy:
And another thing on this Susana Martinez “Tejana” thing. As a result of this story I learned that Diane Denish is from Hobbs, a traditionally conservative part of our state. I wonder if she will win the city of Hobbs, as the home town girl. She is the real New Mexican, right. Way to go nativist Denish.
I couldn’t let Heinrich go without a mention either. I wonder, if in his slurring of Jon Barela the people of New Mexico understand how damaging Heinrich’s votes really are. Heinrich blasts Barela for shipping jobs to China with irrelevant paperwork but what does voting for cap and trade which means that energy producers in this country must move (out of this country) if they are to survive, the same result occurs from his support of the idiotic deep water drilling ban and does Heinrich know where lithium (a prime battery material) is primarily mined? China. So, it is conceivable that Heinrich’s support of battery powered cars will send jobs to China instead of the gas tank manufacturers in America. There’s more logic and reality in the previous sentence than in Heinrich’s bogus charges.
The worst Democrat attack point is the constant harping on Social Security. Purchasing government bonds and then spending the contributions is not a trust fund strategy. Those bonds have to be paid for down the line with, you guessed it, tax dollars. The government lies to all of us every year they send out that statement referencing a trust fund. Current estimates show that the program will be completely insolvent around 2038 and every time the estimate is revised it happens sooner. It is shameful for democrats to use our senior citizens in campaign commercials to scare other senior citizens. It is pathetic that the democrats only have on their behalf a government sponsored ponzi scheme that is just about bankrupt.
In an unfortunate turn of events, Michelle Rhee, the reformist school chancellor in Washington DC is expected to resign. Rhee was not afraid to take on the unions and got rid of underperforming (that’s the kind way to describe them) teachers, strengthened charter schools and instituted standards that led to smarter students. Her methods were considered to be draconian and in a move that proves no one really cares about school improvement will be let go.
Also on the page is Governor Richardson’s governing philosophy:
Commitment, hard work, efficiency, accountability: these are the elements in my approach to governing, and my strategy for success.Hmmmmmmm…. Richardson took a year off to try to be president, took more time off to be commerce secretary, spent more than any other governor, hired more make work employees than any other governor, got busted exchanging state contracts for presidential campaign contributions ending the commerce secretary bid and travels with a two dozen strong security force packing serious heat…
And another thing on this Susana Martinez “Tejana” thing. As a result of this story I learned that Diane Denish is from Hobbs, a traditionally conservative part of our state. I wonder if she will win the city of Hobbs, as the home town girl. She is the real New Mexican, right. Way to go nativist Denish.
I couldn’t let Heinrich go without a mention either. I wonder, if in his slurring of Jon Barela the people of New Mexico understand how damaging Heinrich’s votes really are. Heinrich blasts Barela for shipping jobs to China with irrelevant paperwork but what does voting for cap and trade which means that energy producers in this country must move (out of this country) if they are to survive, the same result occurs from his support of the idiotic deep water drilling ban and does Heinrich know where lithium (a prime battery material) is primarily mined? China. So, it is conceivable that Heinrich’s support of battery powered cars will send jobs to China instead of the gas tank manufacturers in America. There’s more logic and reality in the previous sentence than in Heinrich’s bogus charges.
The worst Democrat attack point is the constant harping on Social Security. Purchasing government bonds and then spending the contributions is not a trust fund strategy. Those bonds have to be paid for down the line with, you guessed it, tax dollars. The government lies to all of us every year they send out that statement referencing a trust fund. Current estimates show that the program will be completely insolvent around 2038 and every time the estimate is revised it happens sooner. It is shameful for democrats to use our senior citizens in campaign commercials to scare other senior citizens. It is pathetic that the democrats only have on their behalf a government sponsored ponzi scheme that is just about bankrupt.
In an unfortunate turn of events, Michelle Rhee, the reformist school chancellor in Washington DC is expected to resign. Rhee was not afraid to take on the unions and got rid of underperforming (that’s the kind way to describe them) teachers, strengthened charter schools and instituted standards that led to smarter students. Her methods were considered to be draconian and in a move that proves no one really cares about school improvement will be let go.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
On Tejanas and Nuevo Mexicanas
The recent political case of foot in mouth award comes to us from New Mexico democrat Lt Governor candidate Brian Colon who has taken to describing Republican Gubernatorial candidate Susana Martinez as a “Tejana” or translated from Spanish, a Texan female. The Albuquerque Journal has published an article going through the psychological elements to this term and boils it down to a matter of dividing Hispanics in New Mexico. How typical of democrats. The term, the Journal notes, is meant to invoke images of affluent Texans, invading New Mexico to hunt, fish and ski. In this case, this slur is based on the fact that Martinez was born and raised in El Paso, TX moving to New Mexico in 1986.
There are two points that are not in the well written Journal piece. The first is that El Paso, while now a part of Texas, in colonial times from the 18th century to about the mid 19th was a part of New Mexico and the home of the Lt Governor. Second, I think that the Tejana term is used to disparage Martinez as a dreaded Texan. I often joke that as a good New Mexican I hate Texas. This stems from water rights issues where Texas took advantage of New Mexico by way of Rio Grande water rights contracts in the mid 1800s that are in affect to this day that they refuse to re-negotiate given modern understanding of exactly how much water is in the Rio Grande. Basically New Mexico must provide more water to Texas through the Rio Grande than actually flows naturally which is very bad for a state made up of mostly desert. This is insane and many lawyers in the Las Cruces area have made their careers working to rescind this centuries old injustice.
Anyway, there are a few reasons why the idea of a “Texan” running our state may be unpalatable to many New Mexicans and this sentiment is what the Diane Denish campaign is hoping to put into people’s minds. Logically though, it is difficult to consider Martinez a Texan. She has lived in the state for twenty four years. Twenty four. And she is in her fourth term as DA in Dona Ana country. It isn’t like a certain governor that moved to New Mexico in order to run for congress. It is silly that the democrats think silly games like this will move the people into voting for them while not providing evidence as to why they deserve to be voted for. This kind of thing will not work because people pay attention and the only voters that this matters to are already democrat sheep with no need to be herded because they are already in the barn.
There are two points that are not in the well written Journal piece. The first is that El Paso, while now a part of Texas, in colonial times from the 18th century to about the mid 19th was a part of New Mexico and the home of the Lt Governor. Second, I think that the Tejana term is used to disparage Martinez as a dreaded Texan. I often joke that as a good New Mexican I hate Texas. This stems from water rights issues where Texas took advantage of New Mexico by way of Rio Grande water rights contracts in the mid 1800s that are in affect to this day that they refuse to re-negotiate given modern understanding of exactly how much water is in the Rio Grande. Basically New Mexico must provide more water to Texas through the Rio Grande than actually flows naturally which is very bad for a state made up of mostly desert. This is insane and many lawyers in the Las Cruces area have made their careers working to rescind this centuries old injustice.
