Vindication was on the menu his morning. If I cared, that is. Allow me to explain. A couple of years ago when I was shopping for a new car the manager of my office at that time advised me to get the all wheel drive option. And this wasn’t some kind of passing mention either. This guy was adamant and even belligerent about it. When I first received the unsolicited advice I thanked the person for it and tried to move the conversation on from there. Of course, this guy wasn’t done. He went on and on about how he knew everything about driving in weather because he was from the northeast part of the country or some such place. I basically discarded the advice because while I’m not from the northeast, I am from this part of New Mexico, and since I still live here figured my experience was more relevant. And that experience is that we just don’t get a lot of bad weather here. If it’s bad enough I’d rather just stay in.
Anyway, I bought the car, with rear wheel drive, in early fall 2009 and in a year and a half of ownership it hasn’t really met inclement weather. Until today, of course. The city of Albuquerque woke up this morning to roads of ice and sleet with precipitation and fog limiting visibility. While I could have stayed home and it was tempting to do so, I decided to head in to the office. Taking it slow I made it into work without much issue at about 6:30 in the morning. My traction control came on more than a few times and ensured that my car remained in the direction I intended. That’s why I feel vindicated.
Could the all wheel drive option have made my drive in easier? Probably. And would I enjoy the speedier 0-60 time that AWD has? Likely. But, would I even notice that slightly faster acceleration and would I like a heavier car that gets slightly worse gas mileage. No, I would not.
The entire reason I mentioned all of this was to bring up an observation. And that is it seems every single gentleman of at least middle age and older who moved to Albuquerque from the northeastern part of the country believes that they know everything about everything and like to share it with everyone. Seriously, I was driving with an older gentleman from Chicago recently and they were an even worse back-seat driver than me. Every turn he would tell me to turn AS I WAS TURNING. Every time I would accelerate I WAS GOING TOO FAST. He explained to me MY CULTURE and why things are the way they are, NO MATTER IF IT IS THE OPPOSITE OF ALL OF KNOWN NM HISTORY and AS IF I KNOW NOTHING.
But I digress. If you don’t believe me, hang out with an older dude from the northeastern part of the country sometime. You’ll be cringing in no time. I guarantee it, double your money back.
Tuesday, February 01, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
What's the hurry, Officer?
Dear Albuquerque Police Department Officer assigned to car G74, you’re the reason why I will never support officer’s being allowed to take home their work vehicles. What I witnessed this morning is a situation that many, too many, ordinary citizens witness on an all too regular basis.
Today as I was leaving my little slice of urban development bliss, shared by you officer in G74, I did the same thing every other motorist sharing the road with you did, double checked my speed and ensured that I remained right at 30. Did you? Of course not, car G74 must have a defective speedometer because it seemed as though you were traveling a bit faster than the rest of us. What was that, ten over the limit? I asked myself; self, would that officer in car G74 allow me in my vehicle to travel ten miles per hour over the speed limit? Really, I would likely be stopped and fined? How inconvenient.
Traffic stopped and as the light turned green, officer in APD car G74 stomped on the accelerator, as the late model Crown Vic’s, courtesy of you and me, tires chirped as the officer barreled into the lane. I sped up to the speed limit, a more reasonable 45 but that wasn’t fast enough for officer in G47 who sped off in front of all traffic, weaving without signaling and cutting off intimidated drivers.
As I turned away I thought to myself, why should I pay more in taxes so that officer in car G47 can break the law on their commute when I have to transport myself back and forth to work? Is it really a humble public servant if they get to flaunt their disregard for the laws the rest of us must adhere to, or face punishment from them, and when they insult us by assuming themselves so important that we must provide them perks not afforded to the rest of us?
Most police officers are decent and work hard. Problem is regular citizens never have to interact with those officers. Most decent citizen’s interaction with the 5-0 includes routine traffic stops and getting paperwork done for the insurance company when something’s stolen. Other than that, we are forced to witness the wanton disregard too many officers have for simple traffic laws. The officer in car G47 wasn’t on a call, he was leaving home for work. It’s bad enough that many officers park their take home cars in a way meant to intimidate their neighbors. That’s right, parked on the street towards the main artery so the person just driving through has no idea if it’s some kind of set up.
Officer in car G74, you and those who act in the same way as yourself are the problem. We respect those officers that make us safer. What do you do that makes us safer? Frankly, you don’t deserve to have your commute covered by me and my neighbors. Additionally, you and your kind should have double fines assessed for your actions. If only anyone with actual power would do something. I’m not holding my breath.
Today as I was leaving my little slice of urban development bliss, shared by you officer in G74, I did the same thing every other motorist sharing the road with you did, double checked my speed and ensured that I remained right at 30. Did you? Of course not, car G74 must have a defective speedometer because it seemed as though you were traveling a bit faster than the rest of us. What was that, ten over the limit? I asked myself; self, would that officer in car G74 allow me in my vehicle to travel ten miles per hour over the speed limit? Really, I would likely be stopped and fined? How inconvenient.
Traffic stopped and as the light turned green, officer in APD car G74 stomped on the accelerator, as the late model Crown Vic’s, courtesy of you and me, tires chirped as the officer barreled into the lane. I sped up to the speed limit, a more reasonable 45 but that wasn’t fast enough for officer in G47 who sped off in front of all traffic, weaving without signaling and cutting off intimidated drivers.
As I turned away I thought to myself, why should I pay more in taxes so that officer in car G47 can break the law on their commute when I have to transport myself back and forth to work? Is it really a humble public servant if they get to flaunt their disregard for the laws the rest of us must adhere to, or face punishment from them, and when they insult us by assuming themselves so important that we must provide them perks not afforded to the rest of us?
Most police officers are decent and work hard. Problem is regular citizens never have to interact with those officers. Most decent citizen’s interaction with the 5-0 includes routine traffic stops and getting paperwork done for the insurance company when something’s stolen. Other than that, we are forced to witness the wanton disregard too many officers have for simple traffic laws. The officer in car G47 wasn’t on a call, he was leaving home for work. It’s bad enough that many officers park their take home cars in a way meant to intimidate their neighbors. That’s right, parked on the street towards the main artery so the person just driving through has no idea if it’s some kind of set up.
Officer in car G74, you and those who act in the same way as yourself are the problem. We respect those officers that make us safer. What do you do that makes us safer? Frankly, you don’t deserve to have your commute covered by me and my neighbors. Additionally, you and your kind should have double fines assessed for your actions. If only anyone with actual power would do something. I’m not holding my breath.
Friday, January 21, 2011
A kind of Patience
Patience is of virtue and as I age it is a trait that is actually becoming more common in my day-to-day dealings. I’ve always been a curmudgeon in ways much more advanced than my age. And it’s not the usual things. It’s been awhile since I realized that the music produced when I was in high school and college is much better than anything now. Due to my dislike of being out in public coupled with a dislike of being around disgusting surroundings I’d rather watch movies at home than in a theatre. I also dislike having to explain the same thing many times over to the same people or group. However, because I am effectively a consulting engineer it is necessary to have patience with those who can’t bother to pay attention.
A meeting this afternoon was a special kind of head slapper. I was presenting a model of a complex system as a certain kind of diagram. I have met in person with this group twice and in teleconference meetings with the aid of screen sharing programs dozens of times since late last summer. Important to this kind of diagram is the understanding that it is not the same as a circuit diagram. That it is not the same as a flow diagram. Explaining the diagrams begins with describing its basic structure and how that structure is used to determine the kinds of meaningful information that can be gained from it.
Every meeting, I begin by giving a short overview of the process and the basic structure of the diagram type then proceed to describe the application to the system being analyzed and the result. Most of these diagrams are at least several months old with only slight modifications to distinguish from one meeting to the next. Of course, each meeting is a repeat of the last. Shortly after a brief overview of the process, questions that should have been answered by that overview are brought up when the result is presented.
It should not take too long to describe the process again and I acquiesce and answer the question in an attempt to move forward but it’s never good enough. No matter how many times I explain that this kind of diagram is not a flow diagram and that the logic of this particular type of diagram dictates the layout I am inundated with more questions that should have been previously answered.
When I was a younger engineer, I could not effectively deal with this kind of interaction. When interacting with other technical staff one assumes that there would be some kind of basic competency. There should be the assumption that there is some kind of retention the group has and that they can grasp concepts and require nothing more than a refresher. That’s wrong though and truth is you can’t assume anything about the technical competency of anyone you deal with in a business sense. It’s rather cynical but the best way to deal with it is to smile, nod and wait out the meeting. Much of the issues I experience are tangential to the actual deliverable and there is no point in letting these things drag the project down. This is a kind of patience that I have learned and I am a better engineer for it.
A meeting this afternoon was a special kind of head slapper. I was presenting a model of a complex system as a certain kind of diagram. I have met in person with this group twice and in teleconference meetings with the aid of screen sharing programs dozens of times since late last summer. Important to this kind of diagram is the understanding that it is not the same as a circuit diagram. That it is not the same as a flow diagram. Explaining the diagrams begins with describing its basic structure and how that structure is used to determine the kinds of meaningful information that can be gained from it.
Every meeting, I begin by giving a short overview of the process and the basic structure of the diagram type then proceed to describe the application to the system being analyzed and the result. Most of these diagrams are at least several months old with only slight modifications to distinguish from one meeting to the next. Of course, each meeting is a repeat of the last. Shortly after a brief overview of the process, questions that should have been answered by that overview are brought up when the result is presented.
It should not take too long to describe the process again and I acquiesce and answer the question in an attempt to move forward but it’s never good enough. No matter how many times I explain that this kind of diagram is not a flow diagram and that the logic of this particular type of diagram dictates the layout I am inundated with more questions that should have been previously answered.
When I was a younger engineer, I could not effectively deal with this kind of interaction. When interacting with other technical staff one assumes that there would be some kind of basic competency. There should be the assumption that there is some kind of retention the group has and that they can grasp concepts and require nothing more than a refresher. That’s wrong though and truth is you can’t assume anything about the technical competency of anyone you deal with in a business sense. It’s rather cynical but the best way to deal with it is to smile, nod and wait out the meeting. Much of the issues I experience are tangential to the actual deliverable and there is no point in letting these things drag the project down. This is a kind of patience that I have learned and I am a better engineer for it.
Random Thoughts - 1/21
Thwacking the conventional wisdom strawman in sports is one of ESPN radio personality Colin Cowherd’s favorite lines. This morning’s show started with the premise that everyone; yes everyone, favors the Green Bay Packers over the Chicago Bears in this weekend’s NFC championship game. Everyone has been hating on the Bears and thinks they’d be the worst super bowl team in history. Cowherd’s annoying tic wears because he can’t help himself from harping on the subject for much too long. The Bears may win. The Packers may win, and are favored by a field goal. There have been analysts favoring both sides of the game and perhaps there has been more favorable coverage of the Packers. Cowherd’s annoying argument is that everyone thought the Saints would win, they lost. Yet, in the last round the Bears were favored by ten, and won by eleven, justifying the belief that the Seahawks had no chance in that game. I find the Bears to be an unlikeable team, mostly because of former Broncos QB Jay Cutler, but it’s nothing more than a strawman to identify them as some kind of victim of vitriol.
I learned earlier today that I inadvertently stole the jacket of a one year old from my son’s day care center yesterday afternoon. It was a jacket identical to one that my son has and my son did not have a jacket with him yesterday morning. As my wife takes him in the morning and I pick him up in the afternoon combined with the fact that my wife and I communicate as well as your typical married couple I of course had no clue that the boy had no coat. How horrible am I though? What if the poor kid had no other jacket? It was rather cold this morning due to the wind.
Governor Susana Martinez has been sued again, this time by the Sierra Club, for putting a hold on new energy saving building guidelines. The hold is only for 90 days in order to allow for a thorough review. I think in this case it is in Governor Martinez’s favor that she is being sued by such hack outfits like the Sierra Club, an adversary worth having.
Even though I have been using some form or another of the written English language for about twenty-six years I am still flummoxed by proper spelling. I am such a bad speller that sometimes Microsoft Word has no suggestions for me. It’s as if Word is telling me that I am so bad at using a word that I may know the meaning of that they don’t know what to do with my mangled mess of letters. How’s that for a self esteem push? Makes me want to eat a whole bag of M&Ms in one bite.
I learned earlier today that I inadvertently stole the jacket of a one year old from my son’s day care center yesterday afternoon. It was a jacket identical to one that my son has and my son did not have a jacket with him yesterday morning. As my wife takes him in the morning and I pick him up in the afternoon combined with the fact that my wife and I communicate as well as your typical married couple I of course had no clue that the boy had no coat. How horrible am I though? What if the poor kid had no other jacket? It was rather cold this morning due to the wind.
Governor Susana Martinez has been sued again, this time by the Sierra Club, for putting a hold on new energy saving building guidelines. The hold is only for 90 days in order to allow for a thorough review. I think in this case it is in Governor Martinez’s favor that she is being sued by such hack outfits like the Sierra Club, an adversary worth having.
Even though I have been using some form or another of the written English language for about twenty-six years I am still flummoxed by proper spelling. I am such a bad speller that sometimes Microsoft Word has no suggestions for me. It’s as if Word is telling me that I am so bad at using a word that I may know the meaning of that they don’t know what to do with my mangled mess of letters. How’s that for a self esteem push? Makes me want to eat a whole bag of M&Ms in one bite.
Thursday, January 20, 2011
APS's lack of transperency a problem
In light of impending budget cuts from the state of New Mexico, Albuquerque Public Schools has responded as usual, threatening to file a lawsuit against the state. Funny how the school district has plenty of money for lawyers to take the state to court and for purchasing downtown property to build a performing arts school but there’s no room for any cuts. Funny, but I can think of two based on that last sentence.
There was a discussion the other morning on the radio, I forget which day because I just started graduate school basically on a whim and it has been a busy week, with callers offering up ideas for APS to trim a little. A reasonable idea considering the current unemployment rate coupled with rising energy and food prices are causing the people of New Mexico to tighten their own budgets. Unfortunately much of the proposals to help APS deal with its need to cut back were unserious.
One caller proposed the shutter of the English as a second language program and another echoed by decrying non-English speakers for not teaching their children English. The supreme court has ruled that the legal resident status of a student cannot be questioned when it comes to public schooling, never mind the fact that there are people in this country legally that do not speak English, the program is actually beneficial because it allows students to integrate into the greater school population instead of them continuing to be a distraction to other students for a dozen years, all the while slipping through the cracks.
Another caller proposed that APS rent out space in their twin high rise buildings located in uptown Albuquerque. The host noted that he didn’t know if there was even any space in the building to be rented. It’s probably correct that there isn’t any space, I was riding past earlier today and the parking lot was stuffed (it was before 3 in the afternoon so most people were still “working”) with some even parking in the thoroughfares about the lot. Besides that, lease rates are not very much right now and why any self respecting business would desire to be co-located with APS is puzzling.
What’s most appalling about the buildings and APS as a whole is that no one knows what the majority of those employed their do. No one is educated in those building yet there are many employees. Why are there so many people employed in a building supporting a school district in which no one learns anything? What duties do they perform and what programs and expenditures are they part of? No one knows. And that’s why when the public offers up ideas they’re trivial, it’s because APS’s operations are shrouded in secrecy, they are never made to account for why they need as much money as they need while at the same time doing an incredibly poor job of educating. Anytime they are called to account they file suit or protest. It’s about time that APS were forced to outline for the public in detail their operations and show why it costs as much as it does.
There was a discussion the other morning on the radio, I forget which day because I just started graduate school basically on a whim and it has been a busy week, with callers offering up ideas for APS to trim a little. A reasonable idea considering the current unemployment rate coupled with rising energy and food prices are causing the people of New Mexico to tighten their own budgets. Unfortunately much of the proposals to help APS deal with its need to cut back were unserious.
