Random Thoughts - 3/1

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

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

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

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

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

An old excuse

It was ten til seven in the morning and I was at the store to pick up some repair items for a toilet in my house needing its lever and flapper replaced. As I walked past the toy aisle towards hardware a voice came over the PA system from a supervisor. At that time customers were outnumbered by preparation employees and the supervisor was making an announcement in regard to the time and a goal that was to be met by seven. In the distance the announcement was met by an employee stating “shut up already”.

I rolled my eyes at the disgruntled employee and it reminded me of a similar event the day before. We took our nineteen month old son to a restaurant with activities for children to meet a friend and their son who is about the same age whom because of where they live, doesn’t get to that kind of place too often. We thought arriving in the late afternoon, well past lunch and a bit before dinner, would spare us from the typical crowding. We were wrong; apparently there is no good time to visit that place on a Sunday. Every unoccupied or unreserved table, and there were few, was absolutely disgusting and in desperate need of cleaning. My wife went to find some help and we camped out at a table large enough to seat our party. Ten minutes later the one employee charged with cleaning at this place packed with several hundred people stopped by. He quickly wiped over the table with dirty water. After a decidedly subpar effort this employee informed us that that was all he was going to do and mumbled some excuses inaudibly under his breath.

After they left I remarked to our group, “Well, obviously his level of give-a-crapness is lacking.” To which one of our group exclaimed, “What do you expect, he probably makes minimum wage.” I rolled my eyes again, gathered my thoughts momentarily and replied, “With that attitude, why should anyone ever pay him a cent more?” My heckler was forced to concede my point.

Today we all too often use compensation or lack thereof as excuse for an utter lack of effort. It is an old and completely irrelevant excuse. Chris Rock was right when he said that when someone pays you minimum wage that they would pay you less but they can’t because it’s against the law. But that doesn’t excuse doing a job poorly.

In this country jobs are applied for and chosen, not assigned. Certain jobs can be done by more people and the more applicants available the less that an employer can offer them in terms of compensation. Either at the department store or the restaurant, if the disgruntled employee did not agree to work for a given wage they could have refused to apply and looked for something else. It’s reasonable to assume that their respective skill sets are commiserate with their current positions, which means at this time that’s the level of compensation which they can expect.

Of course, how they perform at that level of compensation and the skills, both job and employment related, that they acquire there are meant to serve them later. The whole point of a market economy and what is known as the American dream is to strive to and work to success. It takes time to learn and then master the types of skills that employers are willing to pay more for. Complaining over menial tasks and blaming a lack of performance on low compensation will only lead to one never learning enough to do anything else.

A new Senator

For third time in my 32 years, New Mexico will have a new senator with Jeff Bingaman retiring as his term expires at the end of 2012. Bingaman happened to be the first new Senator New Mexico has had during my lifetime and when his term expires, will have served in the US Senate for 30 years. The announcement came last week, just before Bingaman’s kabuki theatre grilling this week of the New Mexico Gas Company following delivery problems stemming from recent freezing temperatures not seen in New Mexico in more than two decades. What was most striking of the announcement was the initial response of shock expressed by local and national news agencies. It could be surprising to learn that an entrenched senator would budge from such a lofty perch but one should not be shocked that someone approaching their 68th birthday would elect to retire. Anyway, the only sentiment that I can attribute to Senator Bingaman is that he helped to solidify my positions that direct elections of senators was a mistake and the lack of term limits for any elected office is an atrocity.

To Bingaman’s eventual replacement the state democrat party sanctioned a survey with a ton of candidates resulting in a lot of support for US Representative Martin Heinrich, who has proven to be worthy as Bingaman’s intellectual and political heir, and I don’t mean that as a compliment. Heinrich is ambitious and regarded as a good fund raiser, but these are not positive attributes when discussing political creatures. Heinrich’s positions, statements, votes and responses prove that he is a liberal, progressive, whatever-they-use-next, democrat politician who represents the interests of those whom he agrees with or is beholden to for financial support.