Anyway, there are a few reasons why the idea of a “Texan” running our state may be unpalatable to many New Mexicans and this sentiment is what the Diane Denish campaign is hoping to put into people’s minds. Logically though, it is difficult to consider Martinez a Texan. She has lived in the state for twenty four years. Twenty four. And she is in her fourth term as DA in Dona Ana country. It isn’t like a certain governor that moved to New Mexico in order to run for congress. It is silly that the democrats think silly games like this will move the people into voting for them while not providing evidence as to why they deserve to be voted for. This kind of thing will not work because people pay attention and the only voters that this matters to are already democrat sheep with no need to be herded because they are already in the barn.
Obama as Delaware Kingmaker...
On his talk show today Rush Limbaugh touted a visit by President Obama to Delaware in order to negatively portray Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell as proof that O’Donnell is not as far behind as polls may suggest. He’s wrong. It may be true that O’Donnell is not as far behind, polls in small population areas like Delaware often have large margins of error due to small sample sizes.
The obvious reason why the President is traveling to Delaware under the guise of aiding democrat candidate Chris Coons is because of polls illustrating a double digit lead for that candidate. There is no need for presidential help for a candidate up a ton of points in polls the month before the election. This move is aimed at helping the President’s image.
President Obama is often tied to endorsements made in the Massachusetts senate race won by Republican Scott Brown and in the New Jersey Gubernatorial race won by Republican Chris Christie, making his endorsement undesirable. The President’s advisors no doubt understand this perception and in viewing the Delaware race, high poll numbers and a somewhat embarrassing Republican candidate they see it as a sure win and have positioned their man to be associated with it which will then lead to a perception of Obama as kingmaker in their self inflated worldview.
Democrats at the national level believe polls more so than actual election returns and double digit leads are a sweet sweet drug to them. Don’t believe it? Recall in 2004 after President Bush finished off John Kerry in the election? Democrats were inflamed and demanding recounts because of an exit poll in Ohio. Polls are reality to many people and while they can be accurate, that’s more luck than anything, they are not truth.
It would be sweet sweet nectar to myself and Republicans if Obama’s cynical ploy ends up back firing and leading to more support for O’Donnell. His track record as an endorser speaks for itself.
The obvious reason why the President is traveling to Delaware under the guise of aiding democrat candidate Chris Coons is because of polls illustrating a double digit lead for that candidate. There is no need for presidential help for a candidate up a ton of points in polls the month before the election. This move is aimed at helping the President’s image.
President Obama is often tied to endorsements made in the Massachusetts senate race won by Republican Scott Brown and in the New Jersey Gubernatorial race won by Republican Chris Christie, making his endorsement undesirable. The President’s advisors no doubt understand this perception and in viewing the Delaware race, high poll numbers and a somewhat embarrassing Republican candidate they see it as a sure win and have positioned their man to be associated with it which will then lead to a perception of Obama as kingmaker in their self inflated worldview.
Democrats at the national level believe polls more so than actual election returns and double digit leads are a sweet sweet drug to them. Don’t believe it? Recall in 2004 after President Bush finished off John Kerry in the election? Democrats were inflamed and demanding recounts because of an exit poll in Ohio. Polls are reality to many people and while they can be accurate, that’s more luck than anything, they are not truth.
It would be sweet sweet nectar to myself and Republicans if Obama’s cynical ploy ends up back firing and leading to more support for O’Donnell. His track record as an endorser speaks for itself.
Heinrich, They Took R Jobz!
Martin Heinrich, defender of the People’s Republic of New Mexico from Jon Barela, has graced us proletariat with video evidence that he must be elected to the US House of Representatives to save us poor minions from the evil lobbyist Barela.
In this selfless ad the form picture from the Barela for congress website has its color removed so that we the people can recognize Barels as evil and because that is the only picture available, since Barela happens to be some kind of Dark Lord evading the watchful eye of our hero Heinrich while working for Chinese overlords.
Barela has sent jobs, American jobs! to CHINA! They took our jobs! Jon Barela, brave Heinrich tells us, has spent years and bountiful energy analyzing our work in New Mexico and as a secret Chinese agent has LOBBIED our government, holding hands with BUSHCHENEY to send those jobs to CHINA!
And if you believe that claptrap you deserve a sophomoric hack like Martin Heinrich representing your interests in Washington. Barela has never been in any elected office. Even as a lobbyist, Barela couldn’t vote to raise taxes or send jobs anywhere. The tired xenophobic line about sending jobs to anywhere assumes that the number of jobs in any economy are both fixed and never changed. If that were true we would still be hunter gatherers. It is as simple as that.
Consider the fact that Heinrich is running as a political neophyte, even though he is the incumbent. What have you done for New Mexico, Martin? You voted for Obamacare. You voted for Cap and Trade. You voted for Bailouts. You voted for the Stimulus. All of these actions will only lead to increased taxes and burdensome regulations for New Mexicans. All that Martin Heinrich has proven in Washington is an uncanny ability to vote along the democrat line. Ironic when considering his pathetic attacks on Jon Barela because after he loses, Heinrich will likely end up a democrat lobbyist, after all, that’s what a voting record like his portends.
In this selfless ad the form picture from the Barela for congress website has its color removed so that we the people can recognize Barels as evil and because that is the only picture available, since Barela happens to be some kind of Dark Lord evading the watchful eye of our hero Heinrich while working for Chinese overlords.
Barela has sent jobs, American jobs! to CHINA! They took our jobs! Jon Barela, brave Heinrich tells us, has spent years and bountiful energy analyzing our work in New Mexico and as a secret Chinese agent has LOBBIED our government, holding hands with BUSHCHENEY to send those jobs to CHINA!
And if you believe that claptrap you deserve a sophomoric hack like Martin Heinrich representing your interests in Washington. Barela has never been in any elected office. Even as a lobbyist, Barela couldn’t vote to raise taxes or send jobs anywhere. The tired xenophobic line about sending jobs to anywhere assumes that the number of jobs in any economy are both fixed and never changed. If that were true we would still be hunter gatherers. It is as simple as that.
Consider the fact that Heinrich is running as a political neophyte, even though he is the incumbent. What have you done for New Mexico, Martin? You voted for Obamacare. You voted for Cap and Trade. You voted for Bailouts. You voted for the Stimulus. All of these actions will only lead to increased taxes and burdensome regulations for New Mexicans. All that Martin Heinrich has proven in Washington is an uncanny ability to vote along the democrat line. Ironic when considering his pathetic attacks on Jon Barela because after he loses, Heinrich will likely end up a democrat lobbyist, after all, that’s what a voting record like his portends.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
The Political Purity of Small Business
In the pages of this August, more than once nearly abandoned pseudo politically related blog I have raised certain concerns with one Jon Barela, running for congress against Martin Heinrich, defender of New Mexico and our fine union against Jon Barela. Every time that I make note of some misgiving I always caveat with the fact that I look forward to voting for Barela as I would eagerly vote for the neighbor’s Doberman before letting Heinrich go back to Washington.