One caller proposed the shutter of the English as a second language program and another echoed by decrying non-English speakers for not teaching their children English. The supreme court has ruled that the legal resident status of a student cannot be questioned when it comes to public schooling, never mind the fact that there are people in this country legally that do not speak English, the program is actually beneficial because it allows students to integrate into the greater school population instead of them continuing to be a distraction to other students for a dozen years, all the while slipping through the cracks.
Another caller proposed that APS rent out space in their twin high rise buildings located in uptown Albuquerque. The host noted that he didn’t know if there was even any space in the building to be rented. It’s probably correct that there isn’t any space, I was riding past earlier today and the parking lot was stuffed (it was before 3 in the afternoon so most people were still “working”) with some even parking in the thoroughfares about the lot. Besides that, lease rates are not very much right now and why any self respecting business would desire to be co-located with APS is puzzling.
What’s most appalling about the buildings and APS as a whole is that no one knows what the majority of those employed their do. No one is educated in those building yet there are many employees. Why are there so many people employed in a building supporting a school district in which no one learns anything? What duties do they perform and what programs and expenditures are they part of? No one knows. And that’s why when the public offers up ideas they’re trivial, it’s because APS’s operations are shrouded in secrecy, they are never made to account for why they need as much money as they need while at the same time doing an incredibly poor job of educating. Anytime they are called to account they file suit or protest. It’s about time that APS were forced to outline for the public in detail their operations and show why it costs as much as it does.
An important first step
Last night, while the White House was preparing a lavish state dinner for the authoritarian dictator from China, the House of Representatives voted to repeal Obamacare 245-189, 26 votes more in favor of repeal than originally passed it. It was disappointing that only three democrats voted for repeal but at least that is three more than the number of Republicans who voted for the albatross.
It is especially encouraging that this piece of legislation was passed regardless of the fact that Senate Majority Leader Reid has promised to stonewall, refusing the bill a place on the senate voting calendar and the President’s promise to veto. House Republicans were mocked and degraded in the weeks leading to this vote and stuck to it.
The debate from some representatives in interviews and on the house floor was irresponsible, ridiculous and comical. There were statements that repeal of this law would lead to deaths. Obviously not considered was that much of the law is not even done or enacted and that millions did not die daily before it was passed.
Another line was that it is irresponsible of us (in the cosmic sense) to let 40 million people go without health insurance. Not considered here is the fact that passing a law that forces citizens on an erstwhile free country to purchase health insurance is not the same as providing coverage and doesn’t even guarantee that everyone will indeed follow that law.
Yet another overused line was that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obamacare because health care/insurance is a basic human right, specifically the right to life in the bill of rights. It could be argued that this is reasonable but the original bill of rights is well documented and the right to life is not a guarantee of health. And it is understood by reasonable thinkers that a basic human right cannot be a tangible good, one that incurs some kind of cost or requires anyone be compelled to provide a service to another.
Obamacare was about nothing more than an attempt at complete control of an industry that is already halfway there by the federal government. People who vote for ignorant representatives that think in a way that leads to reasoning and comments like those above are beholden to government and are left to believe that they are owed. These people are victims but not of those who can take care of themselves, they are victims of power hungry politicians who treat them as peasants. The vote yesterday was mostly symbolic but not meaningless; it is an encouraging first step on the long road to complete repeal.
It is especially encouraging that this piece of legislation was passed regardless of the fact that Senate Majority Leader Reid has promised to stonewall, refusing the bill a place on the senate voting calendar and the President’s promise to veto. House Republicans were mocked and degraded in the weeks leading to this vote and stuck to it.
The debate from some representatives in interviews and on the house floor was irresponsible, ridiculous and comical. There were statements that repeal of this law would lead to deaths. Obviously not considered was that much of the law is not even done or enacted and that millions did not die daily before it was passed.
Another line was that it is irresponsible of us (in the cosmic sense) to let 40 million people go without health insurance. Not considered here is the fact that passing a law that forces citizens on an erstwhile free country to purchase health insurance is not the same as providing coverage and doesn’t even guarantee that everyone will indeed follow that law.
Yet another overused line was that it is unconstitutional to repeal Obamacare because health care/insurance is a basic human right, specifically the right to life in the bill of rights. It could be argued that this is reasonable but the original bill of rights is well documented and the right to life is not a guarantee of health. And it is understood by reasonable thinkers that a basic human right cannot be a tangible good, one that incurs some kind of cost or requires anyone be compelled to provide a service to another.
Obamacare was about nothing more than an attempt at complete control of an industry that is already halfway there by the federal government. People who vote for ignorant representatives that think in a way that leads to reasoning and comments like those above are beholden to government and are left to believe that they are owed. These people are victims but not of those who can take care of themselves, they are victims of power hungry politicians who treat them as peasants. The vote yesterday was mostly symbolic but not meaningless; it is an encouraging first step on the long road to complete repeal.
Friday, January 14, 2011
Suing on Behalf of Global Warming Groupthink
One of the first actions taken by New Mexico Governor Susana Martinez (I really enjoy writing that) upon assuming office was to fire the entire unelected former-governor appointed Environmental Improvement Board. In a statement released by the Governor’s office, the panel was disbanded because of its anti-business policies. In the summer and fall 2010, the EIB conducted global warming hearings which resulted in proposed rules restricting carbon dioxide in the state. The formal announcement by the EIB in regards to the imposition of these restrictions came on Election Day, conveniently avoiding making their decrees an election issue for democrat Diane Denish.
In addition to disbanding the EIB, Governor Martinez halted publication of the regulations that resulted from the unelected board’s hearings. In response a nonprofit group named the New Energy Economy which lobbied the EIB in support of carbon regulation has filed a lawsuit against the Governor claiming that she circumvented the law in stopping the publication of the regulations. The end goal of the New Energy Economy is to force the Governor and the state’s environment department to publish and bind businesses to the new regulations by judicial fiat.
The first problem with these regulations is that they were created by unelected regulators sitting on an appointed board. The EIB has been in the news for their member’s problems with conflicting interests, for example, the last EIB chair served while at the same time lobbying for environmental organizations. The state legislature, which is charged with actually making laws, did not pursue this path for very good reasons which is why this unelected board, acting on behalf of environmental zealots decided to sidestep them.
The most important problem with these regulations was clearly identified by the Governor, they’re anti-business. The energy and petroleum industry is incredibly important to the state of New Mexico and absolutely vital to the Northwest and Southeast portions of the state. This industry is one of the last truly productive entities in a state that is entirely too reliant on the public sector. Our state has more state employees per resident than almost every other US state. There are two national laboratories and several military bases and is littered with many other federal offices. It is absurd to impose draconian regulations on the private sector in New Mexico based on closed hearings that were held by and with the global-warming obsessed. Man-made climate change is far from settled science and there are many more substances which contribute to it than carbon dioxide. It will destroy the areas of the state to which the energy and petroleum industries are indispensable and is irresponsible on the basis of a hypothesis of group thinkers who have no experience in the real world.
Governor Martinez faced a mess upon taking over from Bill Richardson including unelected boards such as the EIB which were designed to help Richardson’s friends and to circumvent the state legislature. The Governor should be lauded for making the decisions necessary to bring the state’s budget into line and to make our state a more hospitable environment for responsible businesses. The courts should dismiss the New Energy Economy’s lawsuit.
In addition to disbanding the EIB, Governor Martinez halted publication of the regulations that resulted from the unelected board’s hearings. In response a nonprofit group named the New Energy Economy which lobbied the EIB in support of carbon regulation has filed a lawsuit against the Governor claiming that she circumvented the law in stopping the publication of the regulations. The end goal of the New Energy Economy is to force the Governor and the state’s environment department to publish and bind businesses to the new regulations by judicial fiat.
The first problem with these regulations is that they were created by unelected regulators sitting on an appointed board. The EIB has been in the news for their member’s problems with conflicting interests, for example, the last EIB chair served while at the same time lobbying for environmental organizations. The state legislature, which is charged with actually making laws, did not pursue this path for very good reasons which is why this unelected board, acting on behalf of environmental zealots decided to sidestep them.
The most important problem with these regulations was clearly identified by the Governor, they’re anti-business. The energy and petroleum industry is incredibly important to the state of New Mexico and absolutely vital to the Northwest and Southeast portions of the state. This industry is one of the last truly productive entities in a state that is entirely too reliant on the public sector. Our state has more state employees per resident than almost every other US state. There are two national laboratories and several military bases and is littered with many other federal offices. It is absurd to impose draconian regulations on the private sector in New Mexico based on closed hearings that were held by and with the global-warming obsessed. Man-made climate change is far from settled science and there are many more substances which contribute to it than carbon dioxide. It will destroy the areas of the state to which the energy and petroleum industries are indispensable and is irresponsible on the basis of a hypothesis of group thinkers who have no experience in the real world.
Governor Martinez faced a mess upon taking over from Bill Richardson including unelected boards such as the EIB which were designed to help Richardson’s friends and to circumvent the state legislature. The Governor should be lauded for making the decisions necessary to bring the state’s budget into line and to make our state a more hospitable environment for responsible businesses. The courts should dismiss the New Energy Economy’s lawsuit.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Random Thoughts
The worst thing early in the morning is not a lack of Folgers’s in one’s cup, it’s coming in and realizing that you have a long and boring meeting that starts in 15 minutes that you completely forgot about.
I hate that after one installs Windows updates and desires to hibernate or something other than restart the computer that it restarts anyway. One of the reasons for my laziness is my “method” of working in unsaved documents, so I don’t clutter document folders. Often I leave things unfinished then hibernating when I leave at the end of the day to let ideas percolate when I’m off the clock so that the files are ready at the start of a new day.
Yesterday on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, happy 60th Rush, he played a sound bite from some clown who talked about his lament that there is no liberal counter to Rush on the radio. Immediately I thought to myself, with a hat tip to my favorite movie Office Space, Why is it Rush’s problem that liberals suck? Seriously though, it’s whiny claptrap like that sentiment that led to not keeping score in little league. If there were a liberal that could command an audience similar in size to Limbaugh’s there would be one on-air. Unfortunately the answer for liberals is to force some liberal clown on the airwaves (NPR) or silence others (“fairness” doctrine).
It seems as though the recent torrent of low priced gyms in the Albuquerque area has certainly had an ill affect on more costly gyms. As a member of one of those higher priced gyms (with a courtesy membership, natch) I have noticed that there are less New Year resolutionites this year that last. I know that if I had to pay for a gym membership I would rather pay $20 a month or less for my thrice weekly visits.
The Broncos are posting portions of their interviews with perspective coaches online for those interested, a move initiated by new VP John Elway. Personally I couldn’t care less but I’m certain that there are many fans who think this is a great idea, so kudos Mr. Elway.
Tucson was a town I called home in my early twenties and I enjoyed living there. What happened there this past weekend was in no way indicative of that city. The only reasonable thing to do is pray for the victims of the attempt on Congresswoman Gifford’s life. A terrible day and at the very least, the person solely responsible is in custody.
I hate that after one installs Windows updates and desires to hibernate or something other than restart the computer that it restarts anyway. One of the reasons for my laziness is my “method” of working in unsaved documents, so I don’t clutter document folders. Often I leave things unfinished then hibernating when I leave at the end of the day to let ideas percolate when I’m off the clock so that the files are ready at the start of a new day.
Yesterday on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show, happy 60th Rush, he played a sound bite from some clown who talked about his lament that there is no liberal counter to Rush on the radio. Immediately I thought to myself, with a hat tip to my favorite movie Office Space, Why is it Rush’s problem that liberals suck? Seriously though, it’s whiny claptrap like that sentiment that led to not keeping score in little league. If there were a liberal that could command an audience similar in size to Limbaugh’s there would be one on-air. Unfortunately the answer for liberals is to force some liberal clown on the airwaves (NPR) or silence others (“fairness” doctrine).
It seems as though the recent torrent of low priced gyms in the Albuquerque area has certainly had an ill affect on more costly gyms. As a member of one of those higher priced gyms (with a courtesy membership, natch) I have noticed that there are less New Year resolutionites this year that last. I know that if I had to pay for a gym membership I would rather pay $20 a month or less for my thrice weekly visits.
The Broncos are posting portions of their interviews with perspective coaches online for those interested, a move initiated by new VP John Elway. Personally I couldn’t care less but I’m certain that there are many fans who think this is a great idea, so kudos Mr. Elway.
Tucson was a town I called home in my early twenties and I enjoyed living there. What happened there this past weekend was in no way indicative of that city. The only reasonable thing to do is pray for the victims of the attempt on Congresswoman Gifford’s life. A terrible day and at the very least, the person solely responsible is in custody.
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A boring day, or so I thought
It seemed to be the start of a regular, boring day. I left the house in just enough time to make it to work at my normal time. I was in no hurry though as getting in a few minutes before or after my normal time doesn’t matter.
This morning was nice, no frost on any windshield so I decided to ride a motorcycle. After I turned out of my subdivision I went to pass a large Ford diesel pickup that was traveling a little slow. As I started to make the pass the pickup sped up and attempted to close the gap that I was planning to weave into. As I just made it into the right lane, completing the pass, the driver in the pickup turned on their high beams and proceeded to follow as close as possible. I turned right at a street that leads to I-25 and the truck followed. The street is usually open so I was able to get away from the glaring high beams aimed right at my mirrors. At the light leading to the freeway entrance ramp the pickup stopped immediately to my right and rolled down their windows but did not say or do anything. I was looking straight ahead but noticed the front end out of my peripheral and heard the familiar sound of a power window descending. I did not care to say anything either. Maybe I would have felt better about telling off the driver for their discourteous manner but truth is I knew nothing about that person or their capacity for anything; obviously it was not worth risking an incident when all I’m trying to do is get to work and will forget the whole thing by lunch time.
If that were only it for my morning then it wouldn’t be worth writing about. The first half of my drive was the same as always and continued that way as I shifted from I-25 south to I-40 east. Just after the Carlisle exit though I had the first ever experience of a type that was certainly not for the faint. I was riding in the far left lane and I noticed a plastic shopping bag flowing in the wind. As if my helmet was a magnet the bag drifted over my bike’s fairing screen and landed right on my helmet screen completely covering it. For a moment I was frozen, not being able to see anything but the white shopping bag and not knowing what to do. It seemed to be several moments before I took my left hand and removed the bag which seemed to be attached rather well to my helmet, the wind acting like a kind of vacuum. Once off I could see again and fortunately was a safe distance from the retaining wall to the left and the vehicles in front of and to the right of me. I was shaking a bit but was able to maintain a solid grip on my handlebars and ride on. It was certainly a relief when the Louisiana ext came up and I could ride off the freeway and into my office garage.
Riding a motorcycle can be dangerous. This experience reminded me that the most important variable in maintaining safety while riding is me. From properly maintaining the motorcycle to maintaining awareness while riding at every second to riding enough because there is no better training than experience once a basic level of competency has been achieved. The moment where the shopping bag was over my screen and covering my vision probably wasn’t more than a few seconds though it felt like much longer, when I was an inexperienced rider I have no doubt that this incident would have caused me to fall off which could have had grave consequences. Today I am a better rider by experience and lucky because of the momentary nature of this incident which I hope will only help make me a better rider.
This morning was nice, no frost on any windshield so I decided to ride a motorcycle. After I turned out of my subdivision I went to pass a large Ford diesel pickup that was traveling a little slow. As I started to make the pass the pickup sped up and attempted to close the gap that I was planning to weave into. As I just made it into the right lane, completing the pass, the driver in the pickup turned on their high beams and proceeded to follow as close as possible. I turned right at a street that leads to I-25 and the truck followed. The street is usually open so I was able to get away from the glaring high beams aimed right at my mirrors. At the light leading to the freeway entrance ramp the pickup stopped immediately to my right and rolled down their windows but did not say or do anything. I was looking straight ahead but noticed the front end out of my peripheral and heard the familiar sound of a power window descending. I did not care to say anything either. Maybe I would have felt better about telling off the driver for their discourteous manner but truth is I knew nothing about that person or their capacity for anything; obviously it was not worth risking an incident when all I’m trying to do is get to work and will forget the whole thing by lunch time.
