And the Lakers have a new coach, former Cavaliers coach Mike Brown. What to think? When rumors of Brown’s imminent hiring first began to be passed over ESPN radio during Mike and Mike in the morning and on sports website blurbs I at first hoped that it wasn’t true. Certainly, Brown’s 66.3% winning percentage during five years as coach of the Cavs is a positive but that team’s well known failures in the playoffs had to be considered as well. The difficulty in assessing Brown’s coaching performance comes from the fact that LeBron James was on all five of those Cavs teams and he was let go the same off-season that James left for the Miami Heat. This past season, the Cavs finished with the second worst regular season record in the NBA and there’s no way to determine how much of the difference from last season (42 less wins!) was due to either James’ or Brown’s departure from the team. It can be argued that coaches receive too much credit for good teams and too much blame for poor teams but it’s unreasonable to assume that a coach is simply a bystander and some part of those 42 wins has to be attributed to Mike Brown. Those last several sentences were an illustration of me talking myself into the hire. And as a day has passed I upgraded myself from doubtful to cautiously optimistic. Truth is, I can’t think of anyone who would be appreciably better as Laker’s coach. It’s an unknown. Like many casual observers I would have liked to see Brian Shaw, Laker’s assistant coach, be given a chance but it isn’t my choice and there really isn’t a sure thing and perhaps Brown will be very successful. As a Laker’s fan, I wish him luck and hope he succeeds.
Being contrarian, I often find myself wondering “what’s the big deal” in regard to a lot of things and yesterday I found myself rolling my eyes at both Mike’s “think of the children” concocted consternation over NASCAR driver Kyle Busch driving 128 mph in a 45 mph zone on the Mike and Mike show on ESPN radio. I’m not in favor of Busch’s action but I’m not in the position to pass judgment either. Busch will have a rather large speeding ticket and possibly face other consequences based on wherever he got the ticket. That wherever is what makes me incredulous about the whole thing and unwilling to define Busch as some kind of hate object. I’m fairly certain he wasn’t driving that fast through a school zone or anything like that, as it would have been stated. Details are lacking in the story and unreleased are details in regard to when and where this incident occurred. Mike and Mike went on to label Busch’s driving as unsafe, which I think depends on a lot of unknown (to the public) details and I won’t just call speeding unsafe just because, even when the limit is surpassed by 83 mph. The car he was driving was capable of that speed and he didn’t wreck or hurt anyone else meaning that the road apparently was fit for that speed. Finally, Mike and Mike devolved into the silly, pondering if NASCAR requires driver’s licenses (it doesn’t) and whether or not drivers would have to carry them while racing (they don’t) and if Busch should have his license suspended (that’s up to the jurisdiction he got caught in) and if he did lose his license, if that should influence his career (it shouldn’t). The takeaway, speeding isn’t always unsafe and conclusions are difficult absent details.
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Can a Boring Person be President?
I wonder sometimes with the way politics is covered if one day the election of a US President will be done through an American Idol type reality show. While “exploring” a run as a Republican, free-trade opponent and publicity addict Donald Trump was leading in a poll of possible Republican voters. Trump even received qualified support from Rush Limbaugh because Rush was in favor of the Trump’s methods of “taking it to President Obama”. One lesson that should be learned from Trump’s “exploration” is that we, as a country and as members of the GOP, deserve better. And what I wonder is, can a boring person be elected President and I wish the answer to be yes.
The current boring candidate is Tim Pawlenty with Mitch Daniels a potential boring candidate. Plausible candidate Sarah Palin would be considered a boring candidate if she wasn’t a she, who has been turned into an unfortunate caricature by bad actors. There are arguments for other candidates being boring, but to me the frontrunners are Pawlenty and Daniels. Neither is completely ideal but that’s because no one knows how they would actually perform as President, and that experience is the only way to truly judge a President, by their actions in that office. Both have extensive gubernatorial experience with good conservative records and are impressive in their respective abilities to complete sentences without being sensational.
But, can a President be boring? I blame Bill Clinton for conditioning the conventional wisdom that the President must have some interesting “storyline” in order to be elected. The man from Hope, whatever that meant. Obama continued with dreams from his father, whatever those were. George W. Bush was able to use his victory over drinking and Christian conversion as interesting themes. American Idol can be entertaining but a Presidential election shouldn’t devolve into something akin to a High School class election. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about who has the best ideas and the demeanor best suited for representing the United States of America. We don’t have that right now and I think the best path is boring.
The current boring candidate is Tim Pawlenty with Mitch Daniels a potential boring candidate. Plausible candidate Sarah Palin would be considered a boring candidate if she wasn’t a she, who has been turned into an unfortunate caricature by bad actors. There are arguments for other candidates being boring, but to me the frontrunners are Pawlenty and Daniels. Neither is completely ideal but that’s because no one knows how they would actually perform as President, and that experience is the only way to truly judge a President, by their actions in that office. Both have extensive gubernatorial experience with good conservative records and are impressive in their respective abilities to complete sentences without being sensational.
But, can a President be boring? I blame Bill Clinton for conditioning the conventional wisdom that the President must have some interesting “storyline” in order to be elected. The man from Hope, whatever that meant. Obama continued with dreams from his father, whatever those were. George W. Bush was able to use his victory over drinking and Christian conversion as interesting themes. American Idol can be entertaining but a Presidential election shouldn’t devolve into something akin to a High School class election. It’s not a popularity contest. It’s about who has the best ideas and the demeanor best suited for representing the United States of America. We don’t have that right now and I think the best path is boring.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
The Responsible Bicycle Commuter
Last week there was a local news report concerning supposedly inadequate bike lanes on Rio Grande Boulevard. The lanes were identified as inadequate based on a federal standard for width from sidewalk to road and identified as a danger when combined with reckless speeding drivers. The lane was measured in one place on Rio Grande and pushed as an example of other, unspecified, problem areas about the city of Albuquerque.
Perhaps because of the time constraints inherent in a half-hour local news program, there was much left out of the report. Implicit in the comparison to the federal standard was the idea that Rio Grande is out of compliance in some illicit way but never mentioned was whether or not the standard was binding or just some kind of guideline. Also missing was information regarding whether or not Rio Grande Blvd is required to adhere to the standard, when that portion of bike lane was constructed and if that construction date predates the standard.
Most troublesome in this story was the complete ignorance of the bicycle rider as having any responsibility whatsoever. As a bicycle commuter myself I find myself disappointed because almost every news story in regard to the subject ignores the culpability of the rider. It could be argued that in this case, this story, it was not at all about the rider, just a too-small lane on a traffic heavy road. There’s a point there, just not a very strong one.
As a bicycle commuter, one must always be aware of their surroundings and consider every motorist as a menace to their very existence. If they feel that the lane on Rio Grande is too small and that traffic conditions make riding on it unsafe they should pick another road. The Bosque trail for example is less than half a mile west of Rio Grande and runs parallel to it. Looking at Google maps, there are multiple residential surface streets that run nearly parallel to Rio Grande, a careful rider could easily plan a route that takes them through quiet, low traffic neighborhoods.
Not all drivers are careless but an experienced commuter must assume that every car is a second away from careening towards them uncontrolled. Many motorists do not use turn signals and with experience bicycle commuters can make informed judgments in regard to directional intent but those judgments can be wrong, motorists can change direction suddenly and very often don’t look for bicycles (the oft-quoted line that bicycles are hard to see is tripe) so the rider must always assume the worst. It’s the only way to always be sure.
Maybe the news story was meant as an appeal to officials to improve conditions for the cyclist, which is always welcome but not always practical. That intent, as beneficial as purported to be, doesn’t really help anyone. Truth is there are some roads in Albuquerque that are impractical for bicycle commuting regardless of the size of their bike lanes. Take for example Academy Road, between Wyoming and San Mateo Boulevards. Large bike lanes were recently added to Academy to welcome commuters but it’s still dangerous because the posted speed limit is 45 MPH and many drivers exceed it. Cyclists are much better off traveling down Burlison, Harper or even Osuna Road instead where the traffic is lighter and slower.
It’s not desired to find myself at odds with the bicycle commuting community; I find it necessary to bring this different perspective because it isn’t a black and white issue. Bicyclists can be irritating and careless on the roads as well. Pretending that bicycle commuters are pure as the wind driven snow ignores reality and emboldens irresponsibility, not to mention that it can’t help motorist-cyclist relations. If it’s practical to widen the bike lane on Rio Grande, perhaps it should be done but it should take more than a sanctimonious reporter with a tape measure lecturing us to make it so.
Perhaps because of the time constraints inherent in a half-hour local news program, there was much left out of the report. Implicit in the comparison to the federal standard was the idea that Rio Grande is out of compliance in some illicit way but never mentioned was whether or not the standard was binding or just some kind of guideline. Also missing was information regarding whether or not Rio Grande Blvd is required to adhere to the standard, when that portion of bike lane was constructed and if that construction date predates the standard.
Most troublesome in this story was the complete ignorance of the bicycle rider as having any responsibility whatsoever. As a bicycle commuter myself I find myself disappointed because almost every news story in regard to the subject ignores the culpability of the rider. It could be argued that in this case, this story, it was not at all about the rider, just a too-small lane on a traffic heavy road. There’s a point there, just not a very strong one.
As a bicycle commuter, one must always be aware of their surroundings and consider every motorist as a menace to their very existence. If they feel that the lane on Rio Grande is too small and that traffic conditions make riding on it unsafe they should pick another road. The Bosque trail for example is less than half a mile west of Rio Grande and runs parallel to it. Looking at Google maps, there are multiple residential surface streets that run nearly parallel to Rio Grande, a careful rider could easily plan a route that takes them through quiet, low traffic neighborhoods.
Not all drivers are careless but an experienced commuter must assume that every car is a second away from careening towards them uncontrolled. Many motorists do not use turn signals and with experience bicycle commuters can make informed judgments in regard to directional intent but those judgments can be wrong, motorists can change direction suddenly and very often don’t look for bicycles (the oft-quoted line that bicycles are hard to see is tripe) so the rider must always assume the worst. It’s the only way to always be sure.
Maybe the news story was meant as an appeal to officials to improve conditions for the cyclist, which is always welcome but not always practical. That intent, as beneficial as purported to be, doesn’t really help anyone. Truth is there are some roads in Albuquerque that are impractical for bicycle commuting regardless of the size of their bike lanes. Take for example Academy Road, between Wyoming and San Mateo Boulevards. Large bike lanes were recently added to Academy to welcome commuters but it’s still dangerous because the posted speed limit is 45 MPH and many drivers exceed it. Cyclists are much better off traveling down Burlison, Harper or even Osuna Road instead where the traffic is lighter and slower.
It’s not desired to find myself at odds with the bicycle commuting community; I find it necessary to bring this different perspective because it isn’t a black and white issue. Bicyclists can be irritating and careless on the roads as well. Pretending that bicycle commuters are pure as the wind driven snow ignores reality and emboldens irresponsibility, not to mention that it can’t help motorist-cyclist relations. If it’s practical to widen the bike lane on Rio Grande, perhaps it should be done but it should take more than a sanctimonious reporter with a tape measure lecturing us to make it so.
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Random Thoughts - 5/17
And Trump is out, but was he even in? Following reports based on statements from NBC executives that were telling anyone who would listen that if Donald Trump ran for president, his television show The Apprentice would continue with a different blowhard at the helm the Donald dropped his exploration of a discussion of a presidential campaign. Fortuitous news, as the only usefulness of a Trump campaign would be for democrats. Good riddance, even though he was never even actually a candidate.
And Newt Gingrich, with his ever expanding explanations about his agreements and disagreements with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget apparently in an attempt to who knows what, has seemingly taken himself out of contention. Newt is often billed as an intellectual and as with others labeled similarly, drowned himself in words attempting to sound intelligent while finding a way to alienate everyone who might actually vote for him.
NFL owners were granted a permanent stay in regard to the supposedly un-appealable judgment against the lock-out. If you find yourself disappointed, that’s understandable as it means that there is still no football. If you find yourself surprised, you should learn more about the law. It ain’t pleasant but the NFL lockout is about a dispute between an employer and a union representing its employees. A clever union PR campaign influencing a federal judge can’t just make up rules.
So, what to think about the latest pay-to-play allegations regarding former governor Bill Richardson? It’s early and time will tell if they stick. No one can be surprised as life-long politicians such as Richardson often act in ways that demonstrate a casual disregard for the law. It also demonstrates that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King is simply a democrat hack who will ignore serious allegations so long as the accused is of similar persuasion. This being New Mexico, King could probably still win re-election tomorrow. Sigh.
And Newt Gingrich, with his ever expanding explanations about his agreements and disagreements with House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan’s budget apparently in an attempt to who knows what, has seemingly taken himself out of contention. Newt is often billed as an intellectual and as with others labeled similarly, drowned himself in words attempting to sound intelligent while finding a way to alienate everyone who might actually vote for him.
NFL owners were granted a permanent stay in regard to the supposedly un-appealable judgment against the lock-out. If you find yourself disappointed, that’s understandable as it means that there is still no football. If you find yourself surprised, you should learn more about the law. It ain’t pleasant but the NFL lockout is about a dispute between an employer and a union representing its employees. A clever union PR campaign influencing a federal judge can’t just make up rules.
So, what to think about the latest pay-to-play allegations regarding former governor Bill Richardson? It’s early and time will tell if they stick. No one can be surprised as life-long politicians such as Richardson often act in ways that demonstrate a casual disregard for the law. It also demonstrates that New Mexico Attorney General Gary King is simply a democrat hack who will ignore serious allegations so long as the accused is of similar persuasion. This being New Mexico, King could probably still win re-election tomorrow. Sigh.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Rush v. Mitch Daniels
With President Obama taking breaks from golf to campaign for re-election, it’s about time that Republicans get moving along in figuring out who could be president following the 2012 elections. There was already a debate between several candidates recently including our former governor, Gary Johnson. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul have announced candidacies this week and Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels is scheduled to announce one way or another by the end of the month.
In anticipation of a possible Daniels run, Rush Limbaugh has apparently taken it on himself to dissuade his listeners (to include your humble writer) from supporting him. This opposition hinges on two basic themes. The first is Daniels’ current trepidation on matters regarding foreign policy and social issues. The second is that there are reports that the Obama campaign team fears a Daniels run and a Washington Post writer’s favorable opinion of a Daniels run as it would presumptively improve candidate Obama, improving a re-elected President Obama.