In New Mexico politics, name recognition is an immense factor and if the democrats don’t nominate from the recent retread trio of Martin Chavez, Bill Richardson (laugh) or Diane Denish it seems a good chance that Heinrich could win the nomination as the congressman from the State’s single largest urban area. This could be a good thing if he proves to be unelectable to statewide office or a bad thing if he proves to be electable. Electing Heinrich would be a mistake and ensure more of the same patronage spending tied to the perpetual money machine made up of public sector unions, the state’s large federal presence and the democrat party, ensuring a senator that represents the narrow interests of Nob Hill.

Truth is, any democrat selected to run for senator would be the same, leaving it to the Republican’s to nominate a responsible legislator, able to represent New Mexico’s interests in the US Senate instead of lobbying for handouts that benefit their paymasters. Former representative Heather Wilson would be an excellent senator as an intelligent and accomplished person who had a great record as a house member and was heralded by her constituents when they contacted her whether or not they agreed with her positions. Unfortunately for Wilson, she was almost constantly attacked by political hacks for personal reasons and after five terms in the house there may be a fatigue factor.

While Wilson holds the edge over other candidates in regard to experience our recent gubernatorial race has provided a candidate who has useful experience and has the stage presence that could lead to election. I stated on this very blog that Doug Turner should have run for US House against Heinrich last year instead of running for Governor and an open senate seat provides an opportunity for another chance at public office. Turner works in the private sector. He was a part of Governor Gary Johnson’s campaigns and administrations. He is a clear conservative and excellent speaker. Jon Barela, who ran unsuccessfully against Heinrich last fall, is also mentioned and proved to be a worthy candidate, but he just did not do well enough to expect that he could succeed in a statewide race.

If anything is going to change, both in our state and in our country then we need responsible lawmakers. Governor Martinez has started moving things in the right direction for New Mexico; Mayor Berry has done the same for Albuquerque. Former Senator Domenici was a nice enough person but in the last 18 years of his 36 year reign in the US Senate became a creature of Washington politics, ‘doing’ things for New Mexico is not bringing home the pork, it was past time for him to retire in 2009 and likewise it’s past time for Jeff Bingaman to retire. The democrats will treat the seat as their birthright and the only way to win will be to nominate a conservative with thick skin and an ability to effectively convey ideas, that person should be Doug Turner, if he desires to run that is.

Random Thoughts – 2/17

Albuquerque’s fire chief has banned a sticker that has been appearing on the helmets of firefighter helmets as of late. The sticker reads “FMB” and it has been peddled by union president Diego Arencon to stand for “forever my brother”. For those who pay attention and don’t swallow when fed bull, the sticker is most certainly a nod to Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry, think F Mayor Berry, whom the union is currently suing over a contract dispute. I wonder if the president of the union would believe it if I addressed him as M. Arencon, and that the M. was simply an innocuous substitute for Mr. Doing so would be incredibly disrespectful and so is the childish action taken by the firefighters and the dishonesty exhibited by their union leader. They have shamed themselves and it should make any citizen nervous in the event they require their services. The chief should be commended for being an adult.

There has been much discussion lately in regard to the sham of a budget that was submitted by the president for FY2012. Many recognize the so-called cuts as gimmicks, continued deficits alarming and the complete avoidance of entitlement reform as negligence. At first it was the cynical and conservative who diagnosed the budget as a work of politics, with the president effectively daring the Republican house majority to submit a more realistic document leading to a legislative standoff that could lead to a government shutdown that the president could blame on Republicans and use as a 2012 campaign platform plank. More recently Democrat commentators have advanced the same diagnosis, but instead of being repulsed laud the action of the president as a brilliant political maneuver. This is all based on the presumed benefit to Bill Clinton when a similar showdown resulted in a shutdown in the mid-nineties. It would benefit us all if this false and massaged history doesn’t repeat itself.