If that were only it for my morning then it wouldn’t be worth writing about. The first half of my drive was the same as always and continued that way as I shifted from I-25 south to I-40 east. Just after the Carlisle exit though I had the first ever experience of a type that was certainly not for the faint. I was riding in the far left lane and I noticed a plastic shopping bag flowing in the wind. As if my helmet was a magnet the bag drifted over my bike’s fairing screen and landed right on my helmet screen completely covering it. For a moment I was frozen, not being able to see anything but the white shopping bag and not knowing what to do. It seemed to be several moments before I took my left hand and removed the bag which seemed to be attached rather well to my helmet, the wind acting like a kind of vacuum. Once off I could see again and fortunately was a safe distance from the retaining wall to the left and the vehicles in front of and to the right of me. I was shaking a bit but was able to maintain a solid grip on my handlebars and ride on. It was certainly a relief when the Louisiana ext came up and I could ride off the freeway and into my office garage.
Riding a motorcycle can be dangerous. This experience reminded me that the most important variable in maintaining safety while riding is me. From properly maintaining the motorcycle to maintaining awareness while riding at every second to riding enough because there is no better training than experience once a basic level of competency has been achieved. The moment where the shopping bag was over my screen and covering my vision probably wasn’t more than a few seconds though it felt like much longer, when I was an inexperienced rider I have no doubt that this incident would have caused me to fall off which could have had grave consequences. Today I am a better rider by experience and lucky because of the momentary nature of this incident which I hope will only help make me a better rider.
Friday, January 07, 2011
Common Sense Sports
Conventional wisdom and herd mentality are anchors wrapped around any possibility of original thought in the realm of sports writing. Once a story is broken and columnists take to keyboards it seems as though all that’s left is variations on a theme, projections based on “just because” and something that is “always true”.
Andrew Luck is making a mistake by staying in college instead of entering the NFL draft where he is expected to be the first player chosen, guaranteeing millions of dollars more than later picks. Former USC quarterback Matt Leinart and current Washington quarterback Jake Locker are always trotted out as cautionary tales. Both were projected first overall picks as juniors and decided to stay and in their cases had their draft stock drop as a result. Leinart has not had a good NFL career anyway and Locker has yet to prove himself one way or another and while his draft stock has dropped he may still prove to be an excellent player. Regardless they prove nothing for the future of Luck. If Luck is as good as projected he will be as good next year. And even if his draft position is hurt, if he works as an NFL player he will eventually be paid accordingly.
Jim Harbaugh will not be a good NFL coach because he is a good college coach. Again in this familiar storyline, cautionary tales such as Nick Saban or Steve Spurrier are mentioned. This line is very similar to the previous example in that before a coach who may or may not take a job somewhere else is deemed to fail before even taking the chance. If they are successful mass amnesia follows and the sports writing community always was in support of the coach and if they are not successful they will point back in time as predicting failure.
John Elway will be unsuccessful as an NFL GM because he was a former player. Another well trotted line is that high profile former players cannot successfully run a professional franchise with the most famous examples, almost always Isaiah Thomas, mentioned as evidence. Elway may be different. As a successful businessman using a finance degree earned while he was at Stanford, he built an auto dealer empire and then won an Arena Football League championship as an owner and manager of a team in Denver.
The mess that is the baseball hall of fame is impossible to dissect. Chaos seems to be compulsory in the way that the selectors, who happen to be sports writers, behave where there are no written rules to point to the way that players are selected. It is a strange and completely unclear process flush with biases and assumptions.
In the three specific examples above the conventional wisdom may very well materialize. The benefit of being a sports opinion writer is that there are many conventions that lead to easy copy and because of sheer volume of words and short memories, predictions that are completely wrong never are revisited while those that are somewhat correct are regurgitated as proof of clairvoyance for next time.
Andrew Luck is making a mistake by staying in college instead of entering the NFL draft where he is expected to be the first player chosen, guaranteeing millions of dollars more than later picks. Former USC quarterback Matt Leinart and current Washington quarterback Jake Locker are always trotted out as cautionary tales. Both were projected first overall picks as juniors and decided to stay and in their cases had their draft stock drop as a result. Leinart has not had a good NFL career anyway and Locker has yet to prove himself one way or another and while his draft stock has dropped he may still prove to be an excellent player. Regardless they prove nothing for the future of Luck. If Luck is as good as projected he will be as good next year. And even if his draft position is hurt, if he works as an NFL player he will eventually be paid accordingly.
Jim Harbaugh will not be a good NFL coach because he is a good college coach. Again in this familiar storyline, cautionary tales such as Nick Saban or Steve Spurrier are mentioned. This line is very similar to the previous example in that before a coach who may or may not take a job somewhere else is deemed to fail before even taking the chance. If they are successful mass amnesia follows and the sports writing community always was in support of the coach and if they are not successful they will point back in time as predicting failure.
John Elway will be unsuccessful as an NFL GM because he was a former player. Another well trotted line is that high profile former players cannot successfully run a professional franchise with the most famous examples, almost always Isaiah Thomas, mentioned as evidence. Elway may be different. As a successful businessman using a finance degree earned while he was at Stanford, he built an auto dealer empire and then won an Arena Football League championship as an owner and manager of a team in Denver.
The mess that is the baseball hall of fame is impossible to dissect. Chaos seems to be compulsory in the way that the selectors, who happen to be sports writers, behave where there are no written rules to point to the way that players are selected. It is a strange and completely unclear process flush with biases and assumptions.
In the three specific examples above the conventional wisdom may very well materialize. The benefit of being a sports opinion writer is that there are many conventions that lead to easy copy and because of sheer volume of words and short memories, predictions that are completely wrong never are revisited while those that are somewhat correct are regurgitated as proof of clairvoyance for next time.
Wednesday, January 05, 2011
Obamacare, maybe not so fast
Democrat senators have been hectoring new Republican House Speaker Boehner into not pursuing a repeal of Obamacare, known in newspeak as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. There are rumblings that the White House is unhappy with the legislation being called Obamacare. The White House has purchased the term Obamacare within Google in order to inform, or propagandize, the public in regard to it. Democrat members of congress have already begun touting benefits of Obamacare that have not yet been put into affect nor proven to be effective while accusing Republicans of taking away the health care of American citizens. The House of Representatives, led by a new Republican majority, has scheduled a vote on outright repeal of Obamacare for January 12th.
Some senators have described the repeal as politics. This is because it does not have enough support in the democrat controlled senate to pass nor will the President sign it. Supporters of the repeal describe it as symbolic. This is because while it will not be successful, it will be an attempt at doing something that is supported by many people who helped swing 63 seats towards the Republicans in the House in the November midterm elections. In this case political and symbolic motivations happen to be synonymous.
In national polls Obamacare has proven to be trending towards unpopular and it’s reasonable to assume that it will continue that way which would explain the PR blitz and antagonizing behavior emerging from the democrats. Their talking points explain the unpopularity of the legislation as the success of Republican PR deceit, a laughable and delusional assertion to anyone familiar with reality.
Obamacare was passed on a party line vote, features payouts to constituencies favored by democrats and makes doing business difficult for those disfavored by democrats. The legislation itself is roughly 2700 pages long but is mostly an outline deferring actual rules and regulations that have yet to be completed to bureaucrats in multiple federal agencies. It’s frightening to imagine just how long the legislation will be when all its rules and regulations are complete. The legislation features a plethora of unrealistic accounting tricks in order to make it appear to cost less than possible over the next ten years making it completely unsustainable after the first rigged time period. It features an individual mandate forcing citizens of this country to purchase a commercial product, health insurance, and is described as providing health care because of it.
It seems as though every week another nugget from deep within the bowels of Obamacare is unearthed to public scrutiny resulting in backlash. This should not be surprising as the legislation went famously unread by most of congress. No matter the purported benefits of the law the consequences of making it work is completely unknowable because almost all of Obamacare has yet to be enacted or even written or the mechanisms needed to make it work defined. It was an atrocious piece of legislation and should be scrapped. The new House of Representatives is on the right track in attempting to repeal it and it is in the country’s best interest for it to vote to repeal as often as possible, if only to keep Obamacare in the public consciousness for the next two years so that after the next election it can be taken out.
Some senators have described the repeal as politics. This is because it does not have enough support in the democrat controlled senate to pass nor will the President sign it. Supporters of the repeal describe it as symbolic. This is because while it will not be successful, it will be an attempt at doing something that is supported by many people who helped swing 63 seats towards the Republicans in the House in the November midterm elections. In this case political and symbolic motivations happen to be synonymous.
In national polls Obamacare has proven to be trending towards unpopular and it’s reasonable to assume that it will continue that way which would explain the PR blitz and antagonizing behavior emerging from the democrats. Their talking points explain the unpopularity of the legislation as the success of Republican PR deceit, a laughable and delusional assertion to anyone familiar with reality.
Obamacare was passed on a party line vote, features payouts to constituencies favored by democrats and makes doing business difficult for those disfavored by democrats. The legislation itself is roughly 2700 pages long but is mostly an outline deferring actual rules and regulations that have yet to be completed to bureaucrats in multiple federal agencies. It’s frightening to imagine just how long the legislation will be when all its rules and regulations are complete. The legislation features a plethora of unrealistic accounting tricks in order to make it appear to cost less than possible over the next ten years making it completely unsustainable after the first rigged time period. It features an individual mandate forcing citizens of this country to purchase a commercial product, health insurance, and is described as providing health care because of it.
It seems as though every week another nugget from deep within the bowels of Obamacare is unearthed to public scrutiny resulting in backlash. This should not be surprising as the legislation went famously unread by most of congress. No matter the purported benefits of the law the consequences of making it work is completely unknowable because almost all of Obamacare has yet to be enacted or even written or the mechanisms needed to make it work defined. It was an atrocious piece of legislation and should be scrapped. The new House of Representatives is on the right track in attempting to repeal it and it is in the country’s best interest for it to vote to repeal as often as possible, if only to keep Obamacare in the public consciousness for the next two years so that after the next election it can be taken out.
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Taxing “Right”
As part of the lame duck session of congress that has been thankfully concluded, an extension of existing tax rates was passed to avoid what would have been the largest, as a percentage, tax hike in US history. The reason this piece of legislation went unresolved until just about the last minute (tax rates were set to increase 1 January 2011) was because there was argument about which tax rates to extend and which to raise. With both houses of congress and the presidency controlled by democrats the usual class rhetoric was employed to gin up support for raising taxes only on “the rich”. Much has been said in regard to the “progressive” tax system in this country (the more earned the more as a percentage is paid) and the dangers in increasing the differences in brackets and the reasons for why democrats did not vote to raise taxes with so much control, what was striking about the argument was the way in which democrats insisted on how “right” they were about raising taxes on only “the rich”.
In announcing a “compromise” the president was at his meandering best, calling the extension of tax rates a compromise and the right thing to do then bemoaning the extension as a “giveaway” to “the greedy rich” and “morally wrong”. The president continued to note that he knew he was right because the majority of the public was on his side. In this, the president demonstrated the folly of only listening to people who agree with himself. National polls have shown time and again that a majority in the United States supported the extension of tax rates at all levels. That result is in and of itself miraculous as nearly half of the country’s working adults pay no income taxes at the federal level. Those who describe the extension of tax rates as a “giveaway” are the type to make claims on the incomes of others by believing that the earnings of “the rich” belong to the government first. Who’s greedy again?
Another line in the same theme is the idea that the extension of tax rates cost the government too much. Again, more claptrap assuming that the government’s claim on income comes first. The first thing ignored by proponents of raising taxes is that all of this “revenue” is completely theoretical based on projections. Obscured by politicians was the fact that in their theoretical fantasy land, the extension of tax rates on the other brackets actually “cost” the government more than the extension of the highest bracket. Never discussed is that these projected numbers are completely theoretical. Because our tax system is a monolith of holes and legalese spread over thousands of pages nothing is certain. And what is certain is that there is a relationship between rates and revenue raised where rates can only get to a certain level without actually lowering revenue. The point is that higher rates on “the rich” or anyone for that matter may not actually bring in greater revenue. One certainty is that “the rich” have the resources to better understand and use the holes in the tax system to ensure that revenue does not increase and kudos to them.
In the rhetoric of a democrat politician, they’re always right and “the rich” never pay their fair share. It’s advantageous that their righteousness relies on the unknowable and that class warfare works to their benefit by giving voters a distraction from their shoddy shell game policies. There is no true “right” way to go about taxing, circumstances are always changing. How making claims on the success of others, punishing those despised for no good reason is “right” escapes logic.
In announcing a “compromise” the president was at his meandering best, calling the extension of tax rates a compromise and the right thing to do then bemoaning the extension as a “giveaway” to “the greedy rich” and “morally wrong”. The president continued to note that he knew he was right because the majority of the public was on his side. In this, the president demonstrated the folly of only listening to people who agree with himself. National polls have shown time and again that a majority in the United States supported the extension of tax rates at all levels. That result is in and of itself miraculous as nearly half of the country’s working adults pay no income taxes at the federal level. Those who describe the extension of tax rates as a “giveaway” are the type to make claims on the incomes of others by believing that the earnings of “the rich” belong to the government first. Who’s greedy again?
Another line in the same theme is the idea that the extension of tax rates cost the government too much. Again, more claptrap assuming that the government’s claim on income comes first. The first thing ignored by proponents of raising taxes is that all of this “revenue” is completely theoretical based on projections. Obscured by politicians was the fact that in their theoretical fantasy land, the extension of tax rates on the other brackets actually “cost” the government more than the extension of the highest bracket. Never discussed is that these projected numbers are completely theoretical. Because our tax system is a monolith of holes and legalese spread over thousands of pages nothing is certain. And what is certain is that there is a relationship between rates and revenue raised where rates can only get to a certain level without actually lowering revenue. The point is that higher rates on “the rich” or anyone for that matter may not actually bring in greater revenue. One certainty is that “the rich” have the resources to better understand and use the holes in the tax system to ensure that revenue does not increase and kudos to them.
In the rhetoric of a democrat politician, they’re always right and “the rich” never pay their fair share. It’s advantageous that their righteousness relies on the unknowable and that class warfare works to their benefit by giving voters a distraction from their shoddy shell game policies. There is no true “right” way to go about taxing, circumstances are always changing. How making claims on the success of others, punishing those despised for no good reason is “right” escapes logic.
Wednesday, December 22, 2010
Disservice in Tidbits
Every half hour there is a news update on both major news-talk radio stations in the Albuquerque area. I count only 770 and 1050 AM, and not NPR because government “news” from don’t-call-it-National-Public-Radio-anymore is not really news. 770 uses ABC News and 1050 uses Fox news to provide brief national updates while the stations themselves provide local news.
I wonder to how many these brief tidbits is their only source of news. From the news wires, brief bits of news are a disservice that leads to an utter misunderstanding of much of the news because they only inform a bit, leaving almost all detail out. The worst type of news bit to listen to is on legislative matters. A typical news wire brief on new legislation often goes something like this:
If legislation was as simple as they seem from a news radio tidbit they would not need hundreds and thousands of pages. And the problems with legislation both explicit and unintended amounting to an assault to freedom and liberty cannot be described in five seconds. Legislation is often written by unaccountable parties and debate on it in either house of congress is often done behind closed doors leading to a severely truncated time frame in which ordinary citizens cannot be made aware of what is being done in their name. This problem is the result of the “get things done” attitude.
It’s bad enough that much legislation is sold on false premises and with the aid of human props. Legislators mock those who point out that their work should be read and understood before enacted and too often only care about how their actions look from a public relations perspective. Consequences are never pondered and the legislator only worries about how to identify victims within their constituency who will “get something” from their work.