It’s not that Barela’s bad, I think that he’ll be a fine congressman and vote mostly favorably it’s mostly that I just don’t think I know enough about what he really thinks and what he would actually do. I think that newcomers to the political spectrum are great and all but it is all too easy to become enthralled only to be disappointed so I go forward with cautious optimism. And, I know what Heinrich thinks and I know (via email responses) what he thinks about what I think so again, a Doberman is preferable to that Pelosi clone hack.
Anyway, with that introduction, Barela has been airing better ads lately with one nit to pick, no fault of his own. In recent ads he has been touting himself and touted as by others as a supporter of small business. This is great but in reality an effective politician should be able to favor ALL business but in this anti-business climate created by many politicians led by our community organizer in chief it is just about impossible. Small business is apparently as pure as the wind driven snow.
All business is good. The UAW does not provide jobs; they take dues from members and use those funds to support democrats. Auto companies that create vehicles that people want is what creates jobs. Often demonized, Walmart employs more than a million people, enables families to afford better amenities and is out country’s best hedge against the Chinese. Think about it, we rely on low cost Chinese goods but just as that’s true, China is just as dependent on us to buy things from them. China needs Walmart.
To the point, ALL business is good. A market based economy is the freest and most prosperous and it is a stupid and ridiculous reality that we live in when a politician cannot acknowledge this truth because of the constant demonizing that has occurred almost constantly since the industrial revolution. It’s too bad but all too understandable that Jon Barela has to use “Small Business”, and it will always be that way because politicians need distractions.
It’s not that Barela’s bad, I think that he’ll be a fine congressman and vote mostly favorably it’s mostly that I just don’t think I know enough about what he really thinks and what he would actually do. I think that newcomers to the political spectrum are great and all but it is all too easy to become enthralled only to be disappointed so I go forward with cautious optimism. And, I know what Heinrich thinks and I know (via email responses) what he thinks about what I think so again, a Doberman is preferable to that Pelosi clone hack.
Anyway, with that introduction, Barela has been airing better ads lately with one nit to pick, no fault of his own. In recent ads he has been touting himself and touted as by others as a supporter of small business. This is great but in reality an effective politician should be able to favor ALL business but in this anti-business climate created by many politicians led by our community organizer in chief it is just about impossible. Small business is apparently as pure as the wind driven snow.
All business is good. The UAW does not provide jobs; they take dues from members and use those funds to support democrats. Auto companies that create vehicles that people want is what creates jobs. Often demonized, Walmart employs more than a million people, enables families to afford better amenities and is out country’s best hedge against the Chinese. Think about it, we rely on low cost Chinese goods but just as that’s true, China is just as dependent on us to buy things from them. China needs Walmart.
To the point, ALL business is good. A market based economy is the freest and most prosperous and it is a stupid and ridiculous reality that we live in when a politician cannot acknowledge this truth because of the constant demonizing that has occurred almost constantly since the industrial revolution. It’s too bad but all too understandable that Jon Barela has to use “Small Business”, and it will always be that way because politicians need distractions.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Independent Sham
Perhaps the most curious of political affiliations is the “independent”. Many independents seem to be the oblivious, sophomoric and self-exalting types. As may be inferred from the previous sentence, I am generally no fan of self-described independents. Certainly there are those who are independent of specific affiliations that don’t much care to affiliate and vote in no discernible pattern, these are the harmless independents. The independents that earn my ire are those who describe themselves as such for the express reason of appearing reasonable, for being truly bi-partisan and for being above it all.
As someone who listens to a lot of talk radio nothing earns an eye-roll than a caller introducing themselves as “independent” and then spouting self congratulatory or democrat party clap trap. Many of these so-called independents fashion themselves as speaking for every other independent and for understanding what really needs to be done. Which is stupid on both counts because being truly independent means not adhering to groupthink and acknowledgment that there is no real “right” way for things to be done (government policy wise), just different ways to do things with different benefits, interests and results.
I don’t like everything that every Republican does or says nor do I support every initiative from the party and mostly due to that I am a loyal Republican. Every time someone has a thought that isn’t the same as anyone else, that’s independent but just because it is doesn’t mean that anyone is fully independent in every sense. There are two major political parties in this country and history seems to show that it is almost impossible for more than two to exist without other parties simply becoming slight variations of the first two. The Republican Party isn’t perfect but at least it doesn’t pretend to know how every person should live their lives like the party of the donkey.
As someone who listens to a lot of talk radio nothing earns an eye-roll than a caller introducing themselves as “independent” and then spouting self congratulatory or democrat party clap trap. Many of these so-called independents fashion themselves as speaking for every other independent and for understanding what really needs to be done. Which is stupid on both counts because being truly independent means not adhering to groupthink and acknowledgment that there is no real “right” way for things to be done (government policy wise), just different ways to do things with different benefits, interests and results.
I don’t like everything that every Republican does or says nor do I support every initiative from the party and mostly due to that I am a loyal Republican. Every time someone has a thought that isn’t the same as anyone else, that’s independent but just because it is doesn’t mean that anyone is fully independent in every sense. There are two major political parties in this country and history seems to show that it is almost impossible for more than two to exist without other parties simply becoming slight variations of the first two. The Republican Party isn’t perfect but at least it doesn’t pretend to know how every person should live their lives like the party of the donkey.
Mr. Obama Comes to Albuquerque
In what seems like a grievous error, President Obama came to Albuquerque today to hold some kind of heartland heart-to-heart in the South Valley to discuss goings on and have huevos rancheros and my invitation seemingly was lost in the mail.
It is heartening to learn that the sermonizer in chief considers New Mexico part of the heartland and made a stop in between Wisconsin and Iowa. And what better place to gather with supporters than the South Valley, a part of the city that many inhabitants of consider themselves oppressed while at the same time consuming more tax dollars than contributing, culminating in regular attempts to secede?
Best yet, we learned that the community organizer in chief is an amazing tipper, leaving twenty dollars for his to-go order of huevos rancheros at a local joint when the bill was about halfway past eight bucks. I certainly hope that some person who got to eat them enjoyed them. I know, harsh, but what more was that gesture than a photo op? The president travels with quite the entourage, and all he ordered was for himself?
No doubt dear leader praised the work of small business woman and once single mother Diane Denish and defender of New Mexico from Jon Barela Martin Heinrich for their tireless and unspecific efforts as good soldiers.
It is heartening to learn that the sermonizer in chief considers New Mexico part of the heartland and made a stop in between Wisconsin and Iowa. And what better place to gather with supporters than the South Valley, a part of the city that many inhabitants of consider themselves oppressed while at the same time consuming more tax dollars than contributing, culminating in regular attempts to secede?
Best yet, we learned that the community organizer in chief is an amazing tipper, leaving twenty dollars for his to-go order of huevos rancheros at a local joint when the bill was about halfway past eight bucks. I certainly hope that some person who got to eat them enjoyed them. I know, harsh, but what more was that gesture than a photo op? The president travels with quite the entourage, and all he ordered was for himself?