School teachers in Wisconsin have taken to calling in absent, during the school year, in order to protest the Governor of Wisconsin making necessary changes to an unsustainable system that has led to current and projected budget deficits that will eventually cripple that state. It is unsettling that many school teachers have, at the direction of unions, have taken leave of their work in order to protest something that will have to be done sometime. Enough teachers have followed this path that the schools there have had to cancel school, forcing parents to scramble and leaving those teachers who did not neglect their duty to miss work. All of this over the Wisconsin governor’s plan attempting to remove the ability to collective bargain from the teachers unions. A plan that would eliminate the ability of teachers unions to hold the public they are to serve hostage and ensure that more teachers are paid in line with their abilities and achievements instead of by how long they have existed and because of what a union decided was best for them.

I have heard a lot of radio advertisements for a security company offering the arrival of an armed response team in contrast to traditional firms who just notify the authorities and can't guarantee the cops arrival. I wonder if even these armed response teams can even arrive in time.

Is email confusing or something?

So, last week I was finishing up some paperwork for something important by asking all kinds of questions of people that were supposed to be able to answer them. I received a response for an important question in a reply that ignored other questions and had no identifying information anywhere, like a signature. I could identify the person from the email address but that was it. The person who had to then take action in response to that reply did by sending another email to the first person, to which there was no reply. A week later I received another email from the original responder stating that my paperwork was missing the response that the action taker had sent to the person seeking it. Again, the sender sent the email with no identifying information whatsoever. I replied by re-sending the response by the action taker and asked if there was anything else and requested a reply stating whether or not my paperwork was complete. It has been several days and I have received noting.

This kind of occurrence is much more common that I care for. For whatever reason there has always been some type of taboo surrounding email in professional interactions for certain people. I was in high school in the mid-nineties and then college in the late-nineties, graduating in 2001 so email has almost always been a part of my life. When I started to work full-time email was my basic method of communicating with co-workers and contacts when I needed to discuss anything. In professional engagements I prefer email to phone conversations or impromptu meetings because there is a written record and I assume is actually the product of some kind of real, actual thought, more so at least than an off the cuff statement.

For others email seems to be this great barrier to effective communication. I have worked with many people who prefer direct conversations over the phone or in person to email and are even somewhat hostile to the use of email. Do these people imagine that everything they discuss is akin to a state secret and can’t be written down? What’s the problem with having an actual written record of what was said so that the same discussion can be avoided over and over again? Others can’t seem to answer more than one item in an email reply, never get back to other questions and never identify themselves in one. I often wonder if these people can only read forty words or so at a time and can’t bother with more and why it’s such a bother to at least include a name at the end of a message, is it really so difficult to type a dozen or so more letters? Or to use an automatic signature that can be applied to every email after setting it up just once? Those who take a very long time to reply or don’t at all are the worst. Are they so important that my inquiry is inconsequential to their world? Why should I have to re-send emails or manage my messages to include actual deadlines just to receive a timely response or even any response?

Email has been around for a long time and has been common in the workplace in most desk jobs for at least a decade. It can be an incredibly useful tool; unfortunately too many obstinate people refuse its practical use preferring instead to use company resources to spam me with none-too-funny jokes passed from others. I actually was scolded recently, yes scolded, by a coworker who stated that they couldn’t possibly remember everything that had been said in previous meetings, of which notes were taken and sent via email and could be referenced from. So I’m the jerk because I remember and don’t want to have the same discussion multiple times. Give me a break; get with the times you people who can’t or won’t use email effectively. It’s not my fault that you suck.

Random Thoughts – 2/14

There’s a lot of praise of late for President Obama’s latest speech on the situation in Egypt. And some of it was good, someone with dozens of speechwriters on staff should be able to get one out there that will be at least inoffensive. The trouble is that it was a speech making all kinds of grandiose statements about an event that has not yet played out and inserted person who had nothing to do with those events (Obama) into the middle of it. The president seemed to wait things out, making squishy statements as the tides changed and in the end came out supporting the protesters. Which ones (remember there were pro-Mubarak demonstrators out there) exactly he didn’t say. Mubarak wasn’t a voice for freedom but when things went down, he didn’t shoot protestors like in Iran or run over them with a tank like in China. My point is that there are worse out there. When did the president ever support the most recent uprising in Iran after that “election”? When has he said anything about the similar events now taking place in Tunisia? There is something unsettling about the administration’s fence sitting and opportunistic statements. Good luck to the people of Egypt and may their road to self-governance actually exist.