News services do their listeners no favors in presenting legislation in the same way as propagandists in congress do. No matter the intention of a bill or act, if the elements that make those intentions possible cannot be explained or even introduced along with those intentions, mentions of it should be limited. The stated intentions should also not be referred to as happening before it is even passed. Too much legislation never actually works as intended and only succeeds in helping drain the treasury. If the news were to mention a piece of legislation by name and then its intention as, you know, an intention, the user can then do the work of learning more about it if the news won’t tell them. This method will inform the listeners instead of cheerleading big government.
I wonder to how many these brief tidbits is their only source of news. From the news wires, brief bits of news are a disservice that leads to an utter misunderstanding of much of the news because they only inform a bit, leaving almost all detail out. The worst type of news bit to listen to is on legislative matters. A typical news wire brief on new legislation often goes something like this:
The president will today sign the happy talk, sunshine and rainbows act of 2010 on a near party line democrat vote in both houses of congress. The bill will provide funding for a study of the positive effects of happy talk, sunshine and rainbows. Republicans say that sunshine is too expensive.This kind of tidbit not only demonstrates a democrat bias from the news wire but also laziness in not informing the public properly. This laziness involves taking the title and summary of the piece of legislation at face value. Never mind that every piece of legislation coming from the Unites States congress is made up of hundreds and often thousands of pages comprised of legalese, unreadable by most of the population.
If legislation was as simple as they seem from a news radio tidbit they would not need hundreds and thousands of pages. And the problems with legislation both explicit and unintended amounting to an assault to freedom and liberty cannot be described in five seconds. Legislation is often written by unaccountable parties and debate on it in either house of congress is often done behind closed doors leading to a severely truncated time frame in which ordinary citizens cannot be made aware of what is being done in their name. This problem is the result of the “get things done” attitude.
It’s bad enough that much legislation is sold on false premises and with the aid of human props. Legislators mock those who point out that their work should be read and understood before enacted and too often only care about how their actions look from a public relations perspective. Consequences are never pondered and the legislator only worries about how to identify victims within their constituency who will “get something” from their work.
News services do their listeners no favors in presenting legislation in the same way as propagandists in congress do. No matter the intention of a bill or act, if the elements that make those intentions possible cannot be explained or even introduced along with those intentions, mentions of it should be limited. The stated intentions should also not be referred to as happening before it is even passed. Too much legislation never actually works as intended and only succeeds in helping drain the treasury. If the news were to mention a piece of legislation by name and then its intention as, you know, an intention, the user can then do the work of learning more about it if the news won’t tell them. This method will inform the listeners instead of cheerleading big government.
Tuesday, December 21, 2010
Random Thoughts...
I learned from a caller into the Bob Clark show on 770 KKOB this morning that Bill Richardson vetoed a bill specifying veteran preferences in state contract awards. Finally, something that Richardson did that I can support. Veterans deserve our gratitude but no one should be favored in any state contract for any reason other than having a superior bid and/or solution.
It’s an ugly habit to assume that the ill-defined “rich” should pay more for government just because they can and it is assumed that they won’t even notice. How can that statement even be verified and how is it not greedy? Our current government is made up of narcissists lecturing in class warfare to hide their own greed. Give a legislator a dollar and they’ll spend three every time.
What is it with the size of shopping carts at Sam’s Club? It’s understandable that some customers buy a lot at that store but it makes the store difficult to traverse when a single cart takes up an entire aisle.
The caller into the Bob Clark show was commenting on Richardson’s legacy as a politician in New Mexico as his gubernatorial tenure is nearing its end. Many of the positive comments centered on what Richardson “gave” people and “amazing” work he did as a diplomat. This means that he’s good at giving favored constituencies and friends goodies at the expense of taxpayers. As a diplomat it seems that he has presented himself well on the international stage, while nothing tangible has ever happened good or bad from either his freelance diplomacy or tenure at the United Nations. All that means is that Richardson is a good useful idiot to horrible despots like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.
In all the discussion about the new START treaty, a nuclear weapons containment treaty with Russia, no one seems to be able to explain why it’s such a big deal. Is it 1981, did the cold war not end? I don’t recall Russia being much of a threat over the last twenty years. Perhaps the government wants us to be reminiscing of Rocky 4 instead of actual threats of nuclear proliferation from countries including Iran and North Korea.
What about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? What does its repeal mean? I have no clue. The language behind the actual law tied to the acronym, DADT, is much more complicated and as someone who is neither gay nor in the military I’m not sure about it. I do think that the consternation surrounding the law, as a horrible atrocity, was overblown. Hopefully its repeal will not hinder the military in any way.
I find myself often rooting for public figures that drive some people irrationally nuts. No one objects to shunning mass murderers but the way that Sarah Palin and Michael Vick are treated is laughable. Palin talks about reading C.S. Lewis and is derided as dumb and childlike. Vick says that he would like to have a pet dog some day and he’s immediately treated as though he wants to start a Shih Tzu fighting ring. Someone needs to get these critics the ability to play back in their heads what they are saying, along with a clue.
It’s an ugly habit to assume that the ill-defined “rich” should pay more for government just because they can and it is assumed that they won’t even notice. How can that statement even be verified and how is it not greedy? Our current government is made up of narcissists lecturing in class warfare to hide their own greed. Give a legislator a dollar and they’ll spend three every time.
What is it with the size of shopping carts at Sam’s Club? It’s understandable that some customers buy a lot at that store but it makes the store difficult to traverse when a single cart takes up an entire aisle.
The caller into the Bob Clark show was commenting on Richardson’s legacy as a politician in New Mexico as his gubernatorial tenure is nearing its end. Many of the positive comments centered on what Richardson “gave” people and “amazing” work he did as a diplomat. This means that he’s good at giving favored constituencies and friends goodies at the expense of taxpayers. As a diplomat it seems that he has presented himself well on the international stage, while nothing tangible has ever happened good or bad from either his freelance diplomacy or tenure at the United Nations. All that means is that Richardson is a good useful idiot to horrible despots like North Korea’s Kim Jong Il.
In all the discussion about the new START treaty, a nuclear weapons containment treaty with Russia, no one seems to be able to explain why it’s such a big deal. Is it 1981, did the cold war not end? I don’t recall Russia being much of a threat over the last twenty years. Perhaps the government wants us to be reminiscing of Rocky 4 instead of actual threats of nuclear proliferation from countries including Iran and North Korea.
What about “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”? What does its repeal mean? I have no clue. The language behind the actual law tied to the acronym, DADT, is much more complicated and as someone who is neither gay nor in the military I’m not sure about it. I do think that the consternation surrounding the law, as a horrible atrocity, was overblown. Hopefully its repeal will not hinder the military in any way.
I find myself often rooting for public figures that drive some people irrationally nuts. No one objects to shunning mass murderers but the way that Sarah Palin and Michael Vick are treated is laughable. Palin talks about reading C.S. Lewis and is derided as dumb and childlike. Vick says that he would like to have a pet dog some day and he’s immediately treated as though he wants to start a Shih Tzu fighting ring. Someone needs to get these critics the ability to play back in their heads what they are saying, along with a clue.
Monday, December 20, 2010
The Self Promotion Governor, Part 10,000,000
Social amnesia as a result of ignorance seems to be on display in our great state today. There exists a myth that New Mexico territorial governor Lew Wallace once offered a pardon to the criminal Billy the Kid, real name William Bonney, for his testimony in a murder trial and reneged on that promise after Billy kept his side of the deal. There is no evidence whatsoever of this deal being made other than an impossible to validate letter in which Billy wrote the governor to volunteer his services in testifying if he were to be pardoned.
Current (thankfully not for long) governor Bill Richardson floated the idea of pardoning the long dead Bonney to make headlines for something not related to his administration’s rampant cronyism under the auspices of making right on Wallace’s “promise”. It seemed as though Richardson heard plenty of negative feedback on this absurd proposal as it disappeared from the news.
That line of thinking was wrong. As the story slipped from public consciousness, Albuquerque Attorney Randi McGinn, wife of Richardson State Supreme Court appointee Charlie Daniels, “volunteered” to “research “ the issue as an interested party who comes from Alamogordo, near Lincoln County, where Billy the Kid operated. The result of this “research” was a petition to pardon Billy the Kid on December 14th from McGinn’s office in the murder of Sheriff William Brady.
Billy the Kid was shot and killed in July 1881 by Sherriff Pat Garrett. He was a thief and a killer. Part of his legend is that Garrett was dishonorable in shooting Bonney in the back, but that’s a matter of opinion. When a criminal is wanted dead or alive, it doesn’t seem to matter how it gets done. Because of stories, legends and movies, Billy the Kid exists in today’s world as more of a myth than as a real person. Many of these movies are complete works of fiction that have the express purpose of romanticizing a criminal within the framework of the “wild west”.
This unfortunate circumstance has led to whatever public support and interest in this subject that exists. Many do not understand New Mexico history and know Bonney only in legend and not by his crimes. McGinn, with her loose ties to Lincoln county and direct ties to the governor is only interested in the same thing as Richardson, publicity. Richardson has proven over time to be a shameless self promoter and this hollow gesture is just the latest in a long line of examples.
It might be said that this issue doesn’t matter much. Pardoning a man who has been dead for nearly 120 years on a single crime, out of many, won’t really affect anyone. It may be true that Bonney can no longer terrorize and murder but that is not the point. It seems that a main reason that this pardon is being considered is because to many, Bonney is not a criminal but some kind of historical bad boy type figure. And some flimsy at best historical promises from a territorial governor of which actual documentation does not exist. Truth is, it is contemptible to our history as New Mexicans to go down this path which will only further the myth of Billy the Kid while obscuring the reality of William Bonney.
This initiative is of such high importance to Governor Richardson that there is a state web site, http://www.governor.state.nm.us/btk.php, an email address, btk.comments@state.nm.us and a person, Eric Witt, tasked to it. It is contemptible to the taxpayer that there exists a person in charge of, a web page for and email address to monitor this frivolous effort. Certainly there are more important things that the state has on its plate than the pardon of a criminal in the name of publicity?
Current (thankfully not for long) governor Bill Richardson floated the idea of pardoning the long dead Bonney to make headlines for something not related to his administration’s rampant cronyism under the auspices of making right on Wallace’s “promise”. It seemed as though Richardson heard plenty of negative feedback on this absurd proposal as it disappeared from the news.
That line of thinking was wrong. As the story slipped from public consciousness, Albuquerque Attorney Randi McGinn, wife of Richardson State Supreme Court appointee Charlie Daniels, “volunteered” to “research “ the issue as an interested party who comes from Alamogordo, near Lincoln County, where Billy the Kid operated. The result of this “research” was a petition to pardon Billy the Kid on December 14th from McGinn’s office in the murder of Sheriff William Brady.
Billy the Kid was shot and killed in July 1881 by Sherriff Pat Garrett. He was a thief and a killer. Part of his legend is that Garrett was dishonorable in shooting Bonney in the back, but that’s a matter of opinion. When a criminal is wanted dead or alive, it doesn’t seem to matter how it gets done. Because of stories, legends and movies, Billy the Kid exists in today’s world as more of a myth than as a real person. Many of these movies are complete works of fiction that have the express purpose of romanticizing a criminal within the framework of the “wild west”.
This unfortunate circumstance has led to whatever public support and interest in this subject that exists. Many do not understand New Mexico history and know Bonney only in legend and not by his crimes. McGinn, with her loose ties to Lincoln county and direct ties to the governor is only interested in the same thing as Richardson, publicity. Richardson has proven over time to be a shameless self promoter and this hollow gesture is just the latest in a long line of examples.
It might be said that this issue doesn’t matter much. Pardoning a man who has been dead for nearly 120 years on a single crime, out of many, won’t really affect anyone. It may be true that Bonney can no longer terrorize and murder but that is not the point. It seems that a main reason that this pardon is being considered is because to many, Bonney is not a criminal but some kind of historical bad boy type figure. And some flimsy at best historical promises from a territorial governor of which actual documentation does not exist. Truth is, it is contemptible to our history as New Mexicans to go down this path which will only further the myth of Billy the Kid while obscuring the reality of William Bonney.
This initiative is of such high importance to Governor Richardson that there is a state web site, http://www.governor.state.nm.us/btk.php, an email address, btk.comments@state.nm.us and a person, Eric Witt, tasked to it. It is contemptible to the taxpayer that there exists a person in charge of, a web page for and email address to monitor this frivolous effort. Certainly there are more important things that the state has on its plate than the pardon of a criminal in the name of publicity?
Confounded by Responsibility
According to sports writer Jason Whitlock, who is known for his large size as much as his inane opinions, McDonalds is a criminal enterprise comparable to a drug dealer. In a recent column about himself while deriding capitalism he wrote:
I no longer frequent McDonald’s, mostly because I find it bland. I have many friends that still enjoy McDonald’s and I often make fun of them for it but it is without malice. I don’t care what anyone else chooses to eat. None of them are obese.
As the father of a toddler I know that soon my son will like McDonalds, often request it and sometimes I will take him and sometimes I will say no. And he may act out and I will respond by sticking to my decision, regulating his behavior so that it is not over the top and hopefully encourage perspective. Happy Meals now have many more options than when I was young even including fruits and juices. I do not need or want some government entity “helping” me with the decisions relating to my son’s diet.
And that’s the point. Because Whitlock seemingly ties his large size and likely lack of self-control to Happy Meals consumed as a youth and a mom in California is overwhelmed, both think the government should control what children consume because he has to blame someone other than himself for his problems and she either can’t or won’t make decisions for herself. We live in a wishy-washy kind of society now where many people act helpless and cry out for government oversight to help in their specific issues. The problem is that they are pushing the government to make those same decisions for others who are not helpless.
It is often said that if the government subsidizes a certain activity or commodity (think long term unemployment or ethanol) we will get more of it. The same goes for overbearing nanny like oversight. And while the government can be incredibly inefficient, the one area in which it is always expeditious is in delivering hard to understand rules and regulations telling everyone how to live, robbing all of us of freedom.
Most Americans have no idea Ronald McDonald is killing their kids. No clue… You can spin the argument like you’re doing it for the good of the country. No different from Ronald McDonald standing on every corner slanging your 5-year-old a Happy Meal.A mom in California apparently feels the same way about McDonalds and is seeking the courts to do something about it:
we have to say ‘no’ to our young children so many times, and McDonald’s makes it that so much harder to do. I object to the fact that McDonald’s is getting into my kids’ heads without my permission and actually changing what my kids want to eat.Pondering these opinions and the resulting lawsuit I wonder how it is that I made it to adulthood. When I was a child I ate at McDonald’s regularly and almost always had the same thing, a cheese burger happy meal with fries and orange drink. Plus a toy guaranteed to break within a week. If it had been my choice I would undoubtedly have eaten McDonald’s much more often than I actually did but my parents *surprise* did not find it overwhelming to be parents and determined how often I could indulge in a happy meal.
I no longer frequent McDonald’s, mostly because I find it bland. I have many friends that still enjoy McDonald’s and I often make fun of them for it but it is without malice. I don’t care what anyone else chooses to eat. None of them are obese.
As the father of a toddler I know that soon my son will like McDonalds, often request it and sometimes I will take him and sometimes I will say no. And he may act out and I will respond by sticking to my decision, regulating his behavior so that it is not over the top and hopefully encourage perspective. Happy Meals now have many more options than when I was young even including fruits and juices. I do not need or want some government entity “helping” me with the decisions relating to my son’s diet.
And that’s the point. Because Whitlock seemingly ties his large size and likely lack of self-control to Happy Meals consumed as a youth and a mom in California is overwhelmed, both think the government should control what children consume because he has to blame someone other than himself for his problems and she either can’t or won’t make decisions for herself. We live in a wishy-washy kind of society now where many people act helpless and cry out for government oversight to help in their specific issues. The problem is that they are pushing the government to make those same decisions for others who are not helpless.