No doubt dear leader praised the work of small business woman and once single mother Diane Denish and defender of New Mexico from Jon Barela Martin Heinrich for their tireless and unspecific efforts as good soldiers.
For Some, Vick Unforgiven
An ESPN Page 2 regular feature called “The Weekly Best” the aim of which is to make recently relevant statements and then qualify them with the author’s opinion for those statements. Among this week’s statements is the following:
Many of these commentators take what it is that Michael Vick did, operating a dog fighting operation in Virginia, very personally and state as such that they will never forgive him. Trouble is, Vick owes none of these people anything and does not deserve feigned outrage based on conceit and misunderstanding.
Owning a dog fighting ring is repulsive, disgusting and illegal. Vick paid the price and more so than just about anyone else who was ever guilty of the same crime. And, it is folly to compare the dogs in these rings to a pet. These were dangerous dogs bred to be vicious and while they deserved better, Vick paid the price. What if any of these self-righteous types had the same upbringing as Vick? Different cultures have different standards and view animals differently. There are cultures that eat dogs, and in India, Cows are revered. In New Mexico, cock fighting was only recently banned.
I root for Michael Vick because he is a good football player and because he was made an example by an overzealous moralizing court system that punishes some (along with Martha Stewart and Plaxico Burress) celebrities beyond the pale. Vick may have several successful seasons left in the NFL and he does not deserve to be berated constantly over that time due to past sins for which an immense debt was paid. As a dog loving writer at SB Nation wrote, Michael Vick Is The American Dream.
Best reason to root for Michael Vick: Unless you're an Eagles fan, I haven't a clue.This throwaway line is just another in a long line of Vick haters blowing their tops over the Eagle QB’s success this season. This behavior is annoying and unfortunately will not cease until Vick is no longer in the NFL or in any type of public role. Vick went to prison for nearly two years for his crimes, which was longer than sentencing guidelines. He has paid his debt, what more do these so-called pundits want? Blood? Another Bankruptcy? Expulsion from society?
Many of these commentators take what it is that Michael Vick did, operating a dog fighting operation in Virginia, very personally and state as such that they will never forgive him. Trouble is, Vick owes none of these people anything and does not deserve feigned outrage based on conceit and misunderstanding.
Owning a dog fighting ring is repulsive, disgusting and illegal. Vick paid the price and more so than just about anyone else who was ever guilty of the same crime. And, it is folly to compare the dogs in these rings to a pet. These were dangerous dogs bred to be vicious and while they deserved better, Vick paid the price. What if any of these self-righteous types had the same upbringing as Vick? Different cultures have different standards and view animals differently. There are cultures that eat dogs, and in India, Cows are revered. In New Mexico, cock fighting was only recently banned.
I root for Michael Vick because he is a good football player and because he was made an example by an overzealous moralizing court system that punishes some (along with Martha Stewart and Plaxico Burress) celebrities beyond the pale. Vick may have several successful seasons left in the NFL and he does not deserve to be berated constantly over that time due to past sins for which an immense debt was paid. As a dog loving writer at SB Nation wrote, Michael Vick Is The American Dream.
Monday, September 27, 2010
But, the Other Guy is Worse!!!
Listening to campaign ads for democrats Diane Denish and Martin Heinrich the casual listener visiting Albuquerque might think that both are political neophytes that are simply caring individuals wishing to protect the citizenry from the purely political cartoon style villains Susana Martinez and Jon Barela. Is it any wonder why it is that most people are severely turned off by political campaigns?
Little more than a month to go and I am left wondering if these politicians will actually campaign on their accomplishments and what they actually want to do in office instead of attempting to scare voters too busy to pay attention with exorbitant charges against their opponents? Most galling is the fact that both democrats running for the highest profile offices in this election cycle have either been in or nearly were in the offices that they are running for and listening to their ads, you would never know.
Earlier in the election cycle, Gubernatorial candidate Denish had touted successes as a fighter of corruption as the Lt Governor over the last eight years that apparently were not believable or ineffective and have been replaced with ads touting Denish as a southern New Mexican small business owner and (for a period of time) single mother who is tired of the corruption in Santa Fe. The candidate simply disregards the fact that they have been Lt Governor for eight years, first ran for the post twelve years ago and was one contractor contributions to presidential campaign almost Commerce secretary scandal away from being Governor since early last year.
Worse, the Lt Governor paints her opponent, Martinez, as someone who misused public funds for cronies, using as an example salaries and bonuses for the DA office in Dona Ana County. To most voters I think it can be assumed that they understand that the District Attorney’s office is paid for with taxes, public funding. On the second accusation, misusing funds, it is unbelievable that Martinez could have been elected from the primary and not prosecuted by democrat political hack Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General or the hacks at the Obama Justice Department. If these accusations are true, we should be more worried that the corrupt official portrayed in the Denish ads is not behind bars. And, that’s if the viewer/listener drinks the Kool-Aid transporting them to some laughable fantasy land where innocent Diane Denish was never around and did not participate in the Richardson administration, a disgrace to New Mexico as Governor due to cronyism and worse. If that’s the case, then Denish should be disqualified for incompetence.
Like his party compatriot, Heinrich has abandoned running on his record. Earlier there were ads portraying Heinrich as working to help and protect New Mexicans and gathering specific constituencies and hyper specific benefits secured for them without any mention of the actual bill. Again, it seems likely that these ads did not go over well and that viewers were smart enough to understand that Heinrich is nothing if not a rubber stamp for the national democrat agenda and has voted as such and the only group to benefit is government, at our expense. Heinrich’s latest ad imagines the policies of his opponent, Barela and lectures the viewer on these dangerous policies, and of course bringing up a caricature of President Bush, with whom Barela is in lock step.
Jon Barela has never served in elected office. He is a lawyer who worked for Republican congressman Joe Skeen many years ago. Heinrich uses the issues plank on Barela’s website that portrays simple values with nary a desire to hurt people and twists these bland statements into a cudgel claiming that Barela’s goal is to take away the livelihoods of New Mexicans. A pathetic caricature.
So, this is what we have from democrat incumbents, Republican criminal boogey men and purported loss of precious government “benefits” without any mention of their own qualifications. It’s perplexing to discern how either Denish or Heinrich have ever been elected to anything. New Mexico will be better served to return both to private life this November.
Little more than a month to go and I am left wondering if these politicians will actually campaign on their accomplishments and what they actually want to do in office instead of attempting to scare voters too busy to pay attention with exorbitant charges against their opponents? Most galling is the fact that both democrats running for the highest profile offices in this election cycle have either been in or nearly were in the offices that they are running for and listening to their ads, you would never know.
Earlier in the election cycle, Gubernatorial candidate Denish had touted successes as a fighter of corruption as the Lt Governor over the last eight years that apparently were not believable or ineffective and have been replaced with ads touting Denish as a southern New Mexican small business owner and (for a period of time) single mother who is tired of the corruption in Santa Fe. The candidate simply disregards the fact that they have been Lt Governor for eight years, first ran for the post twelve years ago and was one contractor contributions to presidential campaign almost Commerce secretary scandal away from being Governor since early last year.