President Obama’s budget proposal for FY2012 features a whopping 2% in cuts from the post stimulus baseline of 2008. Meaning that after saying that it was a onetime thing, the White House is attempting to include the failed, so-called stimulus (because it didn’t stimulate anything of lasting value) in future budgets. And much of what is being advertised as savings is coming in future years from raising taxes in multiple ways. This will fail for many different reasons. There is less revenue this year than previous years but is mostly due to the high levels of unemployment under this regime. Paying extended unemployment benefits and not collecting taxes from those being paid does not increase revenue. Attacking higher earners is only a distraction peddled by the administration and is no excuse for spending more than we have on too many things that we don’t want or need.

Vice President Joe Biden was known as a booster of Amtrak when he was a Senator from Delaware because he often spoke of his commuting by train. And now, because of the Vice President’s personal preference we are being forced to spend billions of dollars on nonsense high speed rail projects all over the country. Delaware and Washington DC are so close that travel by rail might make sense for those who don’t like to drive the sparse and low speed limited roads of Delaware. For everyone else, traveling by train is miserable. And even where it is more prevalent, it’s expensive. The Amtrak route from New York City to Washington DC costs more and takes longer than taking an airplane. New Mexico has had to learn the hard way that rail travel is just not that great. Who cares if France’s and Japan’s passenger rail systems work better than ours? That just means that it works for those countries. Our rail system works best at freight transport, which will be hurt by increased passenger train enthusiasm because they have track priority and will lead to delays and lower capacity of shipments.

Ron Paul won the presidential straw poll for 2012 at CPAC. Congressman Paul is a good legislator but would not make a good executive. While there is much to admire in Paul’s positions many should also be questioned. Putting him out there only makes CPAC seem to be out of touch.

Valentine’s Day

As my poor wife would attest, I am bad at Valentine’s Day. And as anyone who knows such things, disappointing someone who is into Valentine’s Day is not conducive to a peaceful existence. I try and will continue to try but in the end the unfortunate bottom line will be that I’m not good at it because I just don’t care to. I’m not sure what it is and where my ambivalence comes from. And that’s because I don’t care to really think about.

I’ve never really been into the day and it’s not as though there is some kind of traumatic event in my past that drives it. I remember once when I tried to do something that could be considered a romantic gesture for someone that I had an interest with and that failed. But I didn’t care so much that it failed than the fact that a so-called friend effectively stabbed me in the back.

What I often wonder is what exactly is the point of the day and to me I’m just never sure. Certainly the commercial side is more than evident but it just never really gave me much motivation to care. Of course the only real motivation for someone that doesn’t really care is to deal with it in a way that doesn’t contribute to their own misery.

So for today, bleh. And to those that find themselves to be miserable due to this day for whatever reason, don’t take it too seriously. In the end it’s just a day and there’s much more to be said when something you want occurs when it’s best for you and not just because it’s supposed to be on that day because someone no one remembers said so.

Shortness of Days

Back when he used to be funny Chris Rock made a joke where he mentioned that the old assertion that life was long was indeed false. His retort, life is long. It is. As a whole, it is the days that are short. A couple of days last week really reminded me of this.

I just happened to not accomplish much. Thinking about it, the truth is that I did not happen to goof off all day or anything, it just seems that there was much left for me to do that I couldn’t get done and the sum total of things that I had indeed accomplished just didn’t seem to amount to anything. Come to think of it, I’m often familiar with this kind of situation.