It is often said that if the government subsidizes a certain activity or commodity (think long term unemployment or ethanol) we will get more of it. The same goes for overbearing nanny like oversight. And while the government can be incredibly inefficient, the one area in which it is always expeditious is in delivering hard to understand rules and regulations telling everyone how to live, robbing all of us of freedom.
Miscommunication
When I was a teenager and worked at a local dairy queen one of the mistakes I made involved misunderstanding a customer’s order. When I started at the place I was told that a value meal could be made of any main menu item, so a customer could either choose from the pictured combinations on the menu or select one of the other items listed to the right and append it with fries and a soft drink. One day I didn’t quite understand the customer and thought the order was for a two cheese burger meal when they meant two cheese burger meals. Recognizing the mistake I obtained the extra fries and drink for the customer when it came time to deliver. Fortunately my manager didn’t care as it was almost a negligible cost and while I wasn’t an exemplary employee I didn’t screw up all that often and showed up on time.
I was thinking of that experience from more than sixteen years ago when I had another instance of misunderstanding a customer recently. Being at the end of the year a lot of companies purchase services for next year now. Last week someone from a large company called to purchase what I thought was a single quantity of something my company sells. The customer was in a hurry, calling at the last minute within their company’s billing cycle needing an immediate invoice. I asked some follow-up questions to ensure I knew as much as I could in order to complete the sale.
It happened that my company’s billing department, on the east coast, was out for a holiday party the afternoon I needed the invoice so it was delayed and we got it out just a few hours before losing the sale. As soon as it was out the customer wrote back to inform me that they intended to purchase a grouping of our products. Fortunately our billing department, now in, redid the invoice in a few minutes. It was a good mistake as the grouping meant that the sale increased ten times from the way I understood it. So instead of losing the cash from some fries and watered down soft drinks some serious cash was made.
I went over in my mind the sales call and I remember asking questions specific to the single product. Perhaps it was timing related, the customer was in a hurry. English is a fickle language and after so many years I still find myself learning.
I was thinking of that experience from more than sixteen years ago when I had another instance of misunderstanding a customer recently. Being at the end of the year a lot of companies purchase services for next year now. Last week someone from a large company called to purchase what I thought was a single quantity of something my company sells. The customer was in a hurry, calling at the last minute within their company’s billing cycle needing an immediate invoice. I asked some follow-up questions to ensure I knew as much as I could in order to complete the sale.
It happened that my company’s billing department, on the east coast, was out for a holiday party the afternoon I needed the invoice so it was delayed and we got it out just a few hours before losing the sale. As soon as it was out the customer wrote back to inform me that they intended to purchase a grouping of our products. Fortunately our billing department, now in, redid the invoice in a few minutes. It was a good mistake as the grouping meant that the sale increased ten times from the way I understood it. So instead of losing the cash from some fries and watered down soft drinks some serious cash was made.
I went over in my mind the sales call and I remember asking questions specific to the single product. Perhaps it was timing related, the customer was in a hurry. English is a fickle language and after so many years I still find myself learning.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
The Middle Unicorn
Many words have been written recently about this “no labels” group and the ideal of transcending the ugliness of partisan politics and just getting the people’s work done. Some proponents of this claptrap have labeled “no labels” as a moderate counterpart to the tea party movement. Which may as well be a way to define the “no labels” group as a liberal progressive counterpart to the tea party, not that there’s anything wrong with it, but if one follows the liberal progressive movement they learn that liberal progressives have undergone more rebranding efforts than General Motors.
While there have been politicians from both major parties involved in this “no labels” re-branding efforts those from the Republican side often espouse what are, absent the r next to their name, typically liberal progressive positions. Some, like former Florida governor Charlie Christ left the Republican Party in a failed senatorial bid that defined Christ as a crass political opportunist.
It seems apparent that when Election Day comes most everyone is annoyed with the tone, volume and abundance of campaign ads. In line with this tone are political talking points expressed by pundits and politicians expressed in fifteen second snippets on political shows on cable news networks. Neither of these outlets really rises above hot air, making them a good generic target for “no labels”.
No one can really understand the intricacies of a politician’s policy stance from a television commercial where Martin Heinrich accuses Jon Barela of being a lobbyist because he worked in business relations for Intel, or Anthony Weiner screaming at the top of his lungs about how millionaires and billionaires are greedy robber barons not paying their fair share. Many politicians, including both above, do not really have any policy ideas beyond general talking points and based on the way they are often regurgitated by many in casual conversation these talking points work.
So, is it interesting that many deride the exact thing that they base their own politics on? Not really. The center in contemporary politics is mythical in the sense that there is no perfect central position that would truly work for everyone, taking ingredients from left and right and mixing into a delicious pie of legislation. Almost in every instance there is a liberal position and there is a conservative position and they are antithetical in every way. And everyone knows that when you mix blueberries and pepperonis the result is something no one likes.
The real center is made up of undecided folks that base positions based on whatever sounds better at the moment. There is nothing really wrong with this except that these decisions are often emotionally based without much thought involved. These kinds of people are what “no labels” wants to attract and they will fail because in reality “no labels” is made up of finger wagging, no it all liberal progressives who label everything and annoy undecideds as often as they attract them.
While there have been politicians from both major parties involved in this “no labels” re-branding efforts those from the Republican side often espouse what are, absent the r next to their name, typically liberal progressive positions. Some, like former Florida governor Charlie Christ left the Republican Party in a failed senatorial bid that defined Christ as a crass political opportunist.
It seems apparent that when Election Day comes most everyone is annoyed with the tone, volume and abundance of campaign ads. In line with this tone are political talking points expressed by pundits and politicians expressed in fifteen second snippets on political shows on cable news networks. Neither of these outlets really rises above hot air, making them a good generic target for “no labels”.
No one can really understand the intricacies of a politician’s policy stance from a television commercial where Martin Heinrich accuses Jon Barela of being a lobbyist because he worked in business relations for Intel, or Anthony Weiner screaming at the top of his lungs about how millionaires and billionaires are greedy robber barons not paying their fair share. Many politicians, including both above, do not really have any policy ideas beyond general talking points and based on the way they are often regurgitated by many in casual conversation these talking points work.
So, is it interesting that many deride the exact thing that they base their own politics on? Not really. The center in contemporary politics is mythical in the sense that there is no perfect central position that would truly work for everyone, taking ingredients from left and right and mixing into a delicious pie of legislation. Almost in every instance there is a liberal position and there is a conservative position and they are antithetical in every way. And everyone knows that when you mix blueberries and pepperonis the result is something no one likes.
The real center is made up of undecided folks that base positions based on whatever sounds better at the moment. There is nothing really wrong with this except that these decisions are often emotionally based without much thought involved. These kinds of people are what “no labels” wants to attract and they will fail because in reality “no labels” is made up of finger wagging, no it all liberal progressives who label everything and annoy undecideds as often as they attract them.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Strained Analogies
When politicians and partisan supporters of legislation resort to analogies to describe why an intrusive law is legal and warranted citizens should take that as concrete evidence that it is not. Yesterday a federal judge in Virginia ruled that the health insurance mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional on a suit brought by the attorney general in that state as opposed to allowed under the Commerce clause regulating interstate commerce. This ruling should be indisputable by the fact that the rule mandates that presumptively free citizens purchase health insurance.
Supporters of the mandate have three justifications. Members in congress apparently believe that the federal government can force US citizens to do anything. Big government advocates point to costs associated with uninsured consuming health care resources as justification for it. The intellectually lazy justification, really just a talking point, is that because motorists are required to carry automobile insurance then the federal government has authority to force citizens to purchase health insurance.
Fortunately with the recent ruling by the federal court in Virginia the idea that the feds can say because we said so, citizens will not be forced to purchase a federally outlined commercial product. There are costs associated with the uninsured using a lot of services and is due almost entirely to big government regulation. Because of regulation, no one understands how much health care actually costs and must use services that they might not if given an actual choice. Health care is expensive and it is a good idea for people to subscribe to some sort of health plan but when there is no choice involved because users are forced to get something that is outlined by government making its cost artificially inflated there will be people that forgo it.
The analogous way of seeing things, comparing health insurance to car insurance is just stupid because they are completely different things and the authority and justification for insuring automobiles is different in every way. Because roads are built and maintained by the state, cars which use them must be licensed within the jurisdiction where they are located when not in use. As a condition of use on the roads built by the jurisdiction they are to be insured in order to protect anyone that is harmed by the insured. There is a minimum requirement in auto insurance and the purchaser may customize based on their own needs. If one does not want to purchase auto insurance they can take mass transit, a bicycle or some other way not to drive. The health insurance mandate affects anyone by virtue of existence and forces them to purchase something they may not want designed without their personal interests considered.
The only reason why the mandate exists is to raise concerns about it so that it serves as a step towards government run health care. To implement, taxes will be raised to pay for all health care and it will be buried with all other taxes. Citizens will not have an insurance premium or a mandate; they will have access to something they pay for anyway. It’s just another statist method to force onto the country more government. And the health care system will get worse.
Supporters of the mandate have three justifications. Members in congress apparently believe that the federal government can force US citizens to do anything. Big government advocates point to costs associated with uninsured consuming health care resources as justification for it. The intellectually lazy justification, really just a talking point, is that because motorists are required to carry automobile insurance then the federal government has authority to force citizens to purchase health insurance.
Fortunately with the recent ruling by the federal court in Virginia the idea that the feds can say because we said so, citizens will not be forced to purchase a federally outlined commercial product. There are costs associated with the uninsured using a lot of services and is due almost entirely to big government regulation. Because of regulation, no one understands how much health care actually costs and must use services that they might not if given an actual choice. Health care is expensive and it is a good idea for people to subscribe to some sort of health plan but when there is no choice involved because users are forced to get something that is outlined by government making its cost artificially inflated there will be people that forgo it.
The analogous way of seeing things, comparing health insurance to car insurance is just stupid because they are completely different things and the authority and justification for insuring automobiles is different in every way. Because roads are built and maintained by the state, cars which use them must be licensed within the jurisdiction where they are located when not in use. As a condition of use on the roads built by the jurisdiction they are to be insured in order to protect anyone that is harmed by the insured. There is a minimum requirement in auto insurance and the purchaser may customize based on their own needs. If one does not want to purchase auto insurance they can take mass transit, a bicycle or some other way not to drive. The health insurance mandate affects anyone by virtue of existence and forces them to purchase something they may not want designed without their personal interests considered.
The only reason why the mandate exists is to raise concerns about it so that it serves as a step towards government run health care. To implement, taxes will be raised to pay for all health care and it will be buried with all other taxes. Citizens will not have an insurance premium or a mandate; they will have access to something they pay for anyway. It’s just another statist method to force onto the country more government. And the health care system will get worse.
Wednesday, December 08, 2010
Everything is like Something Else
Listening to President Obama’s hissy yesterday in regard to a compromise framework on the extension of current tax rates I learned something; I cannot stand to listen to a person who is both a drama queen and speaks almost entirely in analogies. That is our President, a man who cannot speak in plain language who is always reaching for some over the top analogy that perfectly explains the nonsensical.
Yesterday’s whine fest was as grating as it was educational.
It appeared that the media was able to show its liberal progressive political inclinations based on the questions asked. For a media used to fawning over a person sold as a messianic figure that would heal political divides and provide true bipartisanship, questions asking about the Presidents true core when he is announcing the only thing he has ever done that could be called bipartisan was strange.
The President himself seemed to convey that he is the President of some of the country, those who agree with him. He stated that most of the country was on his side in regard to raising taxes only on “the rich”, which polling shows is not true. He stated that the Republican’s financial policy was to ‘give’ money to the rich. He likened Republicans to “hostage takers” and “bomb throwers”, and that’s the current lame duck congress, not the incoming congress which features a lot more Republicans.
It is puzzling to understand that the President believes that he can bully business into creating jobs just because while attacking them as greedy. The President’s understanding of reality is lacking while his understanding of the imaginary as defined in his own mind is superb.
These are not tax cuts being discussed. What is being discussed is an extension of current tax rates. There are several tax rates based on income levels, it is progressive meaning that as income grows the tax on it raises. So, besides the already obvious fact that those with higher incomes pay more taxes, they pay more as a percentage as well. Widening the gap between the differing tax thresholds is abhorrent because it will never be enough for some people and as a weapon of class warfare creates divides in our country.
The President, and those who agree with him, believe (plainly, through their statements) that the income of American citizens belongs to the country first and to its earners second. This is a morally bankrupt concept and is in no way fair, to anyone. The President’s petulant attitude and thin skin when it comes to actual compromise and not just his assertion of Republican priorities demonstrate that a mistake was made in his election. With every policy statement like this it becomes clearer that the goal of our country must be to deny him re-election.
Yesterday’s whine fest was as grating as it was educational.
It appeared that the media was able to show its liberal progressive political inclinations based on the questions asked. For a media used to fawning over a person sold as a messianic figure that would heal political divides and provide true bipartisanship, questions asking about the Presidents true core when he is announcing the only thing he has ever done that could be called bipartisan was strange.
The President himself seemed to convey that he is the President of some of the country, those who agree with him. He stated that most of the country was on his side in regard to raising taxes only on “the rich”, which polling shows is not true. He stated that the Republican’s financial policy was to ‘give’ money to the rich. He likened Republicans to “hostage takers” and “bomb throwers”, and that’s the current lame duck congress, not the incoming congress which features a lot more Republicans.
It is puzzling to understand that the President believes that he can bully business into creating jobs just because while attacking them as greedy. The President’s understanding of reality is lacking while his understanding of the imaginary as defined in his own mind is superb.
These are not tax cuts being discussed. What is being discussed is an extension of current tax rates. There are several tax rates based on income levels, it is progressive meaning that as income grows the tax on it raises. So, besides the already obvious fact that those with higher incomes pay more taxes, they pay more as a percentage as well. Widening the gap between the differing tax thresholds is abhorrent because it will never be enough for some people and as a weapon of class warfare creates divides in our country.
The President, and those who agree with him, believe (plainly, through their statements) that the income of American citizens belongs to the country first and to its earners second. This is a morally bankrupt concept and is in no way fair, to anyone. The President’s petulant attitude and thin skin when it comes to actual compromise and not just his assertion of Republican priorities demonstrate that a mistake was made in his election. With every policy statement like this it becomes clearer that the goal of our country must be to deny him re-election.
Tuesday, December 07, 2010
A Requiem for a fired coach
One of the first things that I thought about after Josh McDaniels was hired as coach of the Denver Broncos was in regard to his age. Being only a couple years older than myself McDaniels symbolized a coming of age for myself as I was approaching an age where NFL coaches became about my age and younger. Other than that I was hopeful for the future. Mike Shanahan had won two Super Bowls and many games over a more than decade-long career but the team seemed to have stagnated into an also-ran state. It seems that no matter how effective a coach is, there is a shelf life in terms of effectiveness.
Starting 6-0 in McDaniel’s first season I was ecstatic and hopeful for the future. The Broncos proceeded to finish 2-8 and middle of the road again. The problem seemed to be with a defense that had begun the season as a dominant force regressed badly. Still optimistic I thought good things were coming and was pleased with the draft even though the top end concentrated on offense rather than what has seemed to be a perennial need on the defensive line.
This year the Broncos started unevenly as opposed to undefeated like last year and it seemed to be that they were competitive and would at least have the same record as last year if not eek out one or more wins. Today, Denver is 3-9 and in the worst stretch record-wise in forty years. Instead of showing any improvement the team just can’t seem to win. Watching the game this past Sunday I was struck by how little they could do in the red zone. Knowshon Moreno had some fantastic runs with the passing game basically non-existent but once they were in scoring position they could do nothing. It was sad to watch, especially as they had more than a few chances to score a touchdown which would have led to a win.