Worse, the Lt Governor paints her opponent, Martinez, as someone who misused public funds for cronies, using as an example salaries and bonuses for the DA office in Dona Ana County. To most voters I think it can be assumed that they understand that the District Attorney’s office is paid for with taxes, public funding. On the second accusation, misusing funds, it is unbelievable that Martinez could have been elected from the primary and not prosecuted by democrat political hack Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General or the hacks at the Obama Justice Department. If these accusations are true, we should be more worried that the corrupt official portrayed in the Denish ads is not behind bars. And, that’s if the viewer/listener drinks the Kool-Aid transporting them to some laughable fantasy land where innocent Diane Denish was never around and did not participate in the Richardson administration, a disgrace to New Mexico as Governor due to cronyism and worse. If that’s the case, then Denish should be disqualified for incompetence.
Like his party compatriot, Heinrich has abandoned running on his record. Earlier there were ads portraying Heinrich as working to help and protect New Mexicans and gathering specific constituencies and hyper specific benefits secured for them without any mention of the actual bill. Again, it seems likely that these ads did not go over well and that viewers were smart enough to understand that Heinrich is nothing if not a rubber stamp for the national democrat agenda and has voted as such and the only group to benefit is government, at our expense. Heinrich’s latest ad imagines the policies of his opponent, Barela and lectures the viewer on these dangerous policies, and of course bringing up a caricature of President Bush, with whom Barela is in lock step.
Jon Barela has never served in elected office. He is a lawyer who worked for Republican congressman Joe Skeen many years ago. Heinrich uses the issues plank on Barela’s website that portrays simple values with nary a desire to hurt people and twists these bland statements into a cudgel claiming that Barela’s goal is to take away the livelihoods of New Mexicans. A pathetic caricature.
So, this is what we have from democrat incumbents, Republican criminal boogey men and purported loss of precious government “benefits” without any mention of their own qualifications. It’s perplexing to discern how either Denish or Heinrich have ever been elected to anything. New Mexico will be better served to return both to private life this November.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Condescending TV by Heinrich
So I have seen two recent commercials in support of Congressman Martin Heinrich and if there was a reason at all to support him in them, it didn’t come through.
The first tout’s Heinrich’s “achievements” in the senate, not in any specificity, but in the kinds of generalities that are easy to feel good about because he has done sooooooooo much for New Mexico over the last two years. If one is gullible enough to mistake the publically stated intentions of legislation other than actual results then I suppose it would be easy to swallow this tripe. Make no mistake, Heinrich is obsessed with moving his career as a “Progressive” politician and is a total ally to the democrat leadership in Washington. His votes are the evidence and attempts to hide behind vague characterizations of happy motives with zero results.
The second ad is an attack on Heinrich’s opponent, Jon Barela in which the claim is made that Barela wants to take us back to the dark period of the Bush presidency. Oh, the horrors! In a stunning visual cue, a truck with a Barela ad on it backs up! Apparently Heinrich thinks that the voters are stupid. You mean go back to the lower unemployment and lower deficits and growing economy of the Bush years? Beginning with the 2008 campaign the democrats have attempted to sell the fiction that our country was in ruin and only they could save it. It was true that during President Bush’s term that there was too much spending but democrats who have spent even more become hypocrites when attacking those years. Most of the economic problems faced by the country came after the 2006 election when democrats took control of congress. Besides, some recent polls show that a majority of voters prefer President Bush today! What a dumb campaign commercial.
Heinrich has been nothing if not one of the most reliable democrats in congress for the speaker eagerly voting for legislation that will harm the country to include cap and trade, the stimulus, multiple bailouts and of course “Obamacare”. Both of these commercials demonstrate an out of touch person who views political opponents whom disagree with his preferred policies as cartoon villains. It seems as though he really believes that supporting legislation that has failed is still good based only on objective and assumes that the public can’t determine for themselves what to think. It is time that we send him home, wherever that is, or on to a democrat think tank where he can bask in his “achievements” while leaving us alone.
The first tout’s Heinrich’s “achievements” in the senate, not in any specificity, but in the kinds of generalities that are easy to feel good about because he has done sooooooooo much for New Mexico over the last two years. If one is gullible enough to mistake the publically stated intentions of legislation other than actual results then I suppose it would be easy to swallow this tripe. Make no mistake, Heinrich is obsessed with moving his career as a “Progressive” politician and is a total ally to the democrat leadership in Washington. His votes are the evidence and attempts to hide behind vague characterizations of happy motives with zero results.
The second ad is an attack on Heinrich’s opponent, Jon Barela in which the claim is made that Barela wants to take us back to the dark period of the Bush presidency. Oh, the horrors! In a stunning visual cue, a truck with a Barela ad on it backs up! Apparently Heinrich thinks that the voters are stupid. You mean go back to the lower unemployment and lower deficits and growing economy of the Bush years? Beginning with the 2008 campaign the democrats have attempted to sell the fiction that our country was in ruin and only they could save it. It was true that during President Bush’s term that there was too much spending but democrats who have spent even more become hypocrites when attacking those years. Most of the economic problems faced by the country came after the 2006 election when democrats took control of congress. Besides, some recent polls show that a majority of voters prefer President Bush today! What a dumb campaign commercial.
Heinrich has been nothing if not one of the most reliable democrats in congress for the speaker eagerly voting for legislation that will harm the country to include cap and trade, the stimulus, multiple bailouts and of course “Obamacare”. Both of these commercials demonstrate an out of touch person who views political opponents whom disagree with his preferred policies as cartoon villains. It seems as though he really believes that supporting legislation that has failed is still good based only on objective and assumes that the public can’t determine for themselves what to think. It is time that we send him home, wherever that is, or on to a democrat think tank where he can bask in his “achievements” while leaving us alone.
More Bogeymen...
After two days of listening to Rush Limbaugh hitch his wagon to Christine O’Donnell and listen to Sean Hannity becoming unbearable in his me-too-ism attacks on the “Republican” establishment I was hoping for a reprieve. I was wrong, so very wrong. Rush’s substitute (due to a cold) host Mark Davis took the microphone today and ran with it attacking columnists Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer who do not find O’Donnell to be an acceptable candidate.
From all I can tell, O’Donnell is the preferred candidate almost due solely to the resume of her opponent. Other than that, there is nothing. O’Donnell is a regular candidate, without no wins so far, and makes statements that are amiable to conservative interests but has no resume in politics. It is a great thing to get newcomers involved but in a position as important as senator it is imperative to have some experience, city council, state representative, mayor of a small town, something by which a person’s experience can be adequately judged with regard to their probable actions as a legislator. O’Donnell has none and won by virtue of running against a terrible candidate who was running for the general election and ignored the primary. He opponent could have learned a few things from John McCain.