Rush’s belief is that the hyping of Daniels by liberal scribes and the Obama 2012 crew is really a message that they believe a candidate Daniels will de-facto result in a re-elected President Obama. But by similar logic it could just as well be assumed that the dems are hyping Daniels to psyche-out and discourage potential supporters. Or maybe even, they’re telling the truth. Just kidding. But seriously, who cares? By this train of thought, Mitt Romney is unbeatable because Obama compliments his healthcare plan from when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that Mitch Daniels has an exemplary record as governor of Indiana. After a ridiculous 2008 winning presidential campaign based on the inscrutable message of hope and change its long past time that a candidate emerge with the message of experience and concrete planning. I don’t know if Daniels is the best candidate but I do think that his inclusion in the field is a plus. Why limit the field based on mind games that are as likely imaginary as they are real? He has his reasons but I can’t understand why Rush has such a big problem with Daniels, especially when Limbaugh provides a platform for Donald Trump, a make-believe candidate who is the embodiment of the boogeyman Republican as illustrated by the president and the real best chance for his re-election.
In anticipation of a possible Daniels run, Rush Limbaugh has apparently taken it on himself to dissuade his listeners (to include your humble writer) from supporting him. This opposition hinges on two basic themes. The first is Daniels’ current trepidation on matters regarding foreign policy and social issues. The second is that there are reports that the Obama campaign team fears a Daniels run and a Washington Post writer’s favorable opinion of a Daniels run as it would presumptively improve candidate Obama, improving a re-elected President Obama.
Rush’s belief is that the hyping of Daniels by liberal scribes and the Obama 2012 crew is really a message that they believe a candidate Daniels will de-facto result in a re-elected President Obama. But by similar logic it could just as well be assumed that the dems are hyping Daniels to psyche-out and discourage potential supporters. Or maybe even, they’re telling the truth. Just kidding. But seriously, who cares? By this train of thought, Mitt Romney is unbeatable because Obama compliments his healthcare plan from when he was governor of Massachusetts.
The bottom line is that Mitch Daniels has an exemplary record as governor of Indiana. After a ridiculous 2008 winning presidential campaign based on the inscrutable message of hope and change its long past time that a candidate emerge with the message of experience and concrete planning. I don’t know if Daniels is the best candidate but I do think that his inclusion in the field is a plus. Why limit the field based on mind games that are as likely imaginary as they are real? He has his reasons but I can’t understand why Rush has such a big problem with Daniels, especially when Limbaugh provides a platform for Donald Trump, a make-believe candidate who is the embodiment of the boogeyman Republican as illustrated by the president and the real best chance for his re-election.
The Novelty of Wonder
This morning on 770 KKOB the discussion centered on New Mexico’s spaceport, located in the southern part of our state. My unwavering opinion is and will remain that it is a wasteful endeavor that very likely will never even lead to anything tangible. And even if commercial spaceflight is ever a reality from the spaceport it will have been wasteful for so many years into the future to the taxpayer and so costly that too few will even be able to experience it.
One of the last callers on the topic brought up the wonder of it all and his grandson’s desire to one day travel to space which, with the retirement of the space shuttle and Obama’s direction for NASA, seems less likely for tomorrow’s aspiring astronauts. That wonder and aspirations that come from it is a powerful thing and in that sense the spaceport can be a positive, providing that wonder that is unattended by NASA’s departure.
When I was young I wanted very much to attend space camp and one of my first career aspirations was to be an astronomer. Interest in space and the work that NASA once did was definitely something that inspired me and my eventual choice of engineering as a career. As the years have gone by my interest in space waned and my view of NASA dimmed. As the father of a young child I want him to have that same sense of inspiration. With NASA diminished though, the spaceport becomes a possibility.
But is it worth the costs to our taxpayers? Governor Martinez’s attempts to find more private partners for the effort is the right path and the best chance for the spaceport’s, and New Mexico’s future.
One of the last callers on the topic brought up the wonder of it all and his grandson’s desire to one day travel to space which, with the retirement of the space shuttle and Obama’s direction for NASA, seems less likely for tomorrow’s aspiring astronauts. That wonder and aspirations that come from it is a powerful thing and in that sense the spaceport can be a positive, providing that wonder that is unattended by NASA’s departure.
When I was young I wanted very much to attend space camp and one of my first career aspirations was to be an astronomer. Interest in space and the work that NASA once did was definitely something that inspired me and my eventual choice of engineering as a career. As the years have gone by my interest in space waned and my view of NASA dimmed. As the father of a young child I want him to have that same sense of inspiration. With NASA diminished though, the spaceport becomes a possibility.
But is it worth the costs to our taxpayers? Governor Martinez’s attempts to find more private partners for the effort is the right path and the best chance for the spaceport’s, and New Mexico’s future.
Monday, May 09, 2011
And the Lakers' Season Ends
The Lakers did not deserve to win any more games in this latest NBA season and the Dallas Mavericks were the better team and deserve to be in the NBA western conference finals. I wonder somewhat if Phil Jackson will rethink his planned retirement from coaching with such an ugly exit from a playoff series. For all the reasons being mentioned, the bottom line is that they were simply not good enough this time. The Lakers did not play well, they did not defend well and certain players clearly buckled under pressure and acted in ways that are completely inappropriate.
Ron Artest, there wasn’t much surprise there. As for Andrew Bynum, he is clearly immature and his strange interview in which he spoke of team trust issues as though he was on Oprah’s couch could have been foreboding of the ridiculous foul that he committed yesterday. As for all those that want to label Bynum as some sort of criminal for his action, the player he fouled was unharmed. Pushing what-ifs calling the foul possibly career-ending is hysterical know-nothing conjecture and irresponsible. Bynum has harmed his reputation in an unmistakable way that may negatively affect his future. There is no doubt that he has hurt the Lakers as his trade value will be severely diminished throughout the off-season. What he did was uncalled for, it was a cheap shot, and he will face consequences, playing make-believe and making fantastic claims is not needed.
It’s always tough to see one’s favorite team lose in the playoffs, but at least they were there and the Lakers have been so successful over my lifetime that it would be greedy to expect even more. Kobe Bryant, he of so-called old knees and becoming an elder statesman in the NBA may see his window for championships closing; it’s difficult to empathize with that. I can think of having poor job security but there is always another job, so long as you’re willing to work. But there is no championship in the real world so the only way I can compare with Kobe is the fact that I’m four months younger and my knees need ice after playing basketball too.
As for the Lakers as a team, this loss may lead to many changes. Phil Jackson is planning to retire. I think he may re-think it, but maybe not. Behavior and tensions in the series illustrate rather acutely that there likely will be roster changes. On to next year.
Ron Artest, there wasn’t much surprise there. As for Andrew Bynum, he is clearly immature and his strange interview in which he spoke of team trust issues as though he was on Oprah’s couch could have been foreboding of the ridiculous foul that he committed yesterday. As for all those that want to label Bynum as some sort of criminal for his action, the player he fouled was unharmed. Pushing what-ifs calling the foul possibly career-ending is hysterical know-nothing conjecture and irresponsible. Bynum has harmed his reputation in an unmistakable way that may negatively affect his future. There is no doubt that he has hurt the Lakers as his trade value will be severely diminished throughout the off-season. What he did was uncalled for, it was a cheap shot, and he will face consequences, playing make-believe and making fantastic claims is not needed.
It’s always tough to see one’s favorite team lose in the playoffs, but at least they were there and the Lakers have been so successful over my lifetime that it would be greedy to expect even more. Kobe Bryant, he of so-called old knees and becoming an elder statesman in the NBA may see his window for championships closing; it’s difficult to empathize with that. I can think of having poor job security but there is always another job, so long as you’re willing to work. But there is no championship in the real world so the only way I can compare with Kobe is the fact that I’m four months younger and my knees need ice after playing basketball too.
As for the Lakers as a team, this loss may lead to many changes. Phil Jackson is planning to retire. I think he may re-think it, but maybe not. Behavior and tensions in the series illustrate rather acutely that there likely will be roster changes. On to next year.
Wednesday, May 04, 2011
Justice Done
Justice done is my opinion of the killing of Osama Bin Laden. No, I don’t celebrate his killing but I also will not wish any better on a monster that got less than he deserved in his end. I don’t begrudge those who do celebrate Bin Laden’s taking on sea-temperature and roll my eyes at those who climb up on soapboxes to proclaim that they are above it all because they refuse to celebrate Bin Laden’s death. I don’t care if they don’t, it’s a perfectly valid reaction but best held in private, the need to announce such thoughts belies a certain conceit.
I think that it is a mistake for the administration to not release photos and it was silly how long it took for them to make a decision. Speculation regarding backlash are impossible to predict one way or another and is a weak excuse. I am puzzled by the administration’s ever-changing story in regard to what happened. I don’t believe that Bin Laden pursued a firefight. He was an elderly man who had been on dialysis for many years, and anyone who is on it is typically very weak. The changing story is a political liability as it seems as though the administration is hiding something, even though it probably isn’t.
Like the President in his announcement I am using the word ‘I’ a lot in this post and the reason is that these are my opinions and mine alone. This subject like many others will illicit any number of reactions and opinions because depending on individual sensibilities it can be viewed in different ways. I think my opinion is more reasonable than NFL running back Rashard Mendenhall’s but the fact that Mendenhall seems to think that Bin Laden didn’t deserve what he got proves my point, however distastefully.
A particularly sophomoric posture is to claim a wide ranging and specific belief to be collectively “ours”, as in held by everyone in this country. I find the President has a grating tic in his incessant use of the term “our values” when referring to a personal belief. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, national defense and freedom of expression are examples of collective beliefs that are easy to espouse because they are simple. Statements about hyper-specific notions of justice and individual welfare programs as being “our” values are absurd.
I think that it is a mistake for the administration to not release photos and it was silly how long it took for them to make a decision. Speculation regarding backlash are impossible to predict one way or another and is a weak excuse. I am puzzled by the administration’s ever-changing story in regard to what happened. I don’t believe that Bin Laden pursued a firefight. He was an elderly man who had been on dialysis for many years, and anyone who is on it is typically very weak. The changing story is a political liability as it seems as though the administration is hiding something, even though it probably isn’t.
Like the President in his announcement I am using the word ‘I’ a lot in this post and the reason is that these are my opinions and mine alone. This subject like many others will illicit any number of reactions and opinions because depending on individual sensibilities it can be viewed in different ways. I think my opinion is more reasonable than NFL running back Rashard Mendenhall’s but the fact that Mendenhall seems to think that Bin Laden didn’t deserve what he got proves my point, however distastefully.
A particularly sophomoric posture is to claim a wide ranging and specific belief to be collectively “ours”, as in held by everyone in this country. I find the President has a grating tic in his incessant use of the term “our values” when referring to a personal belief. Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and justice for all, national defense and freedom of expression are examples of collective beliefs that are easy to espouse because they are simple. Statements about hyper-specific notions of justice and individual welfare programs as being “our” values are absurd.
Monday, May 02, 2011
The dem’s Trump card
Donald Trump is a democrat plant. Well, probably not, most likely he’s just an egomaniacal narcissist (unfortunately not harmless) but what he is not is a serious candidate for the Republican nomination for president in 2012. And it seems plausible from his behavior that he is more democrat plant than “conservative”. What am I talking about? Think about it, could there be a better opponent, from the standpoint of President Obama, than Donald Trump?
Democrat campaign contributions can be explained. Trump does business in big cities, many of which are ruled by democrats in perpetuity, so contributing to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago was just ensuring his continued ability to operate in that city without much trouble. Changes in belief, especially on social issues, can be explained. It happens sometimes, one’s views on certain things seem to change for some people and if Trump’s moving in the right direction, all the better.
What can’t be explained is idiotic foreign policy related stances. Other than making gestures in an attempt to assure anyone who will listen that he’s a conservative, Trump’s candidacy rests on two planks, creating a tariff on imported Chinese goods (which will lead to a trade war) and commandeering the resources of Iraq for liberating the country from Saddam Hussein. Trump doesn’t care how much household goods cost and doesn’t understand that a tariff will cause prices to skyrocket, negating any new jobs created by killing demand for products bought with disposable income because higher costs for inelastic products (the kinds of things that are cheap thanks to importation) means that there is nothing left for iPads, eating out and doing things other than sit around. And if Trump thinks that any president could simply commandeer the resources of any other country as some kind of conqueror, well he doesn’t understand why we were there in the first place.
A couple nights ago, Trump found himself in the front row of the press correspondent’s dinner in DC taking jabs from the President and a comedian who is the head writer at Saturday Night Live, which is on the same network as Trump’s reality show. Trump complained afterward but it didn’t mean anything. I can understand that he’s so self-indulgent as to think he is universally adored but could he really think that the President and a well-known flack would let him escape their barbs in a comedy show after Trump’s outrageous statements as of late?
Trump’s ideas are not conservative. If anything his protectionist leanings are more in line with what many democrats profess. If he were to be the Republican nominee he would lose in a landslide because he is a clown. His behavior alone and his ability to create easy strawmen for the President, going so far as to even make himself present for a two-minute hate session at the correspondent’s dinner indicate that Trump only helps the President’s chances for reelection making it imperative that he be ignored because it’s the only way that he’ll go away.
Democrat campaign contributions can be explained. Trump does business in big cities, many of which are ruled by democrats in perpetuity, so contributing to Rahm Emanuel in Chicago was just ensuring his continued ability to operate in that city without much trouble. Changes in belief, especially on social issues, can be explained. It happens sometimes, one’s views on certain things seem to change for some people and if Trump’s moving in the right direction, all the better.
What can’t be explained is idiotic foreign policy related stances. Other than making gestures in an attempt to assure anyone who will listen that he’s a conservative, Trump’s candidacy rests on two planks, creating a tariff on imported Chinese goods (which will lead to a trade war) and commandeering the resources of Iraq for liberating the country from Saddam Hussein. Trump doesn’t care how much household goods cost and doesn’t understand that a tariff will cause prices to skyrocket, negating any new jobs created by killing demand for products bought with disposable income because higher costs for inelastic products (the kinds of things that are cheap thanks to importation) means that there is nothing left for iPads, eating out and doing things other than sit around. And if Trump thinks that any president could simply commandeer the resources of any other country as some kind of conqueror, well he doesn’t understand why we were there in the first place.
A couple nights ago, Trump found himself in the front row of the press correspondent’s dinner in DC taking jabs from the President and a comedian who is the head writer at Saturday Night Live, which is on the same network as Trump’s reality show. Trump complained afterward but it didn’t mean anything. I can understand that he’s so self-indulgent as to think he is universally adored but could he really think that the President and a well-known flack would let him escape their barbs in a comedy show after Trump’s outrageous statements as of late?