I wanted Josh McDaniels to be successful as coach of the Denver Broncos for the simple reason that I want the Denver Broncos to be a successful football team. It seems that hiring a coach in the NFL is often a crapshoot and there is never a guarantee but if the right coach is hired a team can get better in a hurry. Josh McDaniels was not a successful football coach and as such is unemployed right now. While some commentary is bitter and wishes our now ex-coach ill will, I refuse. Perhaps McDaniels wasn’t ready to be a head coach in the NFL, perhaps he is meant to be a coordinator or something else. I don’t know and I wish him luck in his future endeavors.
Go Broncos.
Starting 6-0 in McDaniel’s first season I was ecstatic and hopeful for the future. The Broncos proceeded to finish 2-8 and middle of the road again. The problem seemed to be with a defense that had begun the season as a dominant force regressed badly. Still optimistic I thought good things were coming and was pleased with the draft even though the top end concentrated on offense rather than what has seemed to be a perennial need on the defensive line.
This year the Broncos started unevenly as opposed to undefeated like last year and it seemed to be that they were competitive and would at least have the same record as last year if not eek out one or more wins. Today, Denver is 3-9 and in the worst stretch record-wise in forty years. Instead of showing any improvement the team just can’t seem to win. Watching the game this past Sunday I was struck by how little they could do in the red zone. Knowshon Moreno had some fantastic runs with the passing game basically non-existent but once they were in scoring position they could do nothing. It was sad to watch, especially as they had more than a few chances to score a touchdown which would have led to a win.
I wanted Josh McDaniels to be successful as coach of the Denver Broncos for the simple reason that I want the Denver Broncos to be a successful football team. It seems that hiring a coach in the NFL is often a crapshoot and there is never a guarantee but if the right coach is hired a team can get better in a hurry. Josh McDaniels was not a successful football coach and as such is unemployed right now. While some commentary is bitter and wishes our now ex-coach ill will, I refuse. Perhaps McDaniels wasn’t ready to be a head coach in the NFL, perhaps he is meant to be a coordinator or something else. I don’t know and I wish him luck in his future endeavors.
Go Broncos.
Monday, December 06, 2010
Rock, meet Hard Place
If a policy of placing the cart before the horse were a discussion topic, a recent kerfuffle involving alcohol, sports, high school students and a certain highly funded high school nails it. La Cueva football coaches were recently suspended because students were caught drinking on a school bus trip back from Las Cruces. For the most part nothing outside of those facts is known and a heated discussion ensued this morning on KKOB radio. The discussion mostly centered on responsibility, its placement and lack thereof from just about everyone involved.
The range of discussion was from demands for the coaches to be hung in the public square to those who don’t see anything wrong at all. Personal opinions tend to be that way but in the end the only thing that matters for those involved is the rules of their school and the laws of the state of New Mexico and city of Albuquerque.
The most intriguing part is that, outside of those involved, no one knows anything about what actually happened and whether or not there is any culpability towards any of the parties because of what actually happened. A caller mentioned that this kind of thing, high schoolers drinking on a school trip on the bus, is common and that the adults aren’t numerous enough or dispersed throughout the bus in an effective manner that would discourage such behavior. I thought that was a reasonable assessment.
Of course, this is in the absence of some important facts such as, who purchased the alcohol? After the adults on board learned of the behavior, what happened?
Some of the callers were just silly. Once caller stated that they knew the coaches personally and that the issue was completely a fabrication of the media because these coaches would never have done something like that. Really? Does this caller know more than anyone else? Probably not. What if the coaches actually did obtain the booze? Reminds me of the parents in high school who provide alcohol for their children and friends in order to better monitor their behavior, sounds reasonable, but is still illegal.
Another opinion involves the idea that because it involves La Cueva, a well funded high school in an affluent area of Albuquerque, this story is being swept under the rug and the perpetrators are being handled with kid gloves. It’s my opinion that anything to do with any sort of actual or perceived malfeasance in any public school is often glossed over in order to hide problems with a big government cash cow. In this case there is still an investigation going on making this charge incomplete at best.
The problem is that this kind of story brings with it public outcry and demands to ‘do something’ while investigations take time for a number of reasons. I know that I cannot say definitively what happened or exactly what laws may or may not have been broken. If I was a parent of one of the students I would be paying much more attention and learning as much as I can. Sadly, it seems doubtful that what really happened will ever be learned because of faulty memory or outright lying. What to do?
The range of discussion was from demands for the coaches to be hung in the public square to those who don’t see anything wrong at all. Personal opinions tend to be that way but in the end the only thing that matters for those involved is the rules of their school and the laws of the state of New Mexico and city of Albuquerque.
The most intriguing part is that, outside of those involved, no one knows anything about what actually happened and whether or not there is any culpability towards any of the parties because of what actually happened. A caller mentioned that this kind of thing, high schoolers drinking on a school trip on the bus, is common and that the adults aren’t numerous enough or dispersed throughout the bus in an effective manner that would discourage such behavior. I thought that was a reasonable assessment.
Of course, this is in the absence of some important facts such as, who purchased the alcohol? After the adults on board learned of the behavior, what happened?
Some of the callers were just silly. Once caller stated that they knew the coaches personally and that the issue was completely a fabrication of the media because these coaches would never have done something like that. Really? Does this caller know more than anyone else? Probably not. What if the coaches actually did obtain the booze? Reminds me of the parents in high school who provide alcohol for their children and friends in order to better monitor their behavior, sounds reasonable, but is still illegal.
Another opinion involves the idea that because it involves La Cueva, a well funded high school in an affluent area of Albuquerque, this story is being swept under the rug and the perpetrators are being handled with kid gloves. It’s my opinion that anything to do with any sort of actual or perceived malfeasance in any public school is often glossed over in order to hide problems with a big government cash cow. In this case there is still an investigation going on making this charge incomplete at best.
The problem is that this kind of story brings with it public outcry and demands to ‘do something’ while investigations take time for a number of reasons. I know that I cannot say definitively what happened or exactly what laws may or may not have been broken. If I was a parent of one of the students I would be paying much more attention and learning as much as I can. Sadly, it seems doubtful that what really happened will ever be learned because of faulty memory or outright lying. What to do?
Monday, November 29, 2010
Word of the Day
I don’t remember the first time that I heard the term ‘squish’ to describe a person but when I did in context it was just perfect. Scouring the interwebs and settling at the most logical location, Urban Dictionary, for a proper definition I was disappointed to find that in 4 pages of entries the closest that I could find was:
Someone who is extremely disproportional or just unattractive in general.
One thing that is great about Urban Dictionary is that users can add definitions so while disappointed I was also heartened to learn that I could define it just right. So, who exactly is a squish?
I am lucky to know someone who fits the definition to a squish perfectly. My first definition for a squish is for those people who never think about it that way but use a common turn of phrase:
A squish is a person who is often described with the caveat: (But) they are a nice person.
This caveat is inevitably preceded or followed by the description of an unattractive quality of that person. Imagine the type of person who has never grown up but not in the quaint Peter Pan lost boy kind of way, but in the pathetic kind of way. The type of person who is of an adult age but has never learned to be self reliant in any way shape or form. The kind of person who resents anyone else for their ability to be self-sufficient. A person who suffers from such low self esteem that any comment, compliment or criticism towards them is rebuted with a sissyish and immature response because that person cannot differentiate comments and believes that everyone views them in a negative light. The type of person who is completely dependent on another person, be it a parent or a significant other and resents that they have no decision making authority but has neither the desire nor will to do anything about it.
Basically, a squish is the perfect description for the pathetic loser of a person who honestly believes that their miserable lot in life is entirely to blame on nebulous circumstances or they who keep them down. They are everywhere and most everyone knows one. I have lost my patience recently with a squish. They can be nice people but it gets to a point where pathetic is and will always be the best way to describe the person.
Someone who is extremely disproportional or just unattractive in general.
One thing that is great about Urban Dictionary is that users can add definitions so while disappointed I was also heartened to learn that I could define it just right. So, who exactly is a squish?
I am lucky to know someone who fits the definition to a squish perfectly. My first definition for a squish is for those people who never think about it that way but use a common turn of phrase:
A squish is a person who is often described with the caveat: (But) they are a nice person.
This caveat is inevitably preceded or followed by the description of an unattractive quality of that person. Imagine the type of person who has never grown up but not in the quaint Peter Pan lost boy kind of way, but in the pathetic kind of way. The type of person who is of an adult age but has never learned to be self reliant in any way shape or form. The kind of person who resents anyone else for their ability to be self-sufficient. A person who suffers from such low self esteem that any comment, compliment or criticism towards them is rebuted with a sissyish and immature response because that person cannot differentiate comments and believes that everyone views them in a negative light. The type of person who is completely dependent on another person, be it a parent or a significant other and resents that they have no decision making authority but has neither the desire nor will to do anything about it.
Basically, a squish is the perfect description for the pathetic loser of a person who honestly believes that their miserable lot in life is entirely to blame on nebulous circumstances or they who keep them down. They are everywhere and most everyone knows one. I have lost my patience recently with a squish. They can be nice people but it gets to a point where pathetic is and will always be the best way to describe the person.
More Excuses
One Charles Rangel makes me as a voter very angry. It could be said that he doesn’t matter to me as he represents Harlem, New York, a district thousands of miles from where I live. That’s wrong because Rangel, as a 20 plus term incumbent, is a very powerful member of congress and has most recently served as the chair of the House ways and means committee, the committee charged with oversight of the tax code. Representative Rangel, while representing a part of New York, directly affects us in New Mexico.
Rangel makes me angry because he committed tax fraud and his punishment is censure, an admonishment of his crime by the speaker of the house in a session of congress. This is less than a slap on the wrist and everyone knows it. There is a kabuki theatre of various congressmen making noise about the punishment being harsh and even unwarranted which makes me even angrier.
Rangel’s incoherent and inconsistent statements have varied from him not knowing that what he did was wrong to that he did not personally benefit from his crimes to that his long tenure should exempt him from the law. Never has he apologized with the closest being the equivalent of saying, if I offended anyone I apologize for their misunderstanding of me doing nothing wrong.
Recently, with all of this going on, Rangel was re-elected with about 80 percent of the vote in his district. It is astounding to me how someone like Rangel could win with the cloud of corruption like this. It is unsurprising that he would not even show a hint of contrition for his guilt when all he gets is an admonishment and is re-elected so resoundingly.
It is a sad commentary when the excuses flow. Because of his position, why wouldn’t Rangel work to make the tax code more understandable for everyone? It is overly complex and I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t harbor some anger at having to pay almost a hundred dollars a year in order to pay taxes in accordance with the law. And is ignorance of tax law an excuse for any member of the public? Of course not. Rangel’s punishment is a joke to anyone over the age of ten and it’s no wonder why the public has lost confidence in its representative body as a whole.
Rangel makes me angry because he committed tax fraud and his punishment is censure, an admonishment of his crime by the speaker of the house in a session of congress. This is less than a slap on the wrist and everyone knows it. There is a kabuki theatre of various congressmen making noise about the punishment being harsh and even unwarranted which makes me even angrier.
Rangel’s incoherent and inconsistent statements have varied from him not knowing that what he did was wrong to that he did not personally benefit from his crimes to that his long tenure should exempt him from the law. Never has he apologized with the closest being the equivalent of saying, if I offended anyone I apologize for their misunderstanding of me doing nothing wrong.
Recently, with all of this going on, Rangel was re-elected with about 80 percent of the vote in his district. It is astounding to me how someone like Rangel could win with the cloud of corruption like this. It is unsurprising that he would not even show a hint of contrition for his guilt when all he gets is an admonishment and is re-elected so resoundingly.
It is a sad commentary when the excuses flow. Because of his position, why wouldn’t Rangel work to make the tax code more understandable for everyone? It is overly complex and I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t harbor some anger at having to pay almost a hundred dollars a year in order to pay taxes in accordance with the law. And is ignorance of tax law an excuse for any member of the public? Of course not. Rangel’s punishment is a joke to anyone over the age of ten and it’s no wonder why the public has lost confidence in its representative body as a whole.
Corruption and Consequences
This morning on the radio a corrupt sheriff in New Mexico, who was selling departmental goods, including body armor, on eBay was the topic. This sheriff, who was on his way out anyway by way of the election of someone else, has admitted what he did and resigned. He is not in jail yet and whoever is in charge of that sort of thing is working on a case that may possibly lead to criminal charges.
Read that last part of the sentence, possibly. That is pathetic and it is illustrative of our government today that this person is not behind bars at this moment. His excuse was personal financial hardships and some hold the opinion that he should be a sympathetic character because he was in dire financial straits and because the items he sold had little value or were to be destroyed.
Nonsense. First, it is not acceptable that a public servant steals and profits from stolen items because they cannot manage their personal finances. No one else can get away with stealing because they have financial hardship. Since when are public servants above the law?
The next assertion is the worse of them, excusing this thief because some of the items that were stolen were of little value or were meant to be disposed of. That does not matter in any sense. If this sheriff had stolen and re-sold a pencil he would still be stealing and should be sent to prison.
A sheriff is supposed to lead law enforcement and it is in part an indictment of the public who elected this person twice to a position of such stature. From the news, it seems as though it was not much a surprise that this sheriff behaved in such a way. He is nothing more than another democrat crook that deserves to rot in a jail cell.
Read that last part of the sentence, possibly. That is pathetic and it is illustrative of our government today that this person is not behind bars at this moment. His excuse was personal financial hardships and some hold the opinion that he should be a sympathetic character because he was in dire financial straits and because the items he sold had little value or were to be destroyed.
Nonsense. First, it is not acceptable that a public servant steals and profits from stolen items because they cannot manage their personal finances. No one else can get away with stealing because they have financial hardship. Since when are public servants above the law?
The next assertion is the worse of them, excusing this thief because some of the items that were stolen were of little value or were meant to be disposed of. That does not matter in any sense. If this sheriff had stolen and re-sold a pencil he would still be stealing and should be sent to prison.
A sheriff is supposed to lead law enforcement and it is in part an indictment of the public who elected this person twice to a position of such stature. From the news, it seems as though it was not much a surprise that this sheriff behaved in such a way. He is nothing more than another democrat crook that deserves to rot in a jail cell.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Empirical Dancing
The funniest story this week involves some person somewhere who shot his television over the elimination of someone other than Bristol (daughter of Sarah) Palin on TV’s Dancing with the Stars. This news was accompanied by many other stories on the subject of Palin’s worthiness to remain a competitor on the show. Many of these stories push the idea that dastardly tea party types are at it again, mucking things up for other, more worthy dancers.
Palin is mostly degraded because her celebrity stems from being the daughter of a politician, who happens to be an evil Republican, and the former fiancé and co-parent of an idiot. Most ridiculous is all the consternation focused on a call-in show judging the completely subjective. Think trying to explain the definition of a strike zone in baseball is difficult; imagine doing the same for dancing. Having a mirror I know how to identify bad dancing but for the most part, anything from halfway competent to professional look the same to me.
Second, like American idol or any other call-in and vote show, it’s a popularity contest. Perhaps the fact that Palin has been treated so poorly by so many who don’t even know her has led to viewer empathy. It’s not like she forced her way on to the show, she was invited like everyone else who participates and given the opportunity, who wouldn’t take it?
Sometimes not everyone else agrees with who you think should win. It’s no reason to freak out. I didn’t vote for the President, or either of the last two congressmen from New Mexico. I think they’re horrible at their jobs and I will continue to not vote for them, the majority of citizens disagreed and that may or may not change. The key difference is the people voted into office can directly affect our lives. Can a contestant on a dance show? Perspective.
Palin is mostly degraded because her celebrity stems from being the daughter of a politician, who happens to be an evil Republican, and the former fiancé and co-parent of an idiot. Most ridiculous is all the consternation focused on a call-in show judging the completely subjective. Think trying to explain the definition of a strike zone in baseball is difficult; imagine doing the same for dancing. Having a mirror I know how to identify bad dancing but for the most part, anything from halfway competent to professional look the same to me.