Sometimes there are tasks that just take longer than you could ever imagine. Everything seems to be alright when you start but once you start to make progress the time just flies and it’s easy to wonder whether or not I’m incompetent or something. It’s markedly similar to playing a video game that takes up a whole lot of time and you’re left wondering where the time went just after realizing that you don’t remember what exactly happened.

In a sense it was confusing and it seems to be one of those things that are to be expected as my career continues to shift more and more away from the work of doing real, actual things. When I first started working full time there were tangible things to be done in a day and as things were done or not, there was a real sense of accomplishment.

It’s not necessarily that I no longer have a sense of accomplishment, just that often the days seem short and when there is a lot of waiting and tons of paperwork that needs review or small edits. It’s a change for sure.

And for what it’s worth, I still think Chris Rock is kinda funny. Just not like he used to be. And that joke works with a lot of comedians that are no longer funny. Lewis Black, George Lopez, Dane Cook, etc.

The “Wealth” Trope

Today listening to the Rush Limbaugh program a caller offered their explanation for the situation in Egypt. The caller’s diagnosis was due entirely to the now widely reported average daily income of a typical Egyptian in dollars. The solution to the problem, as stated by the caller, was the transfer of “the wealth” to the people who needed it. The caller described herself as being at the bottom and took the occasion to veer into a criticism of the President, stating that he does not visit “the hood” and does not “do enough” to transfer “the wealth” in our country where all of its problems, like Egypt
s, could be solved by the transfer of.

I remembered President Obama’s somewhat infamous campaign statement in regard to the transfer of “the wealth” and found it amusing that the caller did not think the President was doing enough even though through his words seems to be on the same page. A page that I cannot even comprehend because of the utter lack of understanding required to believe in this abstract concept of “the wealth” and then to believe that all of the world’s problems are indeed due to this “the wealth” not being spread evenly.

I can sympathize with the caller and anyone who is truly in need. From those who really can’t take care of themselves all the way to those that find themselves in difficult straits due to unfortunate circumstances that are beyond their control. The caller was very passionate, they said as much, and staked their righteousness on that passion. Unfortunately they were completely off-base and quite inappropriate.

Inappropriate in that this caller did not state any qualifications for understanding the needs, wants, desires and dreams of a faraway country. From the news it appears that no one really comprehends the situation in Egypt coherently and with a population of 70 million, it is folly to even pretend that the entirety of their people’s plight can be stated within a single argument. Beyond that, it seems almost certain that the caller has no comprehension of what that loose dollar translation means in Egypt and exactly what kind of life that amount can afford there or even if every person’s needs in that country can be characterized within any currency.

The caller is off-base because they apparently do not recognize the multitude in ways that “the wealth” continues to be transferred within this country. There exists thousands of government programs as the federal and state level that function exactly as the caller desires, many of which concentrate on the hood. Further, the caller’s misunderstanding of wealth and assumption that the government, in this country, creates and manages it demonstrates ignorance.

Much is written about the failure of the war on drugs and its many failures but never is anything mentioned in regard to the much worse failure of the war on poverty. Many scholars have written about the ill effect on communities that many of these wealth transfer programs have. The failure of our education system leading to the idea that passion serves as a substitute for real, actual knowledge is more of a problem than the imaginary hoarders of “the wealth”.

More Governor Martinez annoying the right people

Unfortunately the link that is in this post is part of the problem, at least as it pertains to my opinion. And it starts with an unfortunate logo on a News page.
Look at that logo. And think about the story that is being commented on and how it relates to that logo and to the section of a supposedly reputable news organization that felt that this story belonged in this section adorned with that logo.

The crux of the story is as follows:

Immigrant rights groups are planning to rally at the Capitol in protest of the Republican governor's immigration policies.

What these self-fashioned immigrant rights groups are protesting specifically is an executive order signed by Governor Martinez that requires state law enforcement to check the immigration status of arrested criminal suspects. This order is similar in nature to one signed in 2010 by Albuquerque Mayor Richard Berry, doing the same thing in the city.