Can O’Donnell win? Perhaps, her opponent is a self-described marxist and we will learn the preference of Delaware, which is their choice. I have read the pieces from Rove and Krauthammer and cannot find anything objectionable in their writing. It will be used by the opposition in painting O’Donnell in a negative light but so what? They are valid opinions and screaming against Republican bogeymen by Limbaugh, Hannity and Davis is of no benefit. It makes them appear to be unreasonable by not even entertaining opposing viewpoints and that’s a democrat game. Not one of these three has mentioned anything positive in regard to O’Donnell excepting her primary election victory. They should take caution in backing this candidate until they have something in their resume lest they set themselves up for disappointment.
From all I can tell, O’Donnell is the preferred candidate almost due solely to the resume of her opponent. Other than that, there is nothing. O’Donnell is a regular candidate, without no wins so far, and makes statements that are amiable to conservative interests but has no resume in politics. It is a great thing to get newcomers involved but in a position as important as senator it is imperative to have some experience, city council, state representative, mayor of a small town, something by which a person’s experience can be adequately judged with regard to their probable actions as a legislator. O’Donnell has none and won by virtue of running against a terrible candidate who was running for the general election and ignored the primary. He opponent could have learned a few things from John McCain.
Can O’Donnell win? Perhaps, her opponent is a self-described marxist and we will learn the preference of Delaware, which is their choice. I have read the pieces from Rove and Krauthammer and cannot find anything objectionable in their writing. It will be used by the opposition in painting O’Donnell in a negative light but so what? They are valid opinions and screaming against Republican bogeymen by Limbaugh, Hannity and Davis is of no benefit. It makes them appear to be unreasonable by not even entertaining opposing viewpoints and that’s a democrat game. Not one of these three has mentioned anything positive in regard to O’Donnell excepting her primary election victory. They should take caution in backing this candidate until they have something in their resume lest they set themselves up for disappointment.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Bad Choices and Assumed Motive
A big problem with the President’s opinion deriding those that have reservations of the proposed Mosque blocks from the World Trade Center Ground Zero is the ignorant way he assigns the motives of those who think differently based on his own viewpoint. It would be different if every single person, 70 percent of the country by recent polling, thought exactly the same or only opposed the construction without saying anything or by making disgusting statements. No matter how much some may want to believe that all the opposition is malevolent, the facts just don’t support that conclusion. Many issues are complicated and anyone who ignores contrasting arguments doesn’t want to debate because it’s easier to demonize by playing on emotion rather than defending the abstract.
Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.
Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?
Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.
The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.
The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.
Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.
Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?
Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.
The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.
The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Good Sell-out
Today was almost a good day owing to the fact that about halfway through a meeting that always lasts longer than scheduled I thought that this really was going to be the day that it ended on time, even early. I was wrong. And I will always be wrong about this meeting. And unfortunately for me, over the next nine months I will be participating in an awful lot of these meetings.
The reason why is because these meetings are led by the most curious of people, the type of person that speaks almost entirely in puns and analogies. Of course, having the luck that I have I almost never understand the pun or the analogy which leads my participation to listening for anything useful and always replying that I have no further questions. It’s easy to never have any questions or anything to add when you don’t understand what is going on.
And after a while, I just don’t care anymore. There is supposed to be knowledge gained from these meetings but the person who was tasked with leading them just has no self awareness at all. I find myself thankful for the mute button when this leader starts touting his ability to keep projects on task and spouting euphemisms for time sucks when he could just talk about himself, oh wait, he is.
Add to that lack of self awareness an ability to talk almost endlessly and a disarming folksy tone and a desire to analogize the simplest of constructs into incoherent slush and you have yourself a real winner. The inconvenient truth is that I will happily continue my support of these meetings because while I dread them and am constantly annoyed by them they are led by the customer. This dude basically pays my bills and I am happy to sell out as my son needs milk and my Infiniti needs gas.
The reason why is because these meetings are led by the most curious of people, the type of person that speaks almost entirely in puns and analogies. Of course, having the luck that I have I almost never understand the pun or the analogy which leads my participation to listening for anything useful and always replying that I have no further questions. It’s easy to never have any questions or anything to add when you don’t understand what is going on.
And after a while, I just don’t care anymore. There is supposed to be knowledge gained from these meetings but the person who was tasked with leading them just has no self awareness at all. I find myself thankful for the mute button when this leader starts touting his ability to keep projects on task and spouting euphemisms for time sucks when he could just talk about himself, oh wait, he is.
Add to that lack of self awareness an ability to talk almost endlessly and a disarming folksy tone and a desire to analogize the simplest of constructs into incoherent slush and you have yourself a real winner. The inconvenient truth is that I will happily continue my support of these meetings because while I dread them and am constantly annoyed by them they are led by the customer. This dude basically pays my bills and I am happy to sell out as my son needs milk and my Infiniti needs gas.
Other People's Money
Recently dominating the news has been much discussion in regard to the expiring “Bush” tax cuts. The President has been espousing populist rhetoric about extending the cuts but only to those that make less than $200,000 dollars a year individually or $250,000 for couples. The administration’s stance relies on typical statist tripe in regard to the “costs” of these tax cuts and pontification on the worthiness of the earners in regard to keeping their own money. Of course, being statist, the administration apparently views these earnings as the governments first.
This view is dangerous and is tyranny as it represents a desire to divide the people of this country and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding in regard to the way that our economy works. On the costs of the tax cuts, these costs are simply estimations made on current data what ifs. These estimations are entirely fictional because they rely on assumptions that current conditions would be the same based on higher tax rates for some. This is simply impossible to prove. Second, by ignoring the fictional costs of retaining the tax cuts on the lower brackets their argument omits important information. Last, the 700 billion dollar over ten years figure provided does not carry any seriousness from an administration that spent more than that last year in a single act, the failed stimulus.
Most disappointing is the tenacity in which the President and his administration have taken to attacking a significant portion of the United States population. It is disgusting for the President of the United States of America to accuse decent Americans of being greedy and to tell them that they can afford it without seeking their opinion to cheering from crowds. This act is simply political in nature and is utilized in order to distract the populace from unpopular policies and actions. Because the higher income brackets represent a tiny minority of citizens the President does not believe that their votes matter and cynically believes that the rest of Americans will approve and encourage the demonizing of and taking from “them”.
If the action to only extend rates for some and not all tax brackets is carried out, it is tyrannical because the difference in tax rates will grow ever larger and will represent the will of an overwhelming majority confiscating the incomes of a small minority of citizens. By virtue of our current tax system and common sense, those with higher incomes pay more taxes and at a higher rate. Even if there was a flat tax, those with higher incomes would pay more taxes.
How it was somehow determined to be fair to pine for the incomes of others for ever increasing government “services” is discouraging and was inevitable, resulting from vote hungry politicians promising citizens spending that is neither warranted nor reasonable from a budgetary standpoint. The biggest problem with the tax cuts was that there was not a cut to government to balance any theoretical loss of government “revenue”. Political theatre pitting us against each other is a ridiculous distraction from the real issue and that is a government too big to sustain and too burdensome to understand.