Second, like American idol or any other call-in and vote show, it’s a popularity contest. Perhaps the fact that Palin has been treated so poorly by so many who don’t even know her has led to viewer empathy. It’s not like she forced her way on to the show, she was invited like everyone else who participates and given the opportunity, who wouldn’t take it?
Sometimes not everyone else agrees with who you think should win. It’s no reason to freak out. I didn’t vote for the President, or either of the last two congressmen from New Mexico. I think they’re horrible at their jobs and I will continue to not vote for them, the majority of citizens disagreed and that may or may not change. The key difference is the people voted into office can directly affect our lives. Can a contestant on a dance show? Perspective.
Monday, November 15, 2010
Knowing the Unknowable and the Ubiquitous PR
It’s impossible to really know what anyone truly believes because there is no way to actually get into someone else’s mind. The best way to guess when it comes to a politician is to take what they have ever written or said in addition to the policies and priorities taken in office. Before running for Commander in Chief, President Obama’s associations, two autobiographies, history in community organizing, record in the Illinois and United States Senate pointed to a left wing politician. This is part of the reason why the hope and change campaign the president ran in 2008 was so jarring, because it could be construed to mean absolutely anything and in the context of that election it was used to convey rainbows an lollipops. It was a charade masking the policies favored by the President.
Nearly two years in to the Obama Presidency it seems as though his policies, once demonstrated, have led to a rebuke illustrated in this month’s elections. The basic point to me is that many agree that government is too big and does not do many things well when it attempts to shape decisions for everyone. It has been opined that when the President uses a bitter clingers or distribution line, it’s some kind of slip but it is more in line with his actual record that the nonsense from his campaign.
Speaking of that campaign it is still meaningful to many, from an article on Salon by Sasha Abramsky titled “Obama’s toughest task: Make us believe again”:
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama fashioned an appeal to independent voters and young adults based in large part not on specific policy pledges but on his promise to end the culture of hyper-partisan hyper-bickering that was poisoning the country's political well…Obama believes in good government, in moderation, in a smart, worldly, calm approach to politics. He believes that government can, and should, act on behalf of ordinary people to protect them from the vagaries of an unregulated market and also to smooth out the rough edges created by boom-bust cycles, inequality, and the twists and turns of history…Unfortunately for him, and for his broader progressive political agenda, conservatives have spent the last 30-plus years demolishing any notion that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena.
That’s a ton of inference from hope and change. It seems that the Author’s belief in government and of conservatives is the actual view put forth in this piece.
On the first assertion, the ending of partisanship in politics. The only political system that has no partisanship is a dictatorship in which all of the people living under it agree to live under said dictatorship. Those clamoring for bi-partisanship aren’t looking for any actual agreement; they are looking for people to capitulate to their view of government.
On to the good big government tripe. Boom-bust cycles happen in any economy that promotes freedom and the only kind that sidesteps this are those in which everyone is miserable, all bust. Government has tried many times to help ordinary people and in some very limited ways has helped albeit at enormous costs. The reason why many people view big government as bad government is because many of these programs have failed to deliver at an inflated cost.
The last notion, that conservatives have spent the last 30 plus years demolishing the idea that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena. This rubbish assumes that conservatives have ever been a force in forming public opinion, which just isn’t true. Conservatives don’t promise to solve everyone’s problems, don’t promise to stop the rise of the oceans and don’t believe that government should make every decision for every citizen. Because progressives always promise the impossible and can never deliver on the impossible they always get elected on inflated hope and then are shown the door when it all falls apart.
Nearly two years in to the Obama Presidency it seems as though his policies, once demonstrated, have led to a rebuke illustrated in this month’s elections. The basic point to me is that many agree that government is too big and does not do many things well when it attempts to shape decisions for everyone. It has been opined that when the President uses a bitter clingers or distribution line, it’s some kind of slip but it is more in line with his actual record that the nonsense from his campaign.
Speaking of that campaign it is still meaningful to many, from an article on Salon by Sasha Abramsky titled “Obama’s toughest task: Make us believe again”:
In 2008, candidate Barack Obama fashioned an appeal to independent voters and young adults based in large part not on specific policy pledges but on his promise to end the culture of hyper-partisan hyper-bickering that was poisoning the country's political well…Obama believes in good government, in moderation, in a smart, worldly, calm approach to politics. He believes that government can, and should, act on behalf of ordinary people to protect them from the vagaries of an unregulated market and also to smooth out the rough edges created by boom-bust cycles, inequality, and the twists and turns of history…Unfortunately for him, and for his broader progressive political agenda, conservatives have spent the last 30-plus years demolishing any notion that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena.
That’s a ton of inference from hope and change. It seems that the Author’s belief in government and of conservatives is the actual view put forth in this piece.
On the first assertion, the ending of partisanship in politics. The only political system that has no partisanship is a dictatorship in which all of the people living under it agree to live under said dictatorship. Those clamoring for bi-partisanship aren’t looking for any actual agreement; they are looking for people to capitulate to their view of government.
On to the good big government tripe. Boom-bust cycles happen in any economy that promotes freedom and the only kind that sidesteps this are those in which everyone is miserable, all bust. Government has tried many times to help ordinary people and in some very limited ways has helped albeit at enormous costs. The reason why many people view big government as bad government is because many of these programs have failed to deliver at an inflated cost.
The last notion, that conservatives have spent the last 30 plus years demolishing the idea that government can ever be a force for good in the social and economic arena. This rubbish assumes that conservatives have ever been a force in forming public opinion, which just isn’t true. Conservatives don’t promise to solve everyone’s problems, don’t promise to stop the rise of the oceans and don’t believe that government should make every decision for every citizen. Because progressives always promise the impossible and can never deliver on the impossible they always get elected on inflated hope and then are shown the door when it all falls apart.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Tone Deaf and Confident
Even during hard times when voters are asked, if you knew that your money was going to education, would you agree to increase taxes or something like that—they always say yes
That is a quote from Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein responding to warnings from Albuquerque Public Schools Superintendent Winston Brooks cryptically warning of further education budget cuts.
The only answer that the taxpayer can provide that may actually lead to an improved APS is a shut wallet. Scare tactics from a bumbling superintendent are only meant as a hedge to game the public into more funding as desired by the teacher’s union. Both of these statements are complimentary and outline the same tactic that has failed education time and again, more money.
More money is not the answer and that conclusion is supported by the fact that as taxpayers have been more than generous over and over again as acknowledged by AFT president Bernstein, nothing has changed. ‘Education’ has not improved for the children that are used as a cudgel to guilt citizens into throwing money at the same old same old.
The reason why is that more money only grows the same failing system and that system is a growth of programs meant to solve problems by endless study and moving around students into various school activities that are not in any way tied to education. This is the same ‘try something’ charade that never does any good because adding to a wasteful system while not honestly addressing the actual cause of issues within the public schools does nothing. And these new programs once established, never go away and always want more.
Teary eyed politicians always want to ‘keep money in the classroom’ and ‘in education’ and the problem is that as the schools add more and more programs and studies, each requires more and more management which have nothing to do with any actual education. The problem is that the money is not literally spent on the classroom but a gigantic, out of proportion support system whose only goal is to feed it and grow ever larger.
Since inception the public schools answer to its many problems has always been more funding and they have always been granted more funding only to deliver worse results every time. It is more than past time to try real reform, to force the school districts who insist on digging into our pockets to be fully accountable. The public should know every program, every employee and every purpose of our funding. As the public we must hold administrators, school board members, teachers and every employee of the public schools accountable and determine what programs actually work and which teachers actually teach. It is time to rid ourselves of anything that is not directly tied to real, actual education within APS.
That is a quote from Albuquerque Teachers Federation President Ellen Bernstein responding to warnings from Albuquerque Public Schools Superintendent Winston Brooks cryptically warning of further education budget cuts.
Worst-case scenario, we could be looking at cutting $64 million ... all of those numbers are estimates right now. Please do not take any of them as gospelNo one knows with any certainty what the future holds for the school district’s funding and the union leader has no qualms with sticking it to the taxpayer to shovel more money into the furnace that goes by the blanket term ‘education’.
The only answer that the taxpayer can provide that may actually lead to an improved APS is a shut wallet. Scare tactics from a bumbling superintendent are only meant as a hedge to game the public into more funding as desired by the teacher’s union. Both of these statements are complimentary and outline the same tactic that has failed education time and again, more money.
More money is not the answer and that conclusion is supported by the fact that as taxpayers have been more than generous over and over again as acknowledged by AFT president Bernstein, nothing has changed. ‘Education’ has not improved for the children that are used as a cudgel to guilt citizens into throwing money at the same old same old.
The reason why is that more money only grows the same failing system and that system is a growth of programs meant to solve problems by endless study and moving around students into various school activities that are not in any way tied to education. This is the same ‘try something’ charade that never does any good because adding to a wasteful system while not honestly addressing the actual cause of issues within the public schools does nothing. And these new programs once established, never go away and always want more.
Teary eyed politicians always want to ‘keep money in the classroom’ and ‘in education’ and the problem is that as the schools add more and more programs and studies, each requires more and more management which have nothing to do with any actual education. The problem is that the money is not literally spent on the classroom but a gigantic, out of proportion support system whose only goal is to feed it and grow ever larger.
Since inception the public schools answer to its many problems has always been more funding and they have always been granted more funding only to deliver worse results every time. It is more than past time to try real reform, to force the school districts who insist on digging into our pockets to be fully accountable. The public should know every program, every employee and every purpose of our funding. As the public we must hold administrators, school board members, teachers and every employee of the public schools accountable and determine what programs actually work and which teachers actually teach. It is time to rid ourselves of anything that is not directly tied to real, actual education within APS.
Tuesday, November 09, 2010
The Answer Isn’t More of the Same
In the bad idea of the day department there is a group calling itself ABQPass that is currently pushing splitting Albuquerque Public Schools in two with a new district comprised of existing schools that dot Albuquerque west of the Rio Grande. The prime justification for this initiative is the state of New Mexico’s poor ranking in education nationwide.
The idea behind the idea is noble, that providing the children with the best possible education is paramount to prosperity. Nothing controversial there, however, splitting APS in two is a bad idea that will only serve to exacerbate the problems within the district. ABQPass should instead concentrate its efforts on bettering the district as it already exists.
The creation of a second Albuquerque school district immediately doubles the problem with the existing district because it creates a second entity encompassing the same problems. The problem with APS is the size and reach of its bureaucracy. APS as it exists today is the perfect demonstration of the failure of big government. Every year, the APS school board and administration makes excuses for the poor performance of their system and insists that the solution is more money. We rubes in the public pony up and nothing changes.
It is folly to believe that the creation of another school district, more government will alleviate the problems within APS. All that it will lead to is another corrupt and burdensome government entity that is always crowing for more money from the public they are supposed to serve inevitably disappointing but never having to improve once entrenched.
The idea behind the idea is noble, that providing the children with the best possible education is paramount to prosperity. Nothing controversial there, however, splitting APS in two is a bad idea that will only serve to exacerbate the problems within the district. ABQPass should instead concentrate its efforts on bettering the district as it already exists.
The creation of a second Albuquerque school district immediately doubles the problem with the existing district because it creates a second entity encompassing the same problems. The problem with APS is the size and reach of its bureaucracy. APS as it exists today is the perfect demonstration of the failure of big government. Every year, the APS school board and administration makes excuses for the poor performance of their system and insists that the solution is more money. We rubes in the public pony up and nothing changes.
It is folly to believe that the creation of another school district, more government will alleviate the problems within APS. All that it will lead to is another corrupt and burdensome government entity that is always crowing for more money from the public they are supposed to serve inevitably disappointing but never having to improve once entrenched.
Monday, November 08, 2010
The Event Center that will not Die
It is difficult for me to understand exactly why many Albuquerque city council members continue to insist on building a new Downtown event center. In his first State of the City address, Mayor Richard Berry made the following statement:
I'm not saying 'no, never.' I'm saying now isn't the time
This simple statement is a practical way to look at the proposed event center. It may one day become a reality but now really isn’t the right time. A new event center in downtown Albuquerque is estimated to cost nearly 400 million dollars, where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Accompanying the mayor’s position statement was news that city owes nearly 20 million dollars on renovations made more than a decade ago to the existing convention center. Where is that money and when is the existing convention center, operating at less than capacity going to come from?
One of the arguments in favor of the new event center is the construction jobs that will ostensively add to the city’s labor base, stimulating the economy. There are a lot of problems with this position. First, these jobs would only be temporary. One of the ill effects could be an artificial inflation in the city’s construction labor base; companies may bring in workers from other economies that leave after the work is complete or may have to lay off many local employees once the work is complete. This is an example of unsustainable. The city may as well employ a hundred hole diggers and a hundred hole fillers working on a split shift in perpetuity.
Another argument is that an event center will lead to a revitalization of the city’s downtown area. The first step to any city revitalization is taking care of crime. Albuquerque already has a modern convention center with much useful space that is across the street from a mostly empty beautiful civic plaza, why would another event center do any better? Part of the event center plan involves a hotel. There are already many hotels in downtown Albuquerque with much vacancy. What reason is there and do we really want the city to get into the hotel business? The city does not need to enter any private industry and should first concentrate on finding tenants for existing city properties and take care of crime on those properties and throughout the city.
The most laughable reason given for an event center is the idea that the city could conceivably attract a professional sports team, most likely an NBA team. Put simply, Albuquerque does not have the population base necessary to support a professional basketball team. Second, smaller cities with NBA teams are bankrupt thanks to those teams. I doubt the NBA would support a team moving to Albuquerque because of woeful attendance at the area’s NBA developmental league team’s games. There are sentimental reasons for this, making it a point of civic pride to call Albuquerque a major city because it’s a budget busting NBA team’s city. It isn’t worth it.
I just don’t get it. Any reason that can be given for the city to create a new event center when one already exists and many other venues dot the metro area can be easily refuted. Now is simply not the time to even consider this idea. Over the last few years Albuquerque has lost several major private sector employers. The city should concentrate its efforts on making the city safer which will help make it a city people want to move to and encourage businesses to move here by improving taxes for them. This event center is a distraction. Any city councilor who supports it can’t be bothered to solve actual problems and are probably running for mayor in three years.
I'm not saying 'no, never.' I'm saying now isn't the time
This simple statement is a practical way to look at the proposed event center. It may one day become a reality but now really isn’t the right time. A new event center in downtown Albuquerque is estimated to cost nearly 400 million dollars, where exactly is that money supposed to come from? Accompanying the mayor’s position statement was news that city owes nearly 20 million dollars on renovations made more than a decade ago to the existing convention center. Where is that money and when is the existing convention center, operating at less than capacity going to come from?
One of the arguments in favor of the new event center is the construction jobs that will ostensively add to the city’s labor base, stimulating the economy. There are a lot of problems with this position. First, these jobs would only be temporary. One of the ill effects could be an artificial inflation in the city’s construction labor base; companies may bring in workers from other economies that leave after the work is complete or may have to lay off many local employees once the work is complete. This is an example of unsustainable. The city may as well employ a hundred hole diggers and a hundred hole fillers working on a split shift in perpetuity.
Another argument is that an event center will lead to a revitalization of the city’s downtown area. The first step to any city revitalization is taking care of crime. Albuquerque already has a modern convention center with much useful space that is across the street from a mostly empty beautiful civic plaza, why would another event center do any better? Part of the event center plan involves a hotel. There are already many hotels in downtown Albuquerque with much vacancy. What reason is there and do we really want the city to get into the hotel business? The city does not need to enter any private industry and should first concentrate on finding tenants for existing city properties and take care of crime on those properties and throughout the city.
The most laughable reason given for an event center is the idea that the city could conceivably attract a professional sports team, most likely an NBA team. Put simply, Albuquerque does not have the population base necessary to support a professional basketball team. Second, smaller cities with NBA teams are bankrupt thanks to those teams. I doubt the NBA would support a team moving to Albuquerque because of woeful attendance at the area’s NBA developmental league team’s games. There are sentimental reasons for this, making it a point of civic pride to call Albuquerque a major city because it’s a budget busting NBA team’s city. It isn’t worth it.