Trump’s ideas are not conservative. If anything his protectionist leanings are more in line with what many democrats profess. If he were to be the Republican nominee he would lose in a landslide because he is a clown. His behavior alone and his ability to create easy strawmen for the President, going so far as to even make himself present for a two-minute hate session at the correspondent’s dinner indicate that Trump only helps the President’s chances for reelection making it imperative that he be ignored because it’s the only way that he’ll go away.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Sporting Random Thoughts - 4/26
Is today the end of the NFL lockout? Supposedly a federal judge has ruled in favor of the NFL’s players effectively lifting the lockout and ordering the resumption of business as usual in the NFL. But does it do that? I wasn’t aware that a federal judge has the power to force a private company and its franchise holders to just resume business as usual thanks to a convincing argument by another party. I can’t imagine that the owners in the NFL like being told what their business is by some federal judge and besides the lockout it doesn’t seem likely that a judge can allow persons to enter private property, which is what has happened with many players showing up to various team facilities today. Strangely in the ruling is a section titled “The Public Interest Does Not Favor The 'Lockout'.” So what? The judge is being lauded for keeping the public in mind and however good that sounds it bears understanding that it isn’t the judge’s job to keep in mind the public interest, it is their job to apply the law to the complaint. And failing to do so only makes appeals more likely to succeed. I think that there are ways that the owners can push back and I think that they will if they continue to be provoked by a P.R. campaign masquerading as negotiations that are aided by yet another rogue judge. Day after day, the only argument given by NFLPA (the player’s union, which isn’t even a thing anymore after they de-certified once the lockout started) head DeMaurice Smith consists entirely of insults, making brash statements that the judge has ruled that the NFL’s lockout was illegal (not really) and that all the players want to do is play football and that the owners are petty and that’s just a sampling of comments from today. Why would the owners want to even deal with a publicity hungry trash talker like that? I don’t think anything’s over and fear that publishing such a lopsided ruling instead of allowing mediation work will only further endanger the NFL season. That judge earns an F for what will likely prove to be a time-costly distraction.
Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel is under fire after being caught, doing what exactly? Examination of the sports punditocracy one could easily think that what Tressel did was truly abhorrent. But was it? That depends on one’s understanding of right and wrong when it comes to college athletics. Tressel was made aware that some of his players had traded Ohio State memorabilia for material goods (which is an NCAA violation) and then he failed to disclose that information until just about the last minute. And from the perspective of the NCAA, the ruling body underlining the rules and structure of college football, Tressel broke a rule and will be punished for that. It is my opinion that whatever Tressel did, it just doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. He wasn’t right doing that but he didn’t hurt anyone. And many of the sportswriters currently attacking Tressel are first in line to question the arcane, albeit ridiculous to the layman rules of the NCAA, including the one that led to this issue. It serves no purpose to pretend that Tressel is some kind of criminal, worse than most even when the case hasn’t even been fully investigated. Tressel may lose his job and his likelihood as a result of poor decisions, conviction before the details are fully known is just cheering for a person’s life to be ruined as if for sport.
Ohio State football coach Jim Tressel is under fire after being caught, doing what exactly? Examination of the sports punditocracy one could easily think that what Tressel did was truly abhorrent. But was it? That depends on one’s understanding of right and wrong when it comes to college athletics. Tressel was made aware that some of his players had traded Ohio State memorabilia for material goods (which is an NCAA violation) and then he failed to disclose that information until just about the last minute. And from the perspective of the NCAA, the ruling body underlining the rules and structure of college football, Tressel broke a rule and will be punished for that. It is my opinion that whatever Tressel did, it just doesn’t seem to be that big a deal. He wasn’t right doing that but he didn’t hurt anyone. And many of the sportswriters currently attacking Tressel are first in line to question the arcane, albeit ridiculous to the layman rules of the NCAA, including the one that led to this issue. It serves no purpose to pretend that Tressel is some kind of criminal, worse than most even when the case hasn’t even been fully investigated. Tressel may lose his job and his likelihood as a result of poor decisions, conviction before the details are fully known is just cheering for a person’s life to be ruined as if for sport.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Vegas Random Thoughts
I was in Las Vegas last week for work and made some observations. I’ve finally washed myself enough (honestly I thought about lighting myself on fire) times to get over the experience enough to report on it.
Much of the entrances to casinos on the Las Vegas strip are large, heavy glass doors and very few are power enabled. Many of these heavy glass doors are push in both directions, resulting in millions of visible fingerprints akin to horrible disgusting snowflakes littering these doors by the billion where people push on the glass to avoid the bacteria ridden handles . Every smudge made by everything touched by each passer-by throughout the day is preserved for the entirety between cleanings like some horrible anthropology experiment. Every single glass door in Vegas looks this way. It’s dreadful.
If you want to discourage yourself from eating, walk around and observe. Seriously. This observation is mean, but it’s true. Some evenings I felt like a snack and I walked around to find something suitable. I knew I shouldn’t and what I found to be effective in dissuading me was to see who else was partaking in what I was considering and look at their relative shape. Which was almost always large. I wasn’t really hungry and was more or less just looking to waste time. Walking around a busy eatery at night you’ll see customers waddling about throughout a quarter-mile radius devouring oversized goodies and smudging glass doors. “Don’t be that guy” is what I told myself and it worked. That’s not cool and I can’t be described as thin, but sometimes the truth hurts.
There is an oxygen bar on the second floor of the New York New York Casino that is right at the door that leads to the path over the street and to Excalibur Casino. This oxygen bar is immediately next to a very pungent Nathan’s hot dog stand. I don’t get it. I have seen this oxygen bar there every time I have visited Vegas over the last three years and it’s always there and it always smells heavily of hot dogs. Not exactly a pleasant companion scent to oxygen inhalation. Who goes there? I’ve never seen anyone.
Almost no one in Las Vegas understands the mechanics of a moving walkway. They do, however, understand that it’s best to occupy as much space as possible on a moving walkway in order to halt the progress of anyone trying to, ahem, walk. It’s just easier to avoid them.
I don’t understand the strange economics of fancy stores in Vegas. There are many fancy malls in Las Vegas the most fancy I think being Crystal’s in the City Center area. All these fancy stores and no one in them at any point that I walked past them. Thousands of tourists in cargo shorts, T-shirts and smudged fingers from giant ice cream cones and other smudges obtained from various doors, and none of them have the inclination to shop at these fancy stores. How do they make money? How do they pay their rent? Is there rent for them? I don’t get it. Can they sell one item once a month and make enough?
Much of the entrances to casinos on the Las Vegas strip are large, heavy glass doors and very few are power enabled. Many of these heavy glass doors are push in both directions, resulting in millions of visible fingerprints akin to horrible disgusting snowflakes littering these doors by the billion where people push on the glass to avoid the bacteria ridden handles . Every smudge made by everything touched by each passer-by throughout the day is preserved for the entirety between cleanings like some horrible anthropology experiment. Every single glass door in Vegas looks this way. It’s dreadful.
If you want to discourage yourself from eating, walk around and observe. Seriously. This observation is mean, but it’s true. Some evenings I felt like a snack and I walked around to find something suitable. I knew I shouldn’t and what I found to be effective in dissuading me was to see who else was partaking in what I was considering and look at their relative shape. Which was almost always large. I wasn’t really hungry and was more or less just looking to waste time. Walking around a busy eatery at night you’ll see customers waddling about throughout a quarter-mile radius devouring oversized goodies and smudging glass doors. “Don’t be that guy” is what I told myself and it worked. That’s not cool and I can’t be described as thin, but sometimes the truth hurts.
There is an oxygen bar on the second floor of the New York New York Casino that is right at the door that leads to the path over the street and to Excalibur Casino. This oxygen bar is immediately next to a very pungent Nathan’s hot dog stand. I don’t get it. I have seen this oxygen bar there every time I have visited Vegas over the last three years and it’s always there and it always smells heavily of hot dogs. Not exactly a pleasant companion scent to oxygen inhalation. Who goes there? I’ve never seen anyone.
Almost no one in Las Vegas understands the mechanics of a moving walkway. They do, however, understand that it’s best to occupy as much space as possible on a moving walkway in order to halt the progress of anyone trying to, ahem, walk. It’s just easier to avoid them.
I don’t understand the strange economics of fancy stores in Vegas. There are many fancy malls in Las Vegas the most fancy I think being Crystal’s in the City Center area. All these fancy stores and no one in them at any point that I walked past them. Thousands of tourists in cargo shorts, T-shirts and smudged fingers from giant ice cream cones and other smudges obtained from various doors, and none of them have the inclination to shop at these fancy stores. How do they make money? How do they pay their rent? Is there rent for them? I don’t get it. Can they sell one item once a month and make enough?
Friday, April 22, 2011
Kumbaya on the PTC?
I regret nothing. Even though it took a wedge between TimDido and I to get a post out of dyvaeh, I was ecstatic to read that post as the PTC community is home to very good writers and anything written by D is very much worth the time. Also, kudos goes to Mrs. D for reading and for alerting D to what I consider a mostly harmless spat. Mostly harmless because in the end it isn’t all that substantial as TimDido and I agree on most every political issue. I’ve never thought of any disagreement and subsequent discussion to be harmful even with those who’s incoherent and unintelligible belligerence make one contemplate vigorously shaking them. TimDido is certainly not one of those people.
The danger in ever really believing in something is falling into the trap of sounding like a smug a-hole when discussing it, even amongst true believers. Another inevitable trap is misinterpretation leading to mischaracterization, telling another person what they believe based on that misinterpretation. Of course, I may be over-thinking that. It may be that I can be incomprehensible at times. I did get all C’s in English after all.
Whatever the reason, healthy debate can be good. I’m against the legalization of pot and I cannot think of a plausible change that could convince me otherwise. I still believe that pot-heads are the most honest proponents of legalization and I do not believe that all proponents of it are pot-heads. I do respect the straight-libertarian argument of personal freedom but find it unconvincing.
I agree wholeheartedly with D that government regulations and wealth distribution are the source of all earthly problems. Half of adults in this country pay nothing in taxes, most of them receive direct “benefits” from the taxes paid by others. They have no idea that those “benefits” have a real actual cost and that their friends and neighbors are the ones who pay it. They have become the controlling voting bloc in this country. Never mind that there isn’t enough already and that fact just provides a reason for further “investment” by fairy-tale pedaling incompetents like you know who. But I digress. I love you guys.
The danger in ever really believing in something is falling into the trap of sounding like a smug a-hole when discussing it, even amongst true believers. Another inevitable trap is misinterpretation leading to mischaracterization, telling another person what they believe based on that misinterpretation. Of course, I may be over-thinking that. It may be that I can be incomprehensible at times. I did get all C’s in English after all.
Whatever the reason, healthy debate can be good. I’m against the legalization of pot and I cannot think of a plausible change that could convince me otherwise. I still believe that pot-heads are the most honest proponents of legalization and I do not believe that all proponents of it are pot-heads. I do respect the straight-libertarian argument of personal freedom but find it unconvincing.
I agree wholeheartedly with D that government regulations and wealth distribution are the source of all earthly problems. Half of adults in this country pay nothing in taxes, most of them receive direct “benefits” from the taxes paid by others. They have no idea that those “benefits” have a real actual cost and that their friends and neighbors are the ones who pay it. They have become the controlling voting bloc in this country. Never mind that there isn’t enough already and that fact just provides a reason for further “investment” by fairy-tale pedaling incompetents like you know who. But I digress. I love you guys.
Saturday, April 16, 2011
A taxing tale...
Imagine that you have a package to ship somewhere. Basically there are three choices, UPS, FedEx or USPS, two private companies and the other a federal government entity. Money to send the package comes from your income; income leftover after some of it was taxed by the federal government, proprietor of one of the three shipping choices. Accounting gimmick-wise, USPS does not receive direct tax revenue, but it loses billions of dollars every year and never has to pay anything back, you tell me where the difference comes from. So in a sense, you are paying for, by taxes, the advertisement of a product that competes against others for your hard earned post-tax income.
What if you were to choose one of the others? While neither FedEx nor UPS is government owned they are definitely well represented in Washington in disparate ways. Many UPS employees belong to unions, unions that take mandatory dues from the paychecks of those employees and send 90% of a large portion of those dues to democrat politicians. Additionally, UPS pays lobbyists to coerce legislators to pass laws forcing unionization on FedEx employees which is a win for both sides. FedEx has to pay more to offer its services and more union members mean more campaign contributions for democrat politicians. Your taxed income pays for the salaries of politicians and DC venues to discuss making one company’s business more difficult while your post-tax income spent on a UPS package pays salaries for employees that have money withheld by unions who give it to democrats for campaigns and for lobbyists to talk those politicians whose campaigns are funded by UPS employees union dues into making their competitor’s business harder and enriching the politician’s campaign chests, which will be passed on to you in terms of higher prices for purchasing something from FedEx, money left over after paying for politicians to discuss policies that leaves you with less and less.
Convoluted enough for you? A day late and a dollar short, happy tax day!
What if you were to choose one of the others? While neither FedEx nor UPS is government owned they are definitely well represented in Washington in disparate ways. Many UPS employees belong to unions, unions that take mandatory dues from the paychecks of those employees and send 90% of a large portion of those dues to democrat politicians. Additionally, UPS pays lobbyists to coerce legislators to pass laws forcing unionization on FedEx employees which is a win for both sides. FedEx has to pay more to offer its services and more union members mean more campaign contributions for democrat politicians. Your taxed income pays for the salaries of politicians and DC venues to discuss making one company’s business more difficult while your post-tax income spent on a UPS package pays salaries for employees that have money withheld by unions who give it to democrats for campaigns and for lobbyists to talk those politicians whose campaigns are funded by UPS employees union dues into making their competitor’s business harder and enriching the politician’s campaign chests, which will be passed on to you in terms of higher prices for purchasing something from FedEx, money left over after paying for politicians to discuss policies that leaves you with less and less.
Convoluted enough for you? A day late and a dollar short, happy tax day!
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Random Debt Thoughts – 4/14
A quote from the Wall Street Journal this morning:
It seems to have become conventional wisdom that every complaint made by a conservative towards the President’s budget must begin with a two-minute hate of former President Bush. It’s ridiculous on two counts. Most importantly, that ship has sailed. President Bush was no spend thrift and did sign bills in regard to spending that were irresponsible but he’s no longer in office and can’t help with what’s happening now nor change the past. Second, spending under the President has ballooned to unprecedented levels. The table below (Source) examines the debt by time period from 2002-2011 (to be fair, President Bush could not be responsible, because he didn’t sign it, for any budgets before 2002 and President Obama not for any before 2010, for the same non-signing reason).