This view is dangerous and is tyranny as it represents a desire to divide the people of this country and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding in regard to the way that our economy works. On the costs of the tax cuts, these costs are simply estimations made on current data what ifs. These estimations are entirely fictional because they rely on assumptions that current conditions would be the same based on higher tax rates for some. This is simply impossible to prove. Second, by ignoring the fictional costs of retaining the tax cuts on the lower brackets their argument omits important information. Last, the 700 billion dollar over ten years figure provided does not carry any seriousness from an administration that spent more than that last year in a single act, the failed stimulus.
Most disappointing is the tenacity in which the President and his administration have taken to attacking a significant portion of the United States population. It is disgusting for the President of the United States of America to accuse decent Americans of being greedy and to tell them that they can afford it without seeking their opinion to cheering from crowds. This act is simply political in nature and is utilized in order to distract the populace from unpopular policies and actions. Because the higher income brackets represent a tiny minority of citizens the President does not believe that their votes matter and cynically believes that the rest of Americans will approve and encourage the demonizing of and taking from “them”.
If the action to only extend rates for some and not all tax brackets is carried out, it is tyrannical because the difference in tax rates will grow ever larger and will represent the will of an overwhelming majority confiscating the incomes of a small minority of citizens. By virtue of our current tax system and common sense, those with higher incomes pay more taxes and at a higher rate. Even if there was a flat tax, those with higher incomes would pay more taxes.
How it was somehow determined to be fair to pine for the incomes of others for ever increasing government “services” is discouraging and was inevitable, resulting from vote hungry politicians promising citizens spending that is neither warranted nor reasonable from a budgetary standpoint. The biggest problem with the tax cuts was that there was not a cut to government to balance any theoretical loss of government “revenue”. Political theatre pitting us against each other is a ridiculous distraction from the real issue and that is a government too big to sustain and too burdensome to understand.
Friday, September 03, 2010
A Bad Teacher Complains, Should we Care?
Back in high school I had an elective called “Adventures in Supercomputing” that was supposed to be focused on teaching students computer skills and encouraging technology related careers. In reality it was an hour excuse to play games and surf the primitive, at the time (around 1996), internet. I cannot think of what the grading criteria for this class was and there just wasn’t much to it other than showing up most of the time.
The worst part of this course was the teacher, who mostly taught remedial math courses, with whom I never had any earlier classroom interaction. This teacher was the sanctimonious type often bemoaning the plight of the impoverished school teacher and their own selfless commitment to the cause. A frequent assertion of this teacher was that they could make twice their salary if they worked somewhere else and there were no shortage of offers. This statement was inferring that this teacher was sacrificing their and their family’s well being on account of us students and was meant to indoctrinate the idea that teachers are not paid enough or fairly.
One of my least enduring qualities rears itself whenever I think I’m being badgered or hinted at incessantly or tire of the same tired argument again and again; I say something that is not very kind. After about halfway through the semester and another sermon from this teacher about mythical high paying jobs for a high school basic math instructor I snapped, got up from my desk and asked, “Why don’t you leave, why don’t you take one of those jobs? If we are soooooooo difficult and you can do soooooooo much better away from here, why are you here? I think we would be just fine with you making all that money at one of those jobs. I don’t think they even exist”. After about five minutes of the teacher staring at me intently while their face returned from a deep red, they attempted to explain it as a selfless act, a sacrifice even and that we students really needed them. I rolled my eyes and went back to looking up scores on ESPN.com. Surprisingly I received an A in that class, I did show up most of the time…
I was reminded of that story recently when a friend of my wife’s friend, who is a bad teacher, trotted out the “teachers are under and unfairly paid” trope and added “merit pay is bad” in a Facebook posting. It reminded me of that story because it was the clearest memory that I have of a horrible teacher complaining about not being rewarded for being horrible. It seems as though the most vocal teachers, complaining about pay and testing and any number of things, are usually inadequate and are poor at presenting their case in a way that does not anger observers.
First, are teachers unfairly or poorly compensated? In New Mexico, the average teacher salary is nearly 42 thousand dollars and comes from 31 percent of tax revenues directed towards education. This is for nine months of employment, accounting for 12 months this extrapolates to an equivalent of nearly 56 thousand dollars. That does not sound too bad. The unadjusted figure (42k) is almost four times the federal poverty line (11k) so it is hard to believe that teachers are impoverished. More to the point, being a teacher is a choice and it's not like those choosing to become teachers have no clue in regard to their earning potential. They knew what they were getting in to.
Most difficult is the fact that it is almost impossible to determine what is right for teacher pay. Because education is absolutely dominated by the public sector there is no reliable market for teachers so we have no way to determine the right salary, what is it really worth to the consumer? Ask any of the complainers and they don’t have an answer either. It seems as though there will never be a salary high enough and because bad, self-righteous teachers are never introspective they just do not know how bad their preening on this subject looks to the average citizen, many of who would love to make 40k a year and have three months off.
Another argument that makes teachers look bad is when they denounce merit pay tied to testing initiatives. It would be unfair to tie the salaries of teachers only to the testing results of their students without any other metrics or considerations but it is misguided to ignore them as an important piece. Questions arise when teachers seem so skeptical of testing and deny any share of culpability when the dropout rate approaches fifty percent and some who do graduate can’t even read.
Teachers are a fundamental part of our society and it is imperative that they are compensated fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately the public sector dominated union infested education system we have will not allow for serious discussion. The public is told to shut up and hand over their wallets with no better results time and again. It is easy to think that it may be time to blow up the system and start from scratch.
The worst part of this course was the teacher, who mostly taught remedial math courses, with whom I never had any earlier classroom interaction. This teacher was the sanctimonious type often bemoaning the plight of the impoverished school teacher and their own selfless commitment to the cause. A frequent assertion of this teacher was that they could make twice their salary if they worked somewhere else and there were no shortage of offers. This statement was inferring that this teacher was sacrificing their and their family’s well being on account of us students and was meant to indoctrinate the idea that teachers are not paid enough or fairly.
One of my least enduring qualities rears itself whenever I think I’m being badgered or hinted at incessantly or tire of the same tired argument again and again; I say something that is not very kind. After about halfway through the semester and another sermon from this teacher about mythical high paying jobs for a high school basic math instructor I snapped, got up from my desk and asked, “Why don’t you leave, why don’t you take one of those jobs? If we are soooooooo difficult and you can do soooooooo much better away from here, why are you here? I think we would be just fine with you making all that money at one of those jobs. I don’t think they even exist”. After about five minutes of the teacher staring at me intently while their face returned from a deep red, they attempted to explain it as a selfless act, a sacrifice even and that we students really needed them. I rolled my eyes and went back to looking up scores on ESPN.com. Surprisingly I received an A in that class, I did show up most of the time…
I was reminded of that story recently when a friend of my wife’s friend, who is a bad teacher, trotted out the “teachers are under and unfairly paid” trope and added “merit pay is bad” in a Facebook posting. It reminded me of that story because it was the clearest memory that I have of a horrible teacher complaining about not being rewarded for being horrible. It seems as though the most vocal teachers, complaining about pay and testing and any number of things, are usually inadequate and are poor at presenting their case in a way that does not anger observers.