I just don’t get it. Any reason that can be given for the city to create a new event center when one already exists and many other venues dot the metro area can be easily refuted. Now is simply not the time to even consider this idea. Over the last few years Albuquerque has lost several major private sector employers. The city should concentrate its efforts on making the city safer which will help make it a city people want to move to and encourage businesses to move here by improving taxes for them. This event center is a distraction. Any city councilor who supports it can’t be bothered to solve actual problems and are probably running for mayor in three years.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Defining a good job down
Yesterday I characterized the re-election of Martin Heinrich to the US House of Representatives as demonstrative of the power of the democrat brand, especially in the state of New Mexico. While New Mexico is a right to work state, there are two teachers unions that have a strong presence in the state. New Mexico has a larger percentage of state employees as a percentage of the general population than many other states. Many of these state employees live in the Albuquerque area (witness the existence of the rail runner) and therefore in Heinrich’s district. In Albuquerque their exists Sandia National Laboratories, many federal DoD offices employing civilians at Kirtland Air Force Base, Federal, State and District Courts, an FBI presence, other Federal agencies and the University of New Mexico. Basically, Albuquerque is a giant hub of public sector employment and trends show that all of these groups overwhelmingly vote democrat as a brand and not at a 51/49 split, closer to 70/30. Knowing this it is amazing that any republican can win any elected office in this city. Yet, Jon Barela came close.
Martin Heinrich has a resume as thin as can be and in two years in Washington only distinguished himself by honoring the UNM Lobo’s basketball team in session. Other than that, Heinrich can be considered to be a straight ticket democrat vote. Jon Barela has a much more impressive resume, with actual Private sector experience, has campaigned as an independent thinker that would work for New Mexico first and performed well in debates. He came close but he lost to someone who has only distinguished himself as getting along with the democrat agenda.
This morning on Bob Clark’s 770AM morning show he had a “centrist” political blogger who may as well call himself Captain Hindsight in his political analysis. The point of this blogger and several echo callers was that the result of the election to New Mexicans is that Republicans must moderate and that Heinrich won because he did well by his constituency. This caused me to ponder exactly what each of these points meant.
The first tell of a liberal is that they identify themselves as something else and this blogger was no different. Every “moderate” plank identified by this “moderate” that Republicans must co-opt was a liberal policy. In politics, Republicans describe policies, policies meant to bestow freedom on citizens while democrats push programs meant to keep constituents dependent on their benevolence. With that stark a difference it is difficult to identify a truly centrist position. Dishonest liberals like this blogger, thinking themselves righteous, have co-opted the term “moderate” to hide liberal and progressive memes.
On to Heinrich doing right by his constituents, part of the blogger’s claim stemmed back to his time as a city councilor in Albuquerque. On that question the answer is it depends. Which constituents? This kind of trick is taken because this blogger, being a liberal, paints the entire district with a broad brush and assumes everyone shares the same values and views of government. The constituency that is served well by Heinrich is the kind that is either a recipient of government largess or approves of that method of governance. Plainly, Heinrich is good at giving out other people’s money. It is probably correct that Heinrich won thanks to this trait, that doesn’t mean that he does a good job.
It’s easy to be pessimistic when a candidate like Jon Barela can only get close against a hack like Heinrich but it seems to be the way things are in this district. The only reason why Richard Berry's the Mayor of Albuquerque is because it was a three way race against two democrats who may as well have been clones. The big government agenda put forth by Martin Heinrich and supported by many voters in Albuquerque is unsustainable and the benefits are an illusion, if this kind of candidate continues to win it might be time to take that transfer to Florida.
Martin Heinrich has a resume as thin as can be and in two years in Washington only distinguished himself by honoring the UNM Lobo’s basketball team in session. Other than that, Heinrich can be considered to be a straight ticket democrat vote. Jon Barela has a much more impressive resume, with actual Private sector experience, has campaigned as an independent thinker that would work for New Mexico first and performed well in debates. He came close but he lost to someone who has only distinguished himself as getting along with the democrat agenda.
This morning on Bob Clark’s 770AM morning show he had a “centrist” political blogger who may as well call himself Captain Hindsight in his political analysis. The point of this blogger and several echo callers was that the result of the election to New Mexicans is that Republicans must moderate and that Heinrich won because he did well by his constituency. This caused me to ponder exactly what each of these points meant.
The first tell of a liberal is that they identify themselves as something else and this blogger was no different. Every “moderate” plank identified by this “moderate” that Republicans must co-opt was a liberal policy. In politics, Republicans describe policies, policies meant to bestow freedom on citizens while democrats push programs meant to keep constituents dependent on their benevolence. With that stark a difference it is difficult to identify a truly centrist position. Dishonest liberals like this blogger, thinking themselves righteous, have co-opted the term “moderate” to hide liberal and progressive memes.
On to Heinrich doing right by his constituents, part of the blogger’s claim stemmed back to his time as a city councilor in Albuquerque. On that question the answer is it depends. Which constituents? This kind of trick is taken because this blogger, being a liberal, paints the entire district with a broad brush and assumes everyone shares the same values and views of government. The constituency that is served well by Heinrich is the kind that is either a recipient of government largess or approves of that method of governance. Plainly, Heinrich is good at giving out other people’s money. It is probably correct that Heinrich won thanks to this trait, that doesn’t mean that he does a good job.
It’s easy to be pessimistic when a candidate like Jon Barela can only get close against a hack like Heinrich but it seems to be the way things are in this district. The only reason why Richard Berry's the Mayor of Albuquerque is because it was a three way race against two democrats who may as well have been clones. The big government agenda put forth by Martin Heinrich and supported by many voters in Albuquerque is unsustainable and the benefits are an illusion, if this kind of candidate continues to win it might be time to take that transfer to Florida.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
The Day After
There was some good and some disappointing news from the election yesterday. Something I learned last night both in New Mexico and nationally is just how powerful democrat as a brand can be. As the results poured in, locally and nationally, it was a very good night for Republicans but there were many races that just left me a bit let down.
Early yesterday afternoon my wife sent me a text message that she was attempting to convince a friend to vote for Susana Martinez, Jon Barela and Matt Chandler. This friend is very smart and sensible, and the reason why they voted straight ticket democrat after all was due to the nature of their work in renewable energy. In that sector and many others, these employees are told that their jobs depend on democrats in office. Such is the price of big government picking winners and losers in the economy. And democrats are big government and when democrat government picks winners, that same government becomes the best interest of those winners.
Susana Martinez won a resounding and pleasantly early victory. Martinez is a great candidate that the State deserves to learn more about over the next four years. My bet is that she will be a very good Governor. Steve Pearce won the seat in congress that he previously held handily, more so that the predicted toss-up. Dianna Duran won in a landslide (15 points!) for Secretary of State over Incumbent and embarrassment Mary Herrera.
Jon Barela (US House), Tom Mullins (US House) and Matt Chandler (Attorney General) lost close races against mediocre at best incumbents. Was it name recognition or was it the democrat brand? Or both, which may be the same thing? I think it’s the later. Barela ran a good campaign and was a good candidate but never could establish himself. Mullins is an excellent candidate and ran a great campaign considering his district but still lost. Chandler is also an excellent candidate who ran very well against the well established King democrat brand in New Mexico, hopefully he’ll be back.
Nationwide, California and Nevada prove the strength of the democrat brand. Sharron Angle was a great candidate, running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and lost by a much larger margin than predicted. California sent back know-nothing Barbara Boxer to the Senate and elected re-tread Jerry Brown as their governor against well qualified businesspeople. These results are disappointing because all three of these candidates had low ratings in their districts, but even with all of the problems their districts resoundingly went for more of the same. It is what it is. At least California went against the idiotic proposal to legalize marijuana.
There is now a lot of work to do. There were a ton of great Republican candidates and hopefully the freshman class in both houses of congress will do great things. Electorally, while there were disappointing results in some races, there is something to build on. Voters are more educated than ever and can only mean better candidates and better representation.
Early yesterday afternoon my wife sent me a text message that she was attempting to convince a friend to vote for Susana Martinez, Jon Barela and Matt Chandler. This friend is very smart and sensible, and the reason why they voted straight ticket democrat after all was due to the nature of their work in renewable energy. In that sector and many others, these employees are told that their jobs depend on democrats in office. Such is the price of big government picking winners and losers in the economy. And democrats are big government and when democrat government picks winners, that same government becomes the best interest of those winners.
Susana Martinez won a resounding and pleasantly early victory. Martinez is a great candidate that the State deserves to learn more about over the next four years. My bet is that she will be a very good Governor. Steve Pearce won the seat in congress that he previously held handily, more so that the predicted toss-up. Dianna Duran won in a landslide (15 points!) for Secretary of State over Incumbent and embarrassment Mary Herrera.
Jon Barela (US House), Tom Mullins (US House) and Matt Chandler (Attorney General) lost close races against mediocre at best incumbents. Was it name recognition or was it the democrat brand? Or both, which may be the same thing? I think it’s the later. Barela ran a good campaign and was a good candidate but never could establish himself. Mullins is an excellent candidate and ran a great campaign considering his district but still lost. Chandler is also an excellent candidate who ran very well against the well established King democrat brand in New Mexico, hopefully he’ll be back.
Nationwide, California and Nevada prove the strength of the democrat brand. Sharron Angle was a great candidate, running against Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada and lost by a much larger margin than predicted. California sent back know-nothing Barbara Boxer to the Senate and elected re-tread Jerry Brown as their governor against well qualified businesspeople. These results are disappointing because all three of these candidates had low ratings in their districts, but even with all of the problems their districts resoundingly went for more of the same. It is what it is. At least California went against the idiotic proposal to legalize marijuana.
There is now a lot of work to do. There were a ton of great Republican candidates and hopefully the freshman class in both houses of congress will do great things. Electorally, while there were disappointing results in some races, there is something to build on. Voters are more educated than ever and can only mean better candidates and better representation.
Grüezi Mitenand!
is Swiss German for "Greetings, everyone". A lot has happened between the last time I posted and now, both in the realm of national/state/local politics and for me personally. As the 5 people who read this blog know, I moved to Switzerland a year ago, so I can blog with a bit of a Euro slant on American politics. Sometime I'll blog about how my views have changed or not, but for now - let's talk about what just happened.
[Keep in mind that the above was written right after the election, I am a lazy ass and didn't finish.]
Hello gridlock! I love it. When politicians are pissing on each other in DC, then they aren't pissing on us. The encroachment upon our individual liberties grinds to a halt when the wrench of gridlock is thrown into the machine of Leviathan. What remains to be seen is if Obama can adjust like Clinton did. I'm not holding my breath. Obama is a genuine douchebag with a superiority complex. You can see it in how he reacts to criticism.
Speaking of Clinton, I suddenly found myself missing the ol' boy. We hated him, but honestly - he was a consummate politician, so he did some good stuff. The semblance of fiscal responsibility that Newt & Co. foisted upon him was nice, and we need it again.
Anyway, I'll try and keep up with things here so Vetes isn't the only lonely poster.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Election Day
Or Happy New Governor Day New Mexico! Whoever wins the election today one thing is for certain, one Bill Richardson will soon be on a path to an uncertain retirement from New Mexico politics. Uncertain because it is would be impossible to guess as to what Richardson will do next. In statewide politics the only option that would not seem to be a demotion would be senator and it is doubtful that Richardson (or anyone) could beat Jeff Bingaman simply because he has been there forever and name recognition still rules in New Mexico. So what next for Richardson? It doesn’t matter, soon enough he will be gone tarnished from a life in democrat politics, good riddance.
What has been striking to me in this election cycle is the welcome quality of Republican candidates. All too often in politics many candidates are re-treads, multi-decade incumbents or flacks who have waited in line for their turn. While there are some Republican candidates who fit this mold (hello Steve Pearce) many are really quality people and I think are prepared for what may be new jobs tomorrow.
It all starts at the top with our likely new governor, Susana Martinez. Contrast Martinez with Diane Denish, Denish has been or campaigned for Lt Governor for the last twelve years. In her Ads Denish attempted to identify herself first as a corruption fighter, with no results, then as the owner of an unnamed small business and a single mother for a period time to an education reformer where nothing changed most notably results. Martinez is a successful DA in Dona Ana County who has been successful for many years in that role with a record that she could run on consistently throughout the campaign.
Notable differences in resume quality continue in House of Representatives candidates. Take Martin Heinrich, what has he ever done that even resembles experience in the private sector? He worked as an engineer at Philips semiconductors for several months and then worked at a camp, then as an unregistered lobbyist and city councilor before becoming a congressman. That’s the best the democrats have to offer. His opponent, Republican Jon Barela worked for a congressman, Joe Skeen, then for a major law firm in Albuquerque, then Intel and then opened his own successful company Cerelink.
Matt Chandler brings a fresh perspective to the Attorney General’s office compared to the legacy Gary King, who may be perfectly mediocre but has proven to be very politically motivated. In the North, Tom Mullins is an engineer who is truly conservative running against Ben Ray Lujan who has an even thinner resume than Martin Heinrich. In the South Steve Pearce is running for a seat he once held against businessman democrat Harry Teague and while this race seems different and one could assume that Teague would be business friendly, Teague has voted in line with democrat priorities (excepting certain politically motivated exceptions) and operates his business in the cartoonish ways his party attempts to paint conservatives.
There are many stories today about how many races the Republicans may win today and the best part is that many of the Republican candidates are no longer just the lesser of two evils but intelligent people that adhere to actual conservative governing principles which I believe will lead to a better state and country.
What has been striking to me in this election cycle is the welcome quality of Republican candidates. All too often in politics many candidates are re-treads, multi-decade incumbents or flacks who have waited in line for their turn. While there are some Republican candidates who fit this mold (hello Steve Pearce) many are really quality people and I think are prepared for what may be new jobs tomorrow.
It all starts at the top with our likely new governor, Susana Martinez. Contrast Martinez with Diane Denish, Denish has been or campaigned for Lt Governor for the last twelve years. In her Ads Denish attempted to identify herself first as a corruption fighter, with no results, then as the owner of an unnamed small business and a single mother for a period time to an education reformer where nothing changed most notably results. Martinez is a successful DA in Dona Ana County who has been successful for many years in that role with a record that she could run on consistently throughout the campaign.
Notable differences in resume quality continue in House of Representatives candidates. Take Martin Heinrich, what has he ever done that even resembles experience in the private sector? He worked as an engineer at Philips semiconductors for several months and then worked at a camp, then as an unregistered lobbyist and city councilor before becoming a congressman. That’s the best the democrats have to offer. His opponent, Republican Jon Barela worked for a congressman, Joe Skeen, then for a major law firm in Albuquerque, then Intel and then opened his own successful company Cerelink.
Matt Chandler brings a fresh perspective to the Attorney General’s office compared to the legacy Gary King, who may be perfectly mediocre but has proven to be very politically motivated. In the North, Tom Mullins is an engineer who is truly conservative running against Ben Ray Lujan who has an even thinner resume than Martin Heinrich. In the South Steve Pearce is running for a seat he once held against businessman democrat Harry Teague and while this race seems different and one could assume that Teague would be business friendly, Teague has voted in line with democrat priorities (excepting certain politically motivated exceptions) and operates his business in the cartoonish ways his party attempts to paint conservatives.
There are many stories today about how many races the Republicans may win today and the best part is that many of the Republican candidates are no longer just the lesser of two evils but intelligent people that adhere to actual conservative governing principles which I believe will lead to a better state and country.
Monday, November 01, 2010
So who's supported by Texas?
Now, this picture means nothing but in the Tejana and "Texas money" context, you can't tell me this picture from a Corrales roaming vehicle ain't funny...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)