The reason for the split is to account for both houses of congress (they are in charge of creating the budget) changing to democrat control in 2006. The data shows that democrat congresses in 2007 and 2008 appropriated a budget with more debt in it than the prior 6 years combined. And yes, President Bush signed them. Even accounting for the more than TRIPLING of average debt per year following democrat control the average debt over the 8 years attributed to the Bush presidency was $443.49 billion per year compared to $1469.12 billion per year under President Obama. While it may be cathartic for the navel gazing to disown President Bush for spending under his watch; remember that average deficits have increased 69.81% per year under President Obama.
Also up for piñata duty recently has been House Speaker Boehner. Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have spent the vast majority of their shows in the last week decrying the budget compromise. It’s true that it isn’t enough. But, unfortunately, it’s the best those serious about spending could get. And plainly stating the deficiencies of the compromise is more than enough. Limbaugh and Levin go too far, ridiculing and questioning the fortitude of the Speaker. No matter what they think, shutting down the government would have done no good and encouraging Republicans to act as buffoons (such as some democrats) will do nothing to encourage citizens to support more like them. The most import thing for Republicans in Congress now is to do the best work they can given the current situation and educate the public enough to encourage them to send more people like them instead of those who offer something for nothing. The public must be patient, the 2012 budget will be the first that can be rightly judged within the context of the Republican controlled House’s influence.
According to Internal Revenue Service data, the entire taxable income of everyone earning over $100,000 in 2008 was about $1.582 trillion. Even if all these Americans—most of whom are far from wealthy—were taxed at 100%, it wouldn't cover Mr. Obama's deficit for this year.That deficit this year is $1.6452 trillion. Within this reality all that can be cut is $38.5 billion (and yes I count the entire thing, those accounting measures are valid) and the President’s only answer is tax increases for the top 2% who already pay the highest rate on their taxable incomes. It appears as though the number of people voting themselves goodies at the expense of others is past half the electorate. We’re doomed.
It seems to have become conventional wisdom that every complaint made by a conservative towards the President’s budget must begin with a two-minute hate of former President Bush. It’s ridiculous on two counts. Most importantly, that ship has sailed. President Bush was no spend thrift and did sign bills in regard to spending that were irresponsible but he’s no longer in office and can’t help with what’s happening now nor change the past. Second, spending under the President has ballooned to unprecedented levels. The table below (Source) examines the debt by time period from 2002-2011 (to be fair, President Bush could not be responsible, because he didn’t sign it, for any budgets before 2002 and President Obama not for any before 2010, for the same non-signing reason).
The reason for the split is to account for both houses of congress (they are in charge of creating the budget) changing to democrat control in 2006. The data shows that democrat congresses in 2007 and 2008 appropriated a budget with more debt in it than the prior 6 years combined. And yes, President Bush signed them. Even accounting for the more than TRIPLING of average debt per year following democrat control the average debt over the 8 years attributed to the Bush presidency was $443.49 billion per year compared to $1469.12 billion per year under President Obama. While it may be cathartic for the navel gazing to disown President Bush for spending under his watch; remember that average deficits have increased 69.81% per year under President Obama. Also up for piñata duty recently has been House Speaker Boehner. Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin have spent the vast majority of their shows in the last week decrying the budget compromise. It’s true that it isn’t enough. But, unfortunately, it’s the best those serious about spending could get. And plainly stating the deficiencies of the compromise is more than enough. Limbaugh and Levin go too far, ridiculing and questioning the fortitude of the Speaker. No matter what they think, shutting down the government would have done no good and encouraging Republicans to act as buffoons (such as some democrats) will do nothing to encourage citizens to support more like them. The most import thing for Republicans in Congress now is to do the best work they can given the current situation and educate the public enough to encourage them to send more people like them instead of those who offer something for nothing. The public must be patient, the 2012 budget will be the first that can be rightly judged within the context of the Republican controlled House’s influence.
Monday, April 11, 2011
As good as it gets?
$38 billion dollars seems like a lot. Compared to $1.6 trillion, it’s almost nothing. The bigger number is the projected deficit the US government would run in the FY2011 budget, borrowed money, and the smaller number is the number of cuts agreed to this past weekend to avert the so-called partial government shutdown. It’s a bit depressing and a popular conservative sentiment today is that it wasn’t enough and that any representative who votes for it isn’t serious.
They’re completely right on the first count and are ignorant of reality on the second. Republicans are in charge of one third of the portion of government that votes for the budget. Their portion the House of Representatives passed $61 billion in cuts while the Senate and the President wanted none. To many, “compromise” would have been $30.5 billion. For a three headed monster, compromise could be considered $20.3 billion. Under this understanding the Republicans in the House of Representatives should have passed a budget with $300 billion in cuts to get $100, but they’re too honest for that.
It’s easy to understand the sentiment behind not approving the final number which is essentially just as unsustainable as the original budget. But hissing about it is of no use. From reports of the President attempting to make the so-called shutdown as hurtful as possible to the promise to veto any continuing resolution that would fund the Department of Defense for the remaining fiscal year there was no way for the shutdown to do any good politically. And the reason why is because of the $1.6 trillion problem.
That $1.6 trillion in borrowed money buys a lot. And it composes the primary source of income for too many in our country. There are too many out there that have no idea what health care, what groceries, what day care, what anything really costs because they receive ‘benefits’ from the government shielding them from those costs. It doesn’t mean that those costs don’t exist; they are just shifted to the taxpayer with a healthy cut consumed by the bureaucratic class. And the promise to veto military pay by the president was a cynical and calculated attempt to turn the military into another democrat constituency similar to unions, punishing them for not voting dem by large margins like other government funded classes.
Bottom line is the government’s broke and it has been getting worse for a long time. $38 billion isn’t much but it is finally a step in the right direction. And as hard as it is to take, as good as it was going to get at this time. One can only hope that there are enough citizens not dependent on the government left to ensure that this direction is only the first step towards a more productive country where clowns only find work in tents and the ever-more educated voter turns them away when they try to escape. Instead of demanding omnipresent government benefits for a growing percentage of the country we can really help those who need it and make them more dependent on themselves so they can be truly successful and enjoy that success instead of being dependent on the just-enough provided by two-faced politicians.
They’re completely right on the first count and are ignorant of reality on the second. Republicans are in charge of one third of the portion of government that votes for the budget. Their portion the House of Representatives passed $61 billion in cuts while the Senate and the President wanted none. To many, “compromise” would have been $30.5 billion. For a three headed monster, compromise could be considered $20.3 billion. Under this understanding the Republicans in the House of Representatives should have passed a budget with $300 billion in cuts to get $100, but they’re too honest for that.
It’s easy to understand the sentiment behind not approving the final number which is essentially just as unsustainable as the original budget. But hissing about it is of no use. From reports of the President attempting to make the so-called shutdown as hurtful as possible to the promise to veto any continuing resolution that would fund the Department of Defense for the remaining fiscal year there was no way for the shutdown to do any good politically. And the reason why is because of the $1.6 trillion problem.
That $1.6 trillion in borrowed money buys a lot. And it composes the primary source of income for too many in our country. There are too many out there that have no idea what health care, what groceries, what day care, what anything really costs because they receive ‘benefits’ from the government shielding them from those costs. It doesn’t mean that those costs don’t exist; they are just shifted to the taxpayer with a healthy cut consumed by the bureaucratic class. And the promise to veto military pay by the president was a cynical and calculated attempt to turn the military into another democrat constituency similar to unions, punishing them for not voting dem by large margins like other government funded classes.
Bottom line is the government’s broke and it has been getting worse for a long time. $38 billion isn’t much but it is finally a step in the right direction. And as hard as it is to take, as good as it was going to get at this time. One can only hope that there are enough citizens not dependent on the government left to ensure that this direction is only the first step towards a more productive country where clowns only find work in tents and the ever-more educated voter turns them away when they try to escape. Instead of demanding omnipresent government benefits for a growing percentage of the country we can really help those who need it and make them more dependent on themselves so they can be truly successful and enjoy that success instead of being dependent on the just-enough provided by two-faced politicians.
Friday, April 08, 2011
Random Thoughts – 4/8
The federal case against Barry Bonds is a complete waste of resources. Its only purpose is to serve vapid politicians and political appointees by providing them something they can use as a smoke shield to distract us little people. Bonds may be described as any number of things but none of those matters, whatever it is he did, the supposed perjury will be impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt and did not do anything that hurt anyone or cover up any federal crime. The justice department should not be allowed to witch hunt public figures for the amusement of the proletariat, no matter how rabid the sheep watching from afar are.
The NFL players association requesting the federal courts to nanny talks between them and the NFL on a new collective bargaining agreement is another complete waste of resources. It’s simply another ploy in the player’s association’s never-ending PR blitz attempting to for the NFL to capitulate to their demands without having to actually negotiate. It is not the federal courts responsibility to referee the negotiations.
All the talk surrounding the Wisconsin “non-partisan” Supreme Court election reminds me of 2004 when John Kerry presumed victory and alleged fraud because of exit polls. Don’t remember that? There was a discrepancy between exit polls (which as statistics are not always accurate and should not be used ever to make definitive points about a population, just make inferences about) and because of statistical polls, Kerry doubted actual return counts. Anyway, the union democrat in the Wisconsin election declared victory after the Associated Press announced unofficial returns showing a lead of about 200 votes. Those totals though did not include all results and upon complete canvassing her opponent was up by about 7,000 votes. Counting chickens before the eggs have hatched and believing what you want to be true doesn’t make it so.
Impending so-called partial government shutdown makes me wonder; what if nobody notices? People that depend on government paychecks (actual employees including the military as government aid recipients will be covered) will certainly notice but what about the rest of us? What happens when Monday morning happens and the sun still rises and the rest of the business world gets to it? No matter the opinion of who’s cheer leading a shutdown (maybe kind-of, me) and who’s trying to kill women (really, this is the kind of crap spouted by democrat legislators) there are facts. The democrat congress did not pass a fiscal year 2011 budget last fall when they should have. The (Republican controlled) House of Representatives passed a FY2011 budget, HR 1, in February. The (democrat controlled) Senate has not passed a FY2011 budget. Most importantly, the US Government is, by any definition, broke. It borrows 40 cents of every dollar spent. This is beyond unsustainable and completely irresponsible. The billions in cuts that were outlined in HR 1 are dwarfed by the deficit outlined in HR 1. Emotional ploys may be therapeutic but ignore reality. There is not enough money to pay for the goodies that vote hungry politicians promised.
The NFL players association requesting the federal courts to nanny talks between them and the NFL on a new collective bargaining agreement is another complete waste of resources. It’s simply another ploy in the player’s association’s never-ending PR blitz attempting to for the NFL to capitulate to their demands without having to actually negotiate. It is not the federal courts responsibility to referee the negotiations.
All the talk surrounding the Wisconsin “non-partisan” Supreme Court election reminds me of 2004 when John Kerry presumed victory and alleged fraud because of exit polls. Don’t remember that? There was a discrepancy between exit polls (which as statistics are not always accurate and should not be used ever to make definitive points about a population, just make inferences about) and because of statistical polls, Kerry doubted actual return counts. Anyway, the union democrat in the Wisconsin election declared victory after the Associated Press announced unofficial returns showing a lead of about 200 votes. Those totals though did not include all results and upon complete canvassing her opponent was up by about 7,000 votes. Counting chickens before the eggs have hatched and believing what you want to be true doesn’t make it so.
Impending so-called partial government shutdown makes me wonder; what if nobody notices? People that depend on government paychecks (actual employees including the military as government aid recipients will be covered) will certainly notice but what about the rest of us? What happens when Monday morning happens and the sun still rises and the rest of the business world gets to it? No matter the opinion of who’s cheer leading a shutdown (maybe kind-of, me) and who’s trying to kill women (really, this is the kind of crap spouted by democrat legislators) there are facts. The democrat congress did not pass a fiscal year 2011 budget last fall when they should have. The (Republican controlled) House of Representatives passed a FY2011 budget, HR 1, in February. The (democrat controlled) Senate has not passed a FY2011 budget. Most importantly, the US Government is, by any definition, broke. It borrows 40 cents of every dollar spent. This is beyond unsustainable and completely irresponsible. The billions in cuts that were outlined in HR 1 are dwarfed by the deficit outlined in HR 1. Emotional ploys may be therapeutic but ignore reality. There is not enough money to pay for the goodies that vote hungry politicians promised.
Rental Car Review – Chevy Malibu
This week in Maryland I was rented a Chevy Malibu as an intermediate car. I have fond memories of an older Malibu that I rented once in Oregon, the five door version two generations back which my sister and I used to carry us and two mountain bikes up the Oregon coast riding various trails. It was a nice car that felt compact but had lots of room and was reasonably powerful. A few years ago I rented a 6 cylinder version of the previous generation Malibu in Florida which had some serious mechanical issues. It ran but made lots of concerning noises from the engine and transmission and was very lethargic. Reason number 8,789,431 to never ever buy a used rental car, the agency didn’t care when I called, convinced all was well as the car still technically ran and when I returned it the agent checking the car in gave me a “you’re kidding, right?” eye roll when I mentioned the issues.
This rental was the first time I have driven a current generation model. A Silver Ice Metallic 2011 LT1 model with a 2.4L 169HP 4-cylinder engine, 6-Speed automatic transmission, front wheel drive, power moon roof, power windows and locks, 2 stage heated seats, 17 inch wheels, leather trimmed ebony seats and a smidge over 4000 miles on the odometer. As is common of many mid-sized cars, the current Malibu is a larger car than previous generations and this one is so large it seems just about the same size inside as the full size Impala. The dash is large and there is a ton of hard plastic stretching into what could be confused with a dining table in to the front windshield. There is about a one inch sliver of wood and chrome colored plastic loosely applied to the top portion of the dash breaking up the vast expanses of hard black plastic throughout the interior. Like the dash, the driver and passenger seats are big. The exterior is the familiar Malibu shape, the 17 inch chrome wheels and low-profile tires lend it a sporty appearance.
Sporty, though, it is not. Like other full-mid-size cars the Malibu drives like a parade float. The four-banger and 6-speed auto are adequate for getting through the Baltimore-Washington area freeways but the car doesn’t so much as turn, more lurches between lanes. A trait Inherited from dearly departed Pontiac, it is impossible to turn your neck and look at the blind spot corner from the driver’s seat. Brake feel is squishy and pedal travel is long but the Malibu stops just fine. The seats are mostly comfortable, my only complaint is they feel large and are hard to stay centered in. Seat power controls are easy to use which is great for fiddlers like me who can never stop adjusting. The best seat feature by far is the two-stage heaters which work fast. Radio controls are easy to use and duplicates along with cruise control are conveniently located on the steering wheel. One strange quirk noticed was that the moon roof has one touch open but the button must be pressed down for the entirety of the time it takes for it to close. As with most all GM vehicles the sound system was good.
The Malibu isn’t a bad car. But it isn’t very good either. I have driven a Ford Fusion and it’s a much better vehicle. The Nissan Altima and new Hyaundai Sonata are both better looking and the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord both have extremely loyal customers. There’s little wonder why the Malibu’s sales numbers have steadily declined. If I could characterize the Malibu in one word, I would say meh. Its basic transportation and decent enough for someone who is looking for a full-mid-size car and prefers GM.
This rental was the first time I have driven a current generation model. A Silver Ice Metallic 2011 LT1 model with a 2.4L 169HP 4-cylinder engine, 6-Speed automatic transmission, front wheel drive, power moon roof, power windows and locks, 2 stage heated seats, 17 inch wheels, leather trimmed ebony seats and a smidge over 4000 miles on the odometer. As is common of many mid-sized cars, the current Malibu is a larger car than previous generations and this one is so large it seems just about the same size inside as the full size Impala. The dash is large and there is a ton of hard plastic stretching into what could be confused with a dining table in to the front windshield. There is about a one inch sliver of wood and chrome colored plastic loosely applied to the top portion of the dash breaking up the vast expanses of hard black plastic throughout the interior. Like the dash, the driver and passenger seats are big. The exterior is the familiar Malibu shape, the 17 inch chrome wheels and low-profile tires lend it a sporty appearance.Sporty, though, it is not. Like other full-mid-size cars the Malibu drives like a parade float. The four-banger and 6-speed auto are adequate for getting through the Baltimore-Washington area freeways but the car doesn’t so much as turn, more lurches between lanes. A trait Inherited from dearly departed Pontiac, it is impossible to turn your neck and look at the blind spot corner from the driver’s seat. Brake feel is squishy and pedal travel is long but the Malibu stops just fine. The seats are mostly comfortable, my only complaint is they feel large and are hard to stay centered in. Seat power controls are easy to use which is great for fiddlers like me who can never stop adjusting. The best seat feature by far is the two-stage heaters which work fast. Radio controls are easy to use and duplicates along with cruise control are conveniently located on the steering wheel. One strange quirk noticed was that the moon roof has one touch open but the button must be pressed down for the entirety of the time it takes for it to close. As with most all GM vehicles the sound system was good.
The Malibu isn’t a bad car. But it isn’t very good either. I have driven a Ford Fusion and it’s a much better vehicle. The Nissan Altima and new Hyaundai Sonata are both better looking and the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord both have extremely loyal customers. There’s little wonder why the Malibu’s sales numbers have steadily declined. If I could characterize the Malibu in one word, I would say meh. Its basic transportation and decent enough for someone who is looking for a full-mid-size car and prefers GM.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
But What if it isn’t true?
Former Governor Gary Johnson is set to announce his candidacy for the Republican Presidential nomination for 2012. Personally I would vote for the former Governor over most any other candidate if not for his position on drugs, specifically for legalizing at least marijuana among others. Comedian Daniel Tosh was first to state that the only good reason to legalize pot is so that so potheads never have anything to talk about ever again.
Proponents of legalizing drugs have many reasons for their stance. Some are honest, it’s because they want use it. Too many insist on righteousness and making statements analogous to curing all of our societal ills by legalization, which to them are apparently caused by prohibition of drugs. These arguments are made up of straw men and are tired as they are unknowable. Let’s examine a few in regard to marijuana.
Why treat pot different from alcohol, they’re similar and alcohol’s even worse because of DWI. Some argue that pot is a “mellow” high and some people insist that they have a heightened awareness when they are high. That’s nonsense. THC, the active ingredient in pot is a psychoactive substance, and in that sense is similar to alcohol. The effects though are different and it is my opinion that alcohol is more readily moderated. DWI’s key component is intoxicated, some are attributable to pot already and it is reasonable to assume that more would be if pot were to be legalized.
The ‘war on drugs’ is a failure. Has there ever been a more misunderstood nebulous term than the ‘war on drugs’? What is it exactly? Its failure is often attributed to the fact that illegal drugs are basically abundant. Which is a fair point but in many districts there is little enforcement for many drug offenses. Education on the dangers of illegal drugs is counteracted many times over in popular culture. When there are no real consequences for casual use for many and it is glamorized in culture, why is it surprising that the ‘war on drugs’, whatever that is, is considered a failure?
Drug legalization has driven market demand higher than if pot were legal. This is just dumb. So dumb that it seems as though I made this one up, but no I’ve heard it many times before. This is just unknowable but in economic terms seems unlikely that the market for pot would shrink if legalized.
It will clear prisons of basically harmless drug offenders. This one may be true, but the prison population is not mostly made up of casual drug users, they typically get a slap on the wrist. Violent drug offenders, dealers and criminals who use their ill-gotten gains to purchase drugs make up the majority of drug-related prisoners. And if pot were legal those in prison for offenses related to it would likely be in there for something else.
It will raise tax revenue. If regulated by the state this one will be true, but the cost of regulation likely will equal or surpass in cost any new intake making this argument essentially null.
People should be responsible enough to make their own decisions in regard to what they ingest and inhale. In a perfect world maybe but unfortunately too many are irresponsible. This is not a perfect world and addiction is a serious problem and as a society we must determine a line in regard to psychoactive substances. I believe that marijuana and other drugs are over that line and should remain illegal. I think that the consequences outweigh the loss in freedom in disallowing some responsible citizens from being able to procure it.
And that’s my opinion. There are others who differ. If they want to use pot, that’s their preference and if they’re honest about that fact, fantastic. I still think they’re wrong. Making up all kinds of reasons and statistics meant to persuade is meaningless PR. Marijuana advocates are often very adamant in the righteousness of their many arguments, they never ask themselves the simple question, what if what they say isn’t true? What is true is that pot is harmful.
Proponents of legalizing drugs have many reasons for their stance. Some are honest, it’s because they want use it. Too many insist on righteousness and making statements analogous to curing all of our societal ills by legalization, which to them are apparently caused by prohibition of drugs. These arguments are made up of straw men and are tired as they are unknowable. Let’s examine a few in regard to marijuana.
Why treat pot different from alcohol, they’re similar and alcohol’s even worse because of DWI. Some argue that pot is a “mellow” high and some people insist that they have a heightened awareness when they are high. That’s nonsense. THC, the active ingredient in pot is a psychoactive substance, and in that sense is similar to alcohol. The effects though are different and it is my opinion that alcohol is more readily moderated. DWI’s key component is intoxicated, some are attributable to pot already and it is reasonable to assume that more would be if pot were to be legalized.
The ‘war on drugs’ is a failure. Has there ever been a more misunderstood nebulous term than the ‘war on drugs’? What is it exactly? Its failure is often attributed to the fact that illegal drugs are basically abundant. Which is a fair point but in many districts there is little enforcement for many drug offenses. Education on the dangers of illegal drugs is counteracted many times over in popular culture. When there are no real consequences for casual use for many and it is glamorized in culture, why is it surprising that the ‘war on drugs’, whatever that is, is considered a failure?
Drug legalization has driven market demand higher than if pot were legal. This is just dumb. So dumb that it seems as though I made this one up, but no I’ve heard it many times before. This is just unknowable but in economic terms seems unlikely that the market for pot would shrink if legalized.
It will clear prisons of basically harmless drug offenders. This one may be true, but the prison population is not mostly made up of casual drug users, they typically get a slap on the wrist. Violent drug offenders, dealers and criminals who use their ill-gotten gains to purchase drugs make up the majority of drug-related prisoners. And if pot were legal those in prison for offenses related to it would likely be in there for something else.
It will raise tax revenue. If regulated by the state this one will be true, but the cost of regulation likely will equal or surpass in cost any new intake making this argument essentially null.
People should be responsible enough to make their own decisions in regard to what they ingest and inhale. In a perfect world maybe but unfortunately too many are irresponsible. This is not a perfect world and addiction is a serious problem and as a society we must determine a line in regard to psychoactive substances. I believe that marijuana and other drugs are over that line and should remain illegal. I think that the consequences outweigh the loss in freedom in disallowing some responsible citizens from being able to procure it.
And that’s my opinion. There are others who differ. If they want to use pot, that’s their preference and if they’re honest about that fact, fantastic. I still think they’re wrong. Making up all kinds of reasons and statistics meant to persuade is meaningless PR. Marijuana advocates are often very adamant in the righteousness of their many arguments, they never ask themselves the simple question, what if what they say isn’t true? What is true is that pot is harmful.
Monday, March 28, 2011
But What if it doesn’t Work?
Years ago I read an article reporting on a poll that purported to show that roughly 25% of scientifically selected respondents meant to reflect the general US population believe that the moon landing was a hoax. At this point I came up with a theorem that if this poll was true then 25% of the US population must be easily persuaded to believe most anything. It doesn’t mean that they’re all crazy; just that they can be easily persuaded to believe things that can be argued as plausible coherently but are demonstrably untrue. This theorem is the reason that there really isn’t any usefulness in having more than two large scale political parties and that it can actually be dangerous to have several of near equal size. This is because of that 25%, if you have five political parties close in size, all you need is 25% to win a plurality and those easily persuaded conspiracy minded folks get to pick those whom decide how to govern the rest of us.
After new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, along with that state’s bi-cameral legislature, was able to pass reforms (real, actual hope and change) limiting collective bargaining for the state’s public sector employees, democrats and “labor” activists (I apologize for the redundancy) promised to get back at the Governor and Republican lawmakers by way of recall elections. In Wisconsin, a politician can be recalled after they have been in office for one year if a petition signed by 25% of voters from their last election seeks it. Currently there are 8 Republican legislators being targeted for this summer with Governor Walker’s turn coming up early next year.
It’s all well and good to pitch a tantrum and gather signatures, but will it work? The hardest part of persuading 25% of voters to sign a petition will be finding them and collecting the signatures. Getting the right 25% to sign will not be a problem. Wisconsin isn’t North Korea, so probably close to 50% of voters didn’t vote for those up for recall anyway. The reason behind the hysteria is that state employees identify any effort to curb their ability to fleece the taxpayer as an affront to liberty, no matter reality. A sizeable portion of citizens in Wisconsin are state employees, and many more are tangentially reliant on state largess and all of them have friends and families which should help them get to that 25% number. Easily persuaded.
But what if it doesn’t work? After all the work required gathering those signatures, 25% isn’t enough to win election in a two-party system. Also, there’s no guarantee that from the time a person signed that they were committed to the defeat of that politician and that they would even vote in the new election if the recall petition were successful. Because of the 25% theorem it’s likely folly to assume that a successful petition will translate to a successful recall election.
That’s not to say that the politicians targeted shouldn’t be concerned. And, the democrat state laborers are not the only ones pulling this shenanigan. There are Republican backed efforts to recall democrat legislators but at least it’s because those legislators abdicated their duties and left Wisconsin for Illinois trying to force the majority’s hand. And, because the Republicans don’t have every state employee union in their back pocket their 25% will be more difficult to obtain. Most of the coverage on this issue is usually set as a warning to Republicans, but I wonder if the democrats have thought through everything, including what if they don’t win the recalls? You know, like how they didn’t win in the last general election.
After new Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, along with that state’s bi-cameral legislature, was able to pass reforms (real, actual hope and change) limiting collective bargaining for the state’s public sector employees, democrats and “labor” activists (I apologize for the redundancy) promised to get back at the Governor and Republican lawmakers by way of recall elections. In Wisconsin, a politician can be recalled after they have been in office for one year if a petition signed by 25% of voters from their last election seeks it. Currently there are 8 Republican legislators being targeted for this summer with Governor Walker’s turn coming up early next year.
It’s all well and good to pitch a tantrum and gather signatures, but will it work? The hardest part of persuading 25% of voters to sign a petition will be finding them and collecting the signatures. Getting the right 25% to sign will not be a problem. Wisconsin isn’t North Korea, so probably close to 50% of voters didn’t vote for those up for recall anyway. The reason behind the hysteria is that state employees identify any effort to curb their ability to fleece the taxpayer as an affront to liberty, no matter reality. A sizeable portion of citizens in Wisconsin are state employees, and many more are tangentially reliant on state largess and all of them have friends and families which should help them get to that 25% number. Easily persuaded.
But what if it doesn’t work? After all the work required gathering those signatures, 25% isn’t enough to win election in a two-party system. Also, there’s no guarantee that from the time a person signed that they were committed to the defeat of that politician and that they would even vote in the new election if the recall petition were successful. Because of the 25% theorem it’s likely folly to assume that a successful petition will translate to a successful recall election.
That’s not to say that the politicians targeted shouldn’t be concerned. And, the democrat state laborers are not the only ones pulling this shenanigan. There are Republican backed efforts to recall democrat legislators but at least it’s because those legislators abdicated their duties and left Wisconsin for Illinois trying to force the majority’s hand. And, because the Republicans don’t have every state employee union in their back pocket their 25% will be more difficult to obtain. Most of the coverage on this issue is usually set as a warning to Republicans, but I wonder if the democrats have thought through everything, including what if they don’t win the recalls? You know, like how they didn’t win in the last general election.
Corporate Taxation
60 Minutes did a piece on businesses relocating to Switzerland, namely Canton Zug (by the way, it's pronounced "Tsoog"). A wonderful little city and tax haven right on the Zugersee, famous for producing Zugerkirschwasser, aka Zug Cherry Schnapps. Good with fondue. Anyway, I was surprised by the evenhandedness of the 60 Minutes piece. The USA has the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, which is ridiculous for two reasons - 1) we're America, so we're supposed to demand low taxes, and 2) corporate taxation is dumb in the first place because corporations just pass the taxes onto the consumer, meaning we end up paying anyway. I hope they wise up in DC. Europe's ahead of the curve on this one.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
Thank you Mr. Edison
Tonight I plan to honor one of the most prolific inventors of modern times, Thomas Alva Edison by lighting my home with perhaps his most important invention, the light bulb. What will differentiate tonight, between the hours of 8:30 and 9:30 PM, from every other night is that I will not only light the parts of my home that are occupied, I will turn on every light I own.
I was inspired in my tribute by the fake WWF’s “Earth Hour”. As notice of conflict, I am predisposed to dislike the WWF because they were able to convince a judge somewhere that anyone could possibly confuse the World Wildlife Fund and the World Wrestling Federation which led to the latter having to change its name to the asinine World Wrestling Entertainment. Anyway, I digress; the WWF’s “Earth Hour” is an effort to bring attention to climate change by having participants turn off all lighting and “non-essential” appliances for one hour during the last Saturday in March.
Besides the fact that climate change has been occurring on Earth for the billions of years of its existence and that there is no definitive (yes, that means scientific) proof of man-made (anthropogenic) climate change, it is of no matter to those faithful to the religion of global warming. “Earth Hour” may seem innocuous and a simple way to show your love for the planet that is both Al Gore and Captain Planet approved, but it is misguided. Turning off appliances is an implicit nod to the idea that humans are responsible for climate change and that their responsibility began with the industrial age.
My preference is to live in modern times and it is my belief that the advances the world has seen since the light bulb make our time miraculous and a blessing. If any of the hippies that participate in “Earth Hour” and faithfully follow the faked research “proving” man-made climate change wish to move to sub-Saharan Africa into a mud hut and be one with the land, they are free to do so. Advocating a meaningless, silly symbolic gesture is one thing and I can retaliate in the immature way mentioned above but the organizers of “Earth Hour”, “green” politicians and the advocate-scientists that have “proven” man-made climate change are attempting to convert new followers to keep their scam going and force the rest of us to live in a way conducive with cave men by taxing us to the point of poverty and banning everything that makes modern life possible.
And modern life was made possible by people like Thomas Alva Edison and I choose to counter “Earth Hour” with a tribute to his brilliance.
I was inspired in my tribute by the fake WWF’s “Earth Hour”. As notice of conflict, I am predisposed to dislike the WWF because they were able to convince a judge somewhere that anyone could possibly confuse the World Wildlife Fund and the World Wrestling Federation which led to the latter having to change its name to the asinine World Wrestling Entertainment. Anyway, I digress; the WWF’s “Earth Hour” is an effort to bring attention to climate change by having participants turn off all lighting and “non-essential” appliances for one hour during the last Saturday in March.
Besides the fact that climate change has been occurring on Earth for the billions of years of its existence and that there is no definitive (yes, that means scientific) proof of man-made (anthropogenic) climate change, it is of no matter to those faithful to the religion of global warming. “Earth Hour” may seem innocuous and a simple way to show your love for the planet that is both Al Gore and Captain Planet approved, but it is misguided. Turning off appliances is an implicit nod to the idea that humans are responsible for climate change and that their responsibility began with the industrial age.
My preference is to live in modern times and it is my belief that the advances the world has seen since the light bulb make our time miraculous and a blessing. If any of the hippies that participate in “Earth Hour” and faithfully follow the faked research “proving” man-made climate change wish to move to sub-Saharan Africa into a mud hut and be one with the land, they are free to do so. Advocating a meaningless, silly symbolic gesture is one thing and I can retaliate in the immature way mentioned above but the organizers of “Earth Hour”, “green” politicians and the advocate-scientists that have “proven” man-made climate change are attempting to convert new followers to keep their scam going and force the rest of us to live in a way conducive with cave men by taxing us to the point of poverty and banning everything that makes modern life possible.
And modern life was made possible by people like Thomas Alva Edison and I choose to counter “Earth Hour” with a tribute to his brilliance.
Friday, March 25, 2011
An Unfortunate Introduction
In marketing one acknowledged form of advertising is differentiation from the competition. This can be done in two ways, by stating the benefits of the advertised brand as being superior to another for the given purpose or by identifying shortcomings of the other. In politics it’s the latter tactic that is most often utilized. In many campaigns no one really knows anything about the real, actual stances of a candidate, just that their hobbies include clubbing baby seals while farting pure carbon into the fragile atmosphere and laughing. Personally I find this kind of campaign annoying because I abhor irrelevant gossip and because of the prevalence of these kinds of ads it’s incredibly difficult to really feel comfortable with any candidate.
With US Senator Jeff Bingaman retiring there are already two mostly-officially announced candidates from the Republican side with more likely coming. In a perfect world I think that the more candidates the better because it provides for a wide range of experience and opinions and can ensure that the best candidate will win and is well prepared for the general election. Unfortunately, because much of candidate advertising is negative it’s usually the candidate who is most unobjectionable to the majority of undecided voters, and it seems they don’t really care about policy and are too often swayed by gossip.
My preference at this time is for the fire-breathing former gubernatorial candidate Doug Turner to run, but he isn’t at this time and I have no objections to the current candidate and former US Representative Heather Wilson. Already though I find myself irked by candidate Lt. Governor John Sanchez.
The Lt. Governor was in D.C. recently to discuss his “likely” candidacy and was featured in an article on the D.C. Caller titled “New Mexico’s John Sanchez: The Next Marco Rubio?” For those in Tierra Amarilla, Rubio is the freshmen senator from Florida who was the speaker of the Florida assembly and is a frequent writer in which he illustrates very conservative ideals. He’s awesome, basically.
In this article, the only thing about Sanchez that is considered similar to Senator Rubio is their Hispanic sounding last names. Other than that it is basically an attack on Heather Wilson. In it, Sanchez is quoted as saying that Wilson represents “the politics of the past” and then cites her record in congress as being “moderate”.
Most people don’t really know John Sanchez yet. Yes he is the Lt. Governor and had run for Governor in the past but likening yourself to a high profile conservative based on delightfully pronounced last names and assailing a political opponent because they’re a known quantity is not the way to introduce oneself. Who are you and why should I vote for you Mr. Lt. Governor? Why are you picking on former Representative Wilson instead of telling me what you would do besides using generic terminology? That’s what I want to know. It’s neat that you are an accomplished Hispanic (I consider myself in that same category) but it’s irrelevant.
With US Senator Jeff Bingaman retiring there are already two mostly-officially announced candidates from the Republican side with more likely coming. In a perfect world I think that the more candidates the better because it provides for a wide range of experience and opinions and can ensure that the best candidate will win and is well prepared for the general election. Unfortunately, because much of candidate advertising is negative it’s usually the candidate who is most unobjectionable to the majority of undecided voters, and it seems they don’t really care about policy and are too often swayed by gossip.
My preference at this time is for the fire-breathing former gubernatorial candidate Doug Turner to run, but he isn’t at this time and I have no objections to the current candidate and former US Representative Heather Wilson. Already though I find myself irked by candidate Lt. Governor John Sanchez.
The Lt. Governor was in D.C. recently to discuss his “likely” candidacy and was featured in an article on the D.C. Caller titled “New Mexico’s John Sanchez: The Next Marco Rubio?” For those in Tierra Amarilla, Rubio is the freshmen senator from Florida who was the speaker of the Florida assembly and is a frequent writer in which he illustrates very conservative ideals. He’s awesome, basically.
In this article, the only thing about Sanchez that is considered similar to Senator Rubio is their Hispanic sounding last names. Other than that it is basically an attack on Heather Wilson. In it, Sanchez is quoted as saying that Wilson represents “the politics of the past” and then cites her record in congress as being “moderate”.
Most people don’t really know John Sanchez yet. Yes he is the Lt. Governor and had run for Governor in the past but likening yourself to a high profile conservative based on delightfully pronounced last names and assailing a political opponent because they’re a known quantity is not the way to introduce oneself. Who are you and why should I vote for you Mr. Lt. Governor? Why are you picking on former Representative Wilson instead of telling me what you would do besides using generic terminology? That’s what I want to know. It’s neat that you are an accomplished Hispanic (I consider myself in that same category) but it’s irrelevant.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Random Thoughts – 3/22
One reason (of many) no one ‘likes’ their health insurance (no matter the President’s opinion); because of the fact that the state regulates which prescriptions must be covered by any plan, if something you need isn’t something that has been regulated, it is likely not included and you will be stuck with the entire, likely comically priced bill. I run into this problem due to allergies. Twice a year for several weeks at a time the earth turns on me, robbing me of my ability to speak, breathe comfortably and think clearly. Once available by prescription over the counter medications, Zyrtec and Allegra, offer minimal relief but often lose effectiveness very quickly. My only relief comes from an inhalant that is only available in prescription form and I only learned of its effectiveness when given a sample. I had been prescribed this inhalant in the past but it was not covered by my insurance and I scoffed at the $100 bill for a month’s supply preferring to wait Mother Nature out no matter how miserable I was. Upon receiving the sample sweet relief was mine several days in. What to do about the bill once my sample runs out? The maker of the inhalant offers a $50 discount card which makes the price finally palatable to me. It’s strange though, smelling somewhat of shenanigans. Why would the manufacturer offer such a discount instead of just lowering the damn price by the same amount? Since no one cares what I think I’ll never know. But at least a solution is found in light of my worthless to my own ailments prescription coverage.
New Mexico Governor Martinez was supposedly dealt a blow when a bill not stopping the practice of giving state driver’s licenses to illegal aliens was not passed in the latest legislative session. Some self identified non-partisan group is making noise about some ‘compromise’ bill that would have made everyone happy and shot jelly beans into the air. This ‘compromise’ bill’s aim was to make it slightly more difficult for illegal aliens to receive driver’s licenses. Madness. In the end no bill was ever passed ‘compromise’ or otherwise so there was really nothing the Governor could have done with no bill to sign or veto. And no compromise should be made. 80% of the state is against giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and the practice is in violation of federal law. This stalemate just proves that there are more legislators that need to be retired for others willing to do the people of New Mexico’s business.
I saw two movies this weekend. “Ninja”, the first, was released quite a while ago and was delightful fluff. The story was silly and the plot lines were conveniently zoomed past to ensure that the viewer would have no questions. There were tons of well choreographed action scenes and everything was wrapped up in a nice package. The second movie I saw was “The Switch” about a dude stuck in the friend zone who ends up figuring a way out, by sneaking in as the surrogate donor for his friend’s pregnancy. Hilarity did ensue. And while the ending was sudden it kind of made sense if you’ve ever been in the friend zone. It was by far the best movie that Jennifer Aniston has been in since Office Space. As if the unwatchable “The Bounty Hunter” provided any kind of hurdle. And I don’t care that Jason Bateman plays the same character in every movie. That character is awesome and applicable to just about any situation.
“Big Love”, HBO’s fictional series of polygamists ended this past weekend and my review is mostly bleh. The final two episodes of the show seemed to be housecleaning, attempting to tie up loose ends and answer a ton of questions in regard to the point of the show. Much of this last season has been adding layers to an already complicated storyline and as with a lot of stuff being ignored in any hasty housecleaning, much of those layers and characters that made up the show were apparently forgotten. Taking a lesson from the supposedly controversial ‘Soprano’s’ finale, HBO apparently took a “if in doubt, take them out” approach with “Big Love” and finished off the main character. Or was he the main character? In the end a ton of plot lines seemed to beat the viewer about the head with the idea that a ton of stuff = woman’s empowerment and all that stuff starts with polygamy and the wives were really the center even though they never were that in any episode prior to the last two minutes. Kind of a weird ending, but couldn’t be thought of as boring.
New Mexico Governor Martinez was supposedly dealt a blow when a bill not stopping the practice of giving state driver’s licenses to illegal aliens was not passed in the latest legislative session. Some self identified non-partisan group is making noise about some ‘compromise’ bill that would have made everyone happy and shot jelly beans into the air. This ‘compromise’ bill’s aim was to make it slightly more difficult for illegal aliens to receive driver’s licenses. Madness. In the end no bill was ever passed ‘compromise’ or otherwise so there was really nothing the Governor could have done with no bill to sign or veto. And no compromise should be made. 80% of the state is against giving driver’s licenses to illegal aliens and the practice is in violation of federal law. This stalemate just proves that there are more legislators that need to be retired for others willing to do the people of New Mexico’s business.
I saw two movies this weekend. “Ninja”, the first, was released quite a while ago and was delightful fluff. The story was silly and the plot lines were conveniently zoomed past to ensure that the viewer would have no questions. There were tons of well choreographed action scenes and everything was wrapped up in a nice package. The second movie I saw was “The Switch” about a dude stuck in the friend zone who ends up figuring a way out, by sneaking in as the surrogate donor for his friend’s pregnancy. Hilarity did ensue. And while the ending was sudden it kind of made sense if you’ve ever been in the friend zone. It was by far the best movie that Jennifer Aniston has been in since Office Space. As if the unwatchable “The Bounty Hunter” provided any kind of hurdle. And I don’t care that Jason Bateman plays the same character in every movie. That character is awesome and applicable to just about any situation.
“Big Love”, HBO’s fictional series of polygamists ended this past weekend and my review is mostly bleh. The final two episodes of the show seemed to be housecleaning, attempting to tie up loose ends and answer a ton of questions in regard to the point of the show. Much of this last season has been adding layers to an already complicated storyline and as with a lot of stuff being ignored in any hasty housecleaning, much of those layers and characters that made up the show were apparently forgotten. Taking a lesson from the supposedly controversial ‘Soprano’s’ finale, HBO apparently took a “if in doubt, take them out” approach with “Big Love” and finished off the main character. Or was he the main character? In the end a ton of plot lines seemed to beat the viewer about the head with the idea that a ton of stuff = woman’s empowerment and all that stuff starts with polygamy and the wives were really the center even though they never were that in any episode prior to the last two minutes. Kind of a weird ending, but couldn’t be thought of as boring.
Friday, March 18, 2011
Why Support “Public” Broadcasting?
When one side of an argument resorts to dismissing the other by defining the other side’s position as an easily disparaged straw man it’s a clear indication that that side has no valid argument. A recent example of this type of posturing has surfaced recently as congress has moved to defund the corporation for public broadcasting (with the house already voting in the affirmative). The conservative side as defined by liberals seems to be two-fold. First, conservatives are too stupid to understand the high class, and therefore necessary, content of NPR and second that conservatives are “getting back” at NPR in defense of their colleague, Fox new contributor Juan Williams with momentum for defunding being driven by embarrassing comments coaxed out of NPR fundraising ex-personnel by an outfit called “Project Veritas”.
Let’s knock out these straw men in reverse order. I nearly spit out my coffee when the whole Juan Williams NPR firing fiasco was going on when he was described by many as the most conservative commentator on NPR. I’ve only listened to NPR briefly and have always been nearly instantly turned off by its programming either by boredom or being offended by their liberal commentary. All of my exposure to Williams has been on Fox news and if he’s a conservative then I clearly have no understanding of the term. To label Williams as conservative because of his employment at Fox news is silly nonsense. I believe that Williams is completely liberal, not that there’s anything wrong with that, and his new 7 figure contract (congratulations to him on that by the way) with Fox news after being dismissed by NPR hardly makes him a charity case.
On to the high class, indispensible content provided by NPR, and from PBS. If it’s so popular, so indispensible, why can’t it survive in the public sector? When I go to the toy store there are rows and rows of PBS branded toys sold at premium prices. The whole parents rioting and shortages of a popular toy at Christmas time was in large part originated by Tickle-Me-Elmo, a Sesame Street character toy. NPR supposedly has 35 million listeners, more than supposedly fat-cat Rush Limbaugh. Why in the world should I in addition to 88% of citizens in this country be forced to pay for something that none of us consume? Because only 10% of their listeners care enough to contribute to their unsustainable business model?
To pretend that NPR has no ideology is to pretend that no one does and to force supposedly free citizens to contribute to a network that they have no use for is asinine. If NPR really has so many listeners and provides such high brow content they should be able to lure advertiser dollars in the open market or be able to solicit some kind of subscription from listeners. If Sesame Street, Arthur and others can make many millions of dollars from toy sales they should be able to support PBS. When there were only three channels over the air and a dearth of radio perhaps the corporation for public broadcasting served an actual purpose. That is no longer the case. If they add value to society, let them prove it in the open market. Making the excuse that they can’t survive without subsidy is to insult their audience, and to the rest of us.
Let’s knock out these straw men in reverse order. I nearly spit out my coffee when the whole Juan Williams NPR firing fiasco was going on when he was described by many as the most conservative commentator on NPR. I’ve only listened to NPR briefly and have always been nearly instantly turned off by its programming either by boredom or being offended by their liberal commentary. All of my exposure to Williams has been on Fox news and if he’s a conservative then I clearly have no understanding of the term. To label Williams as conservative because of his employment at Fox news is silly nonsense. I believe that Williams is completely liberal, not that there’s anything wrong with that, and his new 7 figure contract (congratulations to him on that by the way) with Fox news after being dismissed by NPR hardly makes him a charity case.
On to the high class, indispensible content provided by NPR, and from PBS. If it’s so popular, so indispensible, why can’t it survive in the public sector? When I go to the toy store there are rows and rows of PBS branded toys sold at premium prices. The whole parents rioting and shortages of a popular toy at Christmas time was in large part originated by Tickle-Me-Elmo, a Sesame Street character toy. NPR supposedly has 35 million listeners, more than supposedly fat-cat Rush Limbaugh. Why in the world should I in addition to 88% of citizens in this country be forced to pay for something that none of us consume? Because only 10% of their listeners care enough to contribute to their unsustainable business model?
To pretend that NPR has no ideology is to pretend that no one does and to force supposedly free citizens to contribute to a network that they have no use for is asinine. If NPR really has so many listeners and provides such high brow content they should be able to lure advertiser dollars in the open market or be able to solicit some kind of subscription from listeners. If Sesame Street, Arthur and others can make many millions of dollars from toy sales they should be able to support PBS. When there were only three channels over the air and a dearth of radio perhaps the corporation for public broadcasting served an actual purpose. That is no longer the case. If they add value to society, let them prove it in the open market. Making the excuse that they can’t survive without subsidy is to insult their audience, and to the rest of us.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
More NFL Mess
Last Friday the NFL Players Association (the NFL players union) decertified effectively closing negotiations and resulting in the current lockout of players from NFL facilities. News up to that point stated that the NFL had been active in providing new offers while the “union” demanded “the books” on the financial specifics of all NFL teams as a condition of continued negotiations. The decertification of the “union” was immediately followed by a class action lawsuit attempting to disallow the lockout led by popular NFL players Drew Brees, Tom Brady and Peyton Manning. Additionally, the “union” is actively discouraging this year’s draft class from attending NFL draft festivities.
The timing of the lawsuit, being announced at the same time as decertification and the show of the lead plaintiffs proves that the “union” is not interested in negotiations. They want to force the NFL to do their bidding by forming public opinion and playing on the sympathies of the court system. Taking a page from actual unions, they are forming a virtual picket line and attempting to intimidate future players from participating in an event that they have earned invitation to and may have been looking forward to for many years, the NFL draft.
A popular player, Adrian Peterson wasn’t being helpful to the “union” when he made incredibly short sighted comments in an interview on Yahoo sports:
Will the NFLPA’s tactics be successful? It seems likely as most of the sports media is complicit in force-feeding the public the “union” good, fat cat owners bad narrative. The “union’s” actions are very cynical and should be hurting their image but are being shielded by this narrative. Without the owners there would be no NFL and without the players there would be no league either but the league had to be there first for players to play. Millionaires comparing themselves to slaves demonstrate a stark separation from reality and excusing silly behavior because the owners are wealthier is a red herring argument without merit. For me personally the antics of the NFLPA and its unreasonable demands (for financial specifics) drown out their reasonable demands (not wanting an 18 game season). The owners are not sympathetic but at least seem to be acting in good faith while attempting to negotiate instead of the theatrics of the other side.
The timing of the lawsuit, being announced at the same time as decertification and the show of the lead plaintiffs proves that the “union” is not interested in negotiations. They want to force the NFL to do their bidding by forming public opinion and playing on the sympathies of the court system. Taking a page from actual unions, they are forming a virtual picket line and attempting to intimidate future players from participating in an event that they have earned invitation to and may have been looking forward to for many years, the NFL draft.
A popular player, Adrian Peterson wasn’t being helpful to the “union” when he made incredibly short sighted comments in an interview on Yahoo sports:
Peterson called the NFL’s arrangement with his players "modern-day slavery" and a "rip-off." He added that players "are getting robbed"What a mess. Peterson can attempt to walk back his comments but he said what he said and he comes off very badly as a result. Perhaps he did not mean for what he said to be made public but if it is what he truly thinks then it’s perfectly reasonable for it to be out there. His statements create a line where other players who desire to can choose to agree or disagree. As a statement it really demonstrates Peterson’s understanding, or lack thereof, of slavery.
Will the NFLPA’s tactics be successful? It seems likely as most of the sports media is complicit in force-feeding the public the “union” good, fat cat owners bad narrative. The “union’s” actions are very cynical and should be hurting their image but are being shielded by this narrative. Without the owners there would be no NFL and without the players there would be no league either but the league had to be there first for players to play. Millionaires comparing themselves to slaves demonstrate a stark separation from reality and excusing silly behavior because the owners are wealthier is a red herring argument without merit. For me personally the antics of the NFLPA and its unreasonable demands (for financial specifics) drown out their reasonable demands (not wanting an 18 game season). The owners are not sympathetic but at least seem to be acting in good faith while attempting to negotiate instead of the theatrics of the other side.
Friday, March 11, 2011
A lack of Responsibility
Following five hours of debate Wednesday evening the New Mexico state senate approved a bill to require fingerprinting, two documents to prove residency and license renewals every two years for those in the state illegally. Because there is not enough support in the state senate for an initiative that is supported by 80% of New Mexicans it seems likely that those in this state illegally will continue to be granted drivers licenses. Before considering the merits of either side, this issue must be framed within a simple truth. This discussion involves this state providing a benefit to people here illegally, as in, they have broken a law. For all the rhetoric one way or another we are talking about the allotment of a state benefit to non-citizen law breakers. For those who disagree with the law concerning who is and is not illegal, that is peripheral and irrelevant. The law is and state governments simply are not allowed to circumvent it at their convenience.
The two primary arguments presented in support of conferring driver’s licenses to those here illegally are first that because obtaining a drivers license requires insurance our roads will be safer because of more insured drivers and second that we are all generally safer from criminals who take advantage of this law because they are now in the license database and can be tracked.
Is there any data that proves that there are fewer uninsured drivers on New Mexico roads? A NMSU study looked at numbers provided by the New Mexico MVD and the Insurance Research Council (IRC, a consortium of industry) showing wildly different results. While both show similar numbers starting in 2002, the IRC number remains close to an average of 29% while MVD data steadily declines to 10% in 2008. MVD’s data is related to registered vehicles with no insurance while the IRC’s is related to car accident data. Basically the study was inconclusive, as stated it its executive summary.
The second point is confusing. Why would the government need to use the driver’s license database to track criminals? Is it possible to obtain a license as a criminal? And if these criminals have obtained licenses prior to becoming actual criminals how exactly is it helpful to know that they were able to obtain legal documents in New Mexico? And, as a democrat initiative is it even believable that democrat lawmakers would support using the MVD database for this ill-defined purpose?
The biggest proponent of the second argument is democrat state senator Eric Griego of Albuquerque who is best known for being a perpetual failed candidate for mayor in Albuquerque and for calling every listener of 770KKOB AM news radio and every supporter of ending the practice of giving driver’s licenses to those here illegally racist. This basically means that Griego is a pandering politician without an actual argument, instead retreating to caricaturing those who disagree with his nonsense position with cries of ray-cesss.
New Mexico’s driver’s licenses are in violation of the federal REAL ID Act and the only reason lawful residents of our state can travel to and through the rest of the United States is because a do-nothing U.S. Congress continues to grant postponements to the law’s implementation. Criminals from other countries are making New Mexico their first stop to take advantage of well meaning idiocy to travel freely to commit crimes all over the United States. There is no justifiable reason to continue this practice and it all starts with one simple word: illegal. New Mexico should not be providing a state form of identification to those who are not here legally.
The two primary arguments presented in support of conferring driver’s licenses to those here illegally are first that because obtaining a drivers license requires insurance our roads will be safer because of more insured drivers and second that we are all generally safer from criminals who take advantage of this law because they are now in the license database and can be tracked.
Is there any data that proves that there are fewer uninsured drivers on New Mexico roads? A NMSU study looked at numbers provided by the New Mexico MVD and the Insurance Research Council (IRC, a consortium of industry) showing wildly different results. While both show similar numbers starting in 2002, the IRC number remains close to an average of 29% while MVD data steadily declines to 10% in 2008. MVD’s data is related to registered vehicles with no insurance while the IRC’s is related to car accident data. Basically the study was inconclusive, as stated it its executive summary.
The second point is confusing. Why would the government need to use the driver’s license database to track criminals? Is it possible to obtain a license as a criminal? And if these criminals have obtained licenses prior to becoming actual criminals how exactly is it helpful to know that they were able to obtain legal documents in New Mexico? And, as a democrat initiative is it even believable that democrat lawmakers would support using the MVD database for this ill-defined purpose?
The biggest proponent of the second argument is democrat state senator Eric Griego of Albuquerque who is best known for being a perpetual failed candidate for mayor in Albuquerque and for calling every listener of 770KKOB AM news radio and every supporter of ending the practice of giving driver’s licenses to those here illegally racist. This basically means that Griego is a pandering politician without an actual argument, instead retreating to caricaturing those who disagree with his nonsense position with cries of ray-cesss.
New Mexico’s driver’s licenses are in violation of the federal REAL ID Act and the only reason lawful residents of our state can travel to and through the rest of the United States is because a do-nothing U.S. Congress continues to grant postponements to the law’s implementation. Criminals from other countries are making New Mexico their first stop to take advantage of well meaning idiocy to travel freely to commit crimes all over the United States. There is no justifiable reason to continue this practice and it all starts with one simple word: illegal. New Mexico should not be providing a state form of identification to those who are not here legally.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
The German Mindset
One of my best friends here is a German guy, who I've known since NJ and is now here. One of the things I've really enjoyed is getting to know the German mindset from him - he's in his 40s, so he was born right after the German "Wirtschaftswunder" (economic miracle) postwar and has lived a varied and interesting life. I've found a lot to admire in the German mindset, which gives me a little pride, as I've got a Germanic last name anyway. Just a few bullet points that you might find interesting:
- It is impossible to overestimate the level of national shame the Germans as a people feel about the Holocaust and the Nazi regime's crimes. In fact, it was only until the World Cup in 2006 that public displays of the German flag and other sorts of nationalism that are common everywhere else became widely accepted. I occasionally see the German tricolor on display in (gasp) Switzerland, even. Anyway, the guilt and shame still are raw to many, even though they had nothing to do with it (because they were born after it happened). I'm paraphrasing a quote here, but a guy said it "felt like being the son of a criminal". I find this tragic.
- It's not just Germany, it's also Austria. I met an Austrian girl and asked her what they did for their National Day - she said maybe sing the national anthem before class, and that was it. No fireworks, no nothing. In Switzerland, it sounds like a freakin war zone. But the Swiss didn't produce Hitler and engage in genocide, so it's ok for them.
- Germans are a very conservative people, in the sense that they are very calculated risk takers. They tend to manage their money very well, which is probably why the Deutsche mark was so strong before they were forced to convert to the Euro. They have insurance for everything.
- Children are EXTREMELY important in German culture - I mean, they imported kindergarten to the US. Just as an example: in Berlin, if you jaywalk or cross against a "Don't Walk" light, you will get chastised, even if there is no traffic. Why? Because a child might see you and follow your example.
- I find Germans and German speakers to have a better sense of personal responsibility than Americans, which is sad given our founding principles. I've had people here tell me that they hear about ridiculous lawsuits in America all the time, that it seems that people can sue you for anything...I can only nod in agreement. Here it's not the case - they figure if you are a stupid jackass, then you suffer the consequences for it. For that reason, fun semi-dangerous stuff doesn't abruptly end due to some idiot.
- Germans like Barack Obama, just like all Europeans. But I think it's only because they despised Bush. I don't think they have much respect for Obama, but are afraid they will seem racist if they say so - plus, they don't want to offend any Americans.
Anyway, just a few things. I think a lot of our mindset is shaped by our language, so I'm sure the German language has something to do with how they think. I wonder if someone has done that kind of research...
Switzerland
The 2011 Index of Economic Freedom was published a while back, and I got around to checking it out earlier this week. As one can see by looking at the top ten, the USA - supposedly the beacon of freedom and individual liberty for the world - continues to drop, and is close to falling out of the top 10. My current country of residence, Switzerland, held strong at number 5 and is the top country in Europe. Here's a short summary of my relevant experiences regarding this.
The Swiss have 4 national languages (and really, English is an unofficial national language). There is a sharp political divide between the more liberal French speaking cantons (similar to US states) and the more conservative German speaking cantons. In a continent in which political, religious, and ethnic differences have led to bloodbaths, how do they manage to build wealth that is the envy of Europe?
For one thing, they stay out of wars. I was a big time war hawk on Iraq/Afghanistan at one point, now I've rethought that for the past 5 years or so. Death and destruction are not effective tools for economic growth. Sure, there's a time to fight, but staying out of war is best - maybe later I can expand on this.
However, in my opinion, the major reason is that Switzerland is the federalist country that the USA wishes it was. The cantons hold much more power than the federal government. As an example, my federal taxes here are very low, on the order of 3%. The cantonal and communal taxes (yes, we pay local taxes too) are probably about 10-12%. This, to me, is preferable for two reasons - communes and cantons have to compete for taxpayers (individuals and businesses), and therefore adjust their rates accordingly. The federal government would feel no such pressure. Canton Schwyz, for example, would probably tax me at less than 5%! Nice canton too, maybe we should look into moving... [added later, forgot to add this] The second reason is that taxes paid locally and on the cantonal level are far more likely to benefit the taxpayer than the taxes paid to Bern. This reduces the likelihood of government waste, because it essentially places the product (taxpayer funded crap) closer to the customer (taxpayer). It creates a high level of civic engagement too, which I find refreshing.
This is just one example. Sure, the Swiss have some economic quirks I find irritating - for example, they are highly protectionist and therefore meat prices are unbelievably high. But overall, it's a great example of how federalism should work. The Swiss are a people proud of certain uniting characteristics - Alpine culture, banking secrecy, neutrality - and use these to unite their federation of cantons in spite of the enormous differences that exist, particularly language.
I'll try and post more on observations from Europe. I think I've gotten to know, in particular, the German (and German speaking) mindset. Till then - Tschüss!
Wednesday, March 09, 2011
Finders Keepers and Cold Hands
Where was my head yesterday afternoon? Not anywhere that could be considered functional. It started following an hour-long session on the elliptical at the gym. As I entered the locker room to change I realized that I had left the key chain containing my membership card and padlock key in the tray attached to the machine. Fortunately it was still there when I went back, only costing me a couple minutes. It continued on my way out. After changing I made it all the way to my motorcycle before realizing that I had left my jacket in the gym, in the front right pocket of which was my driver’s license and credit card. I then put my gym shoes and clothes into my trunk bag and went back in with my gloves in my pants pocket to retrieve the jacket which was still there. Then things got somewhat interesting.
Jacket now on I made it to my motorcycle again only to realize that I had dropped my gloves somewhere along the way. I started to walk towards the gym again with my gaze fixated on the ground. Looking up again I could see about fifteen yards ahead a woman briskly walking towards her car with a pair of black Alpinestars motorcycle gloves, my black Alpinestars motorcycle gloves. She was about to try them on. Yes, this person was planning to take my gloves home, finder’s keepers.
I called out to inform her that I believed that she had found my gloves. Seemingly startled by my calling out she replied, “Oh, I was surprised that no one was looking for these” to which I said, “yeah, it just happened a second ago and I was walking back towards the gym to find them, thank you for finding them”. She handed them over and looked to be a little embarrassed (or was it disappointment in the loss of her new gloves, I’ll never know). I thought about a clever retort but didn’t much feel like it. It might have been momentarily satisfying to call out this person but in the end I was just glad that I had found them and didn’t have to ride home without any hand protection having to spend an appreciable amount on a replacement pair.
This situation reminded me of a recent post by one of my Facebook friends. Their small child had lost a camera on an outing and was never found so they were wondering what their friends would do if they had encountered a lost camera. My reply was that I would leave it where it was. I wouldn’t take it but I wouldn’t try to find the owner or attempt to find a lost and found or anything either. Learning after the fact that the question was in regard to a child’s lost toy I was somewhat embarrassed by my response as I remember what it was like to lose something. I revised my response to taking them to some place of authority wherever it is that the item is found, in anticipation of some kind of lost and found.
Finders keepers is a term referred to above and it may seem justifiable, but really, finding my gloves outside of a gym and that person didn’t think that someone would be looking for them? That person didn’t have to do anything with them. They didn’t have to take them inside and hand them to the staff at the front desk; it would have been perfectly acceptable to leave them and continue walking. But to just pick them up, assume ownership and rush to her car is disappointing. At least I got there in time.
Jacket now on I made it to my motorcycle again only to realize that I had dropped my gloves somewhere along the way. I started to walk towards the gym again with my gaze fixated on the ground. Looking up again I could see about fifteen yards ahead a woman briskly walking towards her car with a pair of black Alpinestars motorcycle gloves, my black Alpinestars motorcycle gloves. She was about to try them on. Yes, this person was planning to take my gloves home, finder’s keepers.
I called out to inform her that I believed that she had found my gloves. Seemingly startled by my calling out she replied, “Oh, I was surprised that no one was looking for these” to which I said, “yeah, it just happened a second ago and I was walking back towards the gym to find them, thank you for finding them”. She handed them over and looked to be a little embarrassed (or was it disappointment in the loss of her new gloves, I’ll never know). I thought about a clever retort but didn’t much feel like it. It might have been momentarily satisfying to call out this person but in the end I was just glad that I had found them and didn’t have to ride home without any hand protection having to spend an appreciable amount on a replacement pair.
This situation reminded me of a recent post by one of my Facebook friends. Their small child had lost a camera on an outing and was never found so they were wondering what their friends would do if they had encountered a lost camera. My reply was that I would leave it where it was. I wouldn’t take it but I wouldn’t try to find the owner or attempt to find a lost and found or anything either. Learning after the fact that the question was in regard to a child’s lost toy I was somewhat embarrassed by my response as I remember what it was like to lose something. I revised my response to taking them to some place of authority wherever it is that the item is found, in anticipation of some kind of lost and found.
Finders keepers is a term referred to above and it may seem justifiable, but really, finding my gloves outside of a gym and that person didn’t think that someone would be looking for them? That person didn’t have to do anything with them. They didn’t have to take them inside and hand them to the staff at the front desk; it would have been perfectly acceptable to leave them and continue walking. But to just pick them up, assume ownership and rush to her car is disappointing. At least I got there in time.
Monday, March 07, 2011
Random Thoughts – 3/7
There is no worse non-life-threatening affliction in my opinion than allergies. I have been fortunate in my life to suffer nothing more than the occasional cold or flu or fever and nothing worse than some assorted broken bones. I left New Mexico and lived in Arizona from 2001-2005 and when I returned to the Albuquerque area I was met with severe allergies that I never before experienced. My reactions have returned this weekend and have been quite crippling. I have not been able to breathe through my nose, have a sore throat and headache. Zyrtec, Allegra and Zicam, nothing has helped. I hope that I can get this taken care of in a Doctor’s appointment I have scheduled later this week.
Heather Wilson is running for U.S. Senator next year. I still prefer the not as of yet running Doug Turner but Wilson is definitely candidate 1a and will make an excellent Senator if elected. Congressman Heinrich is supposedly running and would be a horrible Senator if elected and we can only hope that he abandons his House seat to run only to lose in the end.
All the talk about potential 2012 presidential candidates huddling in Iowa or New Hampshire makes me very politically grumpy. It is asinine that these two states effectively determine the general election candidates for president. The voting rights act, a relic from a much different time and place, is renewed even though it’s only purpose is to allow meddling lawyers in the justice department to micro-manage imaginary problems while two states get to pick from the full palette of candidates forcing their preferences on the rest of the country. I don’t care what ridiculous reason is given; no state should be allowed to have their primary so much earlier than other states. If these states want to hold their primary incredibly early they should be barred from releasing results until the rest of the states can.
When ever, in a business sense, is it acceptable to answer a question with a repeated statement that has nothing to do with the question or with the response ‘I guess’? I spent almost an hour today on the phone asking what I thought was a simple question and receiving an irrelevant statement containing information that I already know as a response. So I had to restate and re-wrap and finally restated what I thought and when I sought agreement was told ‘I guess”. I already knew what I already knew and didn’t know what I didn’t know so I asked the question and belligerent responses containing what I already know was all I got. Maybe it’s the allergies causing me to not say what I think I’m saying, making it so that I am asking something that is basically incomprehensible. Being allergic certainly does make me even grumpier in my dealings with people who absolutely refuse to write anything down or answer what should be a simple question definitively.
Heather Wilson is running for U.S. Senator next year. I still prefer the not as of yet running Doug Turner but Wilson is definitely candidate 1a and will make an excellent Senator if elected. Congressman Heinrich is supposedly running and would be a horrible Senator if elected and we can only hope that he abandons his House seat to run only to lose in the end.
All the talk about potential 2012 presidential candidates huddling in Iowa or New Hampshire makes me very politically grumpy. It is asinine that these two states effectively determine the general election candidates for president. The voting rights act, a relic from a much different time and place, is renewed even though it’s only purpose is to allow meddling lawyers in the justice department to micro-manage imaginary problems while two states get to pick from the full palette of candidates forcing their preferences on the rest of the country. I don’t care what ridiculous reason is given; no state should be allowed to have their primary so much earlier than other states. If these states want to hold their primary incredibly early they should be barred from releasing results until the rest of the states can.
When ever, in a business sense, is it acceptable to answer a question with a repeated statement that has nothing to do with the question or with the response ‘I guess’? I spent almost an hour today on the phone asking what I thought was a simple question and receiving an irrelevant statement containing information that I already know as a response. So I had to restate and re-wrap and finally restated what I thought and when I sought agreement was told ‘I guess”. I already knew what I already knew and didn’t know what I didn’t know so I asked the question and belligerent responses containing what I already know was all I got. Maybe it’s the allergies causing me to not say what I think I’m saying, making it so that I am asking something that is basically incomprehensible. Being allergic certainly does make me even grumpier in my dealings with people who absolutely refuse to write anything down or answer what should be a simple question definitively.
Thursday, March 03, 2011
On the NFL inanities
I blame scripted entertainment, movies and television specifically. Earlier this week I watched the movie Wall Street in anticipation of watching the recently released sequel as if the first were a prerequisite. It is a perfectly entertaining pile of dreck that follows the typical narrative of corporate bad and unions good. Viewers have been allegorically beaten senseless by this narrative in just about every work related to either subject. In Wall Street corporate raider and general scumbag Gordon Gecko exploits the son of the uber-sympathetic everyman union representative Carl Fox. The problem with this narrative is that the characters are nothing more than fictional representations only useful for caricaturing a reality that cannot possibly be explained in 100 minutes. In the end this narrative shapes the perceptions of viewers causing them to view real-people as cheap, simple to characterize cartoons.
The current caricature of the moment is the “labor dispute” in the NFL with Commissioner Roger Goodell, 31 team owners and Green Bay’s shareholder representative as Gordon Geckos and Charlie Batch as the loveable Carl Fox union representative. Don’t believe me that this is the basic template? What about a poll on the Mike & Mike page showing 60% support for the players versus the owners? How do you explain a highly trafficked sports website’s resident columnist vomiting by keyboard the following:
Make no mistake, if you don't get to watch football next fall, it will be because 31 rich a******s (and whatever cheese-and-sausage co-op owns the Packers) have decided that they aren't rich enough. Period.
This type of opinion is nothing more than a reflection of the decades old narrative that has been spoon-fed to the public in television and movies. As if the NFL players association is in any way similar to any other union that has ever existed. As if the NFL as an enterprise is similar to any other company. Neither is and whatever division that exists between the NFL and the players association exists between those two entities and any agreement amongst them must be accepted by both parties as they decided to create a reality where both symbiotically exist. In a sense public opinion is important because they are after all the customer of the product and after years of subsidizing stadiums via tax dollars deserve to understand what’s going on. But as a private enterprise, the two parties must be allowed to negotiate in private. And as a symbolic stadium landlord (if your current municipality is so lucky to have subsidized such a thing) unfortunately you get to pound sand as your rent-seeking politicians are the ones who directed your contributions to building very large buildings that you have to pay ever increasing amounts to step inside of.
Perhaps it’s the contrarian in me but all this prototypical thinking; owners bad, players good makes me root for the owners. In truth I don’t blame nor do I cheer either side. The end result of no NFL is no good but at this point it is what it is. There was an agreement and in that agreement there was the ability to opt-out at a certain time. The party who could opt-out decided to do just that and now they have to re-negotiate the agreement. Both sides understand that there is a likelihood that prolonged negotiations could pre-empt sales of their product which could lead to angry customers doing considerable damage to the brand that is responsible for both side’s lucrative being. It seems reasonable to assume that in the end cooler heads will prevail and agreement will be reached. And if not, then they will face the consequences of their actions. But why think intelligently about it, when the sides can be split into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on fictional caricatures?
The current caricature of the moment is the “labor dispute” in the NFL with Commissioner Roger Goodell, 31 team owners and Green Bay’s shareholder representative as Gordon Geckos and Charlie Batch as the loveable Carl Fox union representative. Don’t believe me that this is the basic template? What about a poll on the Mike & Mike page showing 60% support for the players versus the owners? How do you explain a highly trafficked sports website’s resident columnist vomiting by keyboard the following:
Make no mistake, if you don't get to watch football next fall, it will be because 31 rich a******s (and whatever cheese-and-sausage co-op owns the Packers) have decided that they aren't rich enough. Period.
This type of opinion is nothing more than a reflection of the decades old narrative that has been spoon-fed to the public in television and movies. As if the NFL players association is in any way similar to any other union that has ever existed. As if the NFL as an enterprise is similar to any other company. Neither is and whatever division that exists between the NFL and the players association exists between those two entities and any agreement amongst them must be accepted by both parties as they decided to create a reality where both symbiotically exist. In a sense public opinion is important because they are after all the customer of the product and after years of subsidizing stadiums via tax dollars deserve to understand what’s going on. But as a private enterprise, the two parties must be allowed to negotiate in private. And as a symbolic stadium landlord (if your current municipality is so lucky to have subsidized such a thing) unfortunately you get to pound sand as your rent-seeking politicians are the ones who directed your contributions to building very large buildings that you have to pay ever increasing amounts to step inside of.
Perhaps it’s the contrarian in me but all this prototypical thinking; owners bad, players good makes me root for the owners. In truth I don’t blame nor do I cheer either side. The end result of no NFL is no good but at this point it is what it is. There was an agreement and in that agreement there was the ability to opt-out at a certain time. The party who could opt-out decided to do just that and now they have to re-negotiate the agreement. Both sides understand that there is a likelihood that prolonged negotiations could pre-empt sales of their product which could lead to angry customers doing considerable damage to the brand that is responsible for both side’s lucrative being. It seems reasonable to assume that in the end cooler heads will prevail and agreement will be reached. And if not, then they will face the consequences of their actions. But why think intelligently about it, when the sides can be split into ‘good’ and ‘bad’ based on fictional caricatures?
The Stale Situation
While the entire world as presented by the news media seems to be singularly obsessed with the incoherent ramblings of an actor, the consequences of his actions may lead to the dissolution of a genre of television that can be referred to as the all-too-literal situation comedy. There was once upon a time that I would have been disappointed to learn of the demise of the comedy, Two and a Half Men, but for more than a while it has served as nothing more than background noise in the absence of anything better on in the vetes household. But now The Cape airs opposite and something better is indeed on