First, are teachers unfairly or poorly compensated? In New Mexico, the average teacher salary is nearly 42 thousand dollars and comes from 31 percent of tax revenues directed towards education. This is for nine months of employment, accounting for 12 months this extrapolates to an equivalent of nearly 56 thousand dollars. That does not sound too bad. The unadjusted figure (42k) is almost four times the federal poverty line (11k) so it is hard to believe that teachers are impoverished. More to the point, being a teacher is a choice and it's not like those choosing to become teachers have no clue in regard to their earning potential. They knew what they were getting in to.
Most difficult is the fact that it is almost impossible to determine what is right for teacher pay. Because education is absolutely dominated by the public sector there is no reliable market for teachers so we have no way to determine the right salary, what is it really worth to the consumer? Ask any of the complainers and they don’t have an answer either. It seems as though there will never be a salary high enough and because bad, self-righteous teachers are never introspective they just do not know how bad their preening on this subject looks to the average citizen, many of who would love to make 40k a year and have three months off.
Another argument that makes teachers look bad is when they denounce merit pay tied to testing initiatives. It would be unfair to tie the salaries of teachers only to the testing results of their students without any other metrics or considerations but it is misguided to ignore them as an important piece. Questions arise when teachers seem so skeptical of testing and deny any share of culpability when the dropout rate approaches fifty percent and some who do graduate can’t even read.
Teachers are a fundamental part of our society and it is imperative that they are compensated fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately the public sector dominated union infested education system we have will not allow for serious discussion. The public is told to shut up and hand over their wallets with no better results time and again. It is easy to think that it may be time to blow up the system and start from scratch.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The importance of a good Cruise Director
It is my ever unchanging opinion that the role of cruise director (organizer, leader) is important to any type of group activity be it business or leisure and that any person who immediately volunteers or vociferously seeks this post should be locked out of the room and only let in once the agenda is set. Almost every time there is a person who actively seeks this role, they turn out to be a control freak know-it-all who only ensures that nothing gets done or that nobody has any fun.
Traveling in large groups for leisure can be difficult because if there is no set agenda, like on a cruise, it can be difficult to come to consensus on what to do. This kind of situation can even get worse when there is a group of people that don’t know what they want to do and can only disagree with what anyone else wants to do. This is a problem and needs some kind of cruise director to keep things moving along or else the entire trip will consist of people staring each other exchanging “I don’t knows” and being bored.
The aggressive type is the wrong choice as cruise director for leisure because they never seem to have the capacity to mitigate disagreement or consider all the options with regard to the people involved. It always seems to be the case that the aggressive types only consider what they want which invariably is the opposite of what anyone wants so the cruise director seems to think they deserve and of course do not receive any appreciation because everyone else is miserable and having no fun.
In business the cruise director is tasked with “herding cats”, taking disparate groups within a single company or multiple companies and focusing a project so that it adheres to its scope and deadlines. Individual companies and IEEE type working groups assign titles like project or program manager and offer courses like six sigma which gives out karate like “belts” for attending courses on and adherence to high-minded albeit vague principles.
Adherence to vague principles and reams of work-making paperwork to track that adherence seems to attract the overly bureaucratic control freak type, the worst possible choice for the business cruise director. Meetings will be absolutely wasted with discussions about philosophies, inane policies, leverage, platitudes (rabbit holes anyone?), synergy, adherence to irrelevant project management guidelines and discussions about how to appropriately talk about the project while never actually discussing the topics of the meeting.
The bureaucratic project manager is quick to jump to conclusions and always seems to proclaim a mastery of subject matter before it can be explained to them by actual people in the know. They completely monopolize meetings (which always go over time) by attempting to referee discussions when it is not warranted and incorrectly reiterating everything that is said by any party because they believe that they are the only person that really understands all viewpoints while the really understand nothing. In the end the participants are frustrated, hopelessly behind and wishing for the project manager to contract laryngitis or some kind of flu.
Inadequate cruise directors are the bane to anything getting done anywhere. In the leisure sense it leads to a rash of boring outings and indecisiveness. In business it’s entirely to blame for projects taking way too long to complete and costing much more than necessary. Many projects only get done entirely in spite of bad cruise directors. It is important to either get in on the ground floor and be a part of the selection process in the beginning or be wary that you will either regret not staying home or be sick of platitudes and never be able to get any work done.
Traveling in large groups for leisure can be difficult because if there is no set agenda, like on a cruise, it can be difficult to come to consensus on what to do. This kind of situation can even get worse when there is a group of people that don’t know what they want to do and can only disagree with what anyone else wants to do. This is a problem and needs some kind of cruise director to keep things moving along or else the entire trip will consist of people staring each other exchanging “I don’t knows” and being bored.
The aggressive type is the wrong choice as cruise director for leisure because they never seem to have the capacity to mitigate disagreement or consider all the options with regard to the people involved. It always seems to be the case that the aggressive types only consider what they want which invariably is the opposite of what anyone wants so the cruise director seems to think they deserve and of course do not receive any appreciation because everyone else is miserable and having no fun.
In business the cruise director is tasked with “herding cats”, taking disparate groups within a single company or multiple companies and focusing a project so that it adheres to its scope and deadlines. Individual companies and IEEE type working groups assign titles like project or program manager and offer courses like six sigma which gives out karate like “belts” for attending courses on and adherence to high-minded albeit vague principles.
Adherence to vague principles and reams of work-making paperwork to track that adherence seems to attract the overly bureaucratic control freak type, the worst possible choice for the business cruise director. Meetings will be absolutely wasted with discussions about philosophies, inane policies, leverage, platitudes (rabbit holes anyone?), synergy, adherence to irrelevant project management guidelines and discussions about how to appropriately talk about the project while never actually discussing the topics of the meeting.
The bureaucratic project manager is quick to jump to conclusions and always seems to proclaim a mastery of subject matter before it can be explained to them by actual people in the know. They completely monopolize meetings (which always go over time) by attempting to referee discussions when it is not warranted and incorrectly reiterating everything that is said by any party because they believe that they are the only person that really understands all viewpoints while the really understand nothing. In the end the participants are frustrated, hopelessly behind and wishing for the project manager to contract laryngitis or some kind of flu.
Inadequate cruise directors are the bane to anything getting done anywhere. In the leisure sense it leads to a rash of boring outings and indecisiveness. In business it’s entirely to blame for projects taking way too long to complete and costing much more than necessary. Many projects only get done entirely in spite of bad cruise directors. It is important to either get in on the ground floor and be a part of the selection process in the beginning or be wary that you will either regret not staying home or be sick of platitudes and never be able to get any work done.
Monday, August 30, 2010
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:
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.
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.
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.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
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.
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.
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.
Friday, August 06, 2010
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:
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.
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.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Criminalizing "Finders Keepers"...
From the “Would this even stand up in court file”:
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
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:
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.
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.
Monday, August 02, 2010
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)