These suspects have already presumptively broken some law and what is not at all mentioned in this article or in any literature proffered by immigration rights groups is that being in this country illegally is also against the law and that many residents of New Mexico’s prison system are in our country illegally.

What these immigrant rights groups really advocate are two things, illegal immigration, which they don’t accept as illegal because second, they also disregard legal borders. Because of the fact that almost all of the illegal immigration in this part of the country comes from one place and is made up of a certain designated ethnic group these rights groups obfuscate the real issue in order to make it based completely on emotion. This reliance on emotion is dangerous because it separates us as a country while doing a disservice by hiding the actual issue.

Which gets me back to the logo. As a member of the ethnic group which makes up most of the illegal immigration in this part of the country, though an American, it is disheartening to witness the continued separation that is advocated by these so-called immigrant rights groups. What is being discussed is an illegal activity in this country and Governor Martinez, like Mayor Berry first, has bent over backwards in order to maintain equal protection in taking baby steps towards solving a very real problem that must be confronted sooner rather than later. That logo on the Fox News “Latino” page is just another reminder that our country is rapidly dividing into disparate groups rather than uniting as the United States of America.

Our New Mexican ancestors left a rich history of adapting to the culture of colonial times, combining their own experiences of the past and learning from those they came into contact with. Our ancestors have done this many times and would teach us how to live together if we would only listen. Instead we bicker over nonsense while our real culture, our country and our way of life is steadily destroyed.

Rental Car Review – Nissan Altima Coupe

A few weeks ago I was sent to sunny San Diego for a business trip and as a result rented a car. My intermediate car furnished by the Avis counter was a late model Nissan Altima Coupe with a bit under ten thousand miles on the odometer. It was a 2.5 S model in ocean gray metallic paint. The car was typical of midsized rental cars with an automatic transmission, power everything and cloth seats. The 2.5 S is the lowest end of the model line for the Altima coupe and is front wheel drive, powered by a 2.5 liter DOHC variable valve timed four cylinder engine with 175 horsepower at 5600 rpm and 180 ft-lbs. torque at 3900 rpm which is plenty of power for a car that weighs just over 3100 pounds and is being driven at sea level.

The Altima Coupe is easy to get into even though it is a coupe though the rear seats look small and I didn’t bother to try to get back there after having a difficult time putting bags there. Even though the car is relatively small it rides larger and just feels like a big car from the front seat. It is equipped with 17 inch wheels but that doesn’t make much of a difference in the ride character of the coupe which drives similar to a typical family oriented sedan when a sporty ride is expected. The mirrors are acceptable and they need to be as rearward visibility is nearly non-existent without the ability to turn one’s head all the way around.

Engine drone from the four cylinder is noticeable when accelerating to freeway speed but is not too much of a bother when cruise control is on at about 70 mph. The Altima Coupe accelerates well in traffic with its peppy feeling CVT automatic transmission; I didn’t bother with the manumatic feature that allows for simulated manual shifting via a secondary gate below D which forces the transmission to hold a gear ratio.

Entertainment is provided by a six speaker stereo with 24 station settings and an in dash CD player plus an in-dash MP3 player auxiliary input. The stereo face is orange on black and easy to see with glare. It is easy to operate with auxiliary controls for preset selection and volume on the steering wheel. Dynamics are limited to treble and bass and audio quality is acceptable though no one will praise the quality of the sound.

As a Nissan owner it is easy to compare other models to my own and this car is similar in layout to the front cockpit of my Infinity G37 with a lower quality of materials. Striking about the Altima Coupe in comparison is that it seems larger inside and rides like a larger car than the G37. Because it is a coupe and looks sporty, it’s easy to be taken aback by how similar it is to any other 4 door sedan in presentation from the driver’s seat.

Overall, the Altima Coupe is a full featured, nice, decent, sporty looking car with good gas mileage (EPA 23/32) and an affordable price (starts at $23,460) that serves as a good alternative for a typical sedan buyer who doesn’t need the extra room, prizes a nice looking two door and doesn’t like adult passengers much.

An Unsolicited Observation...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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?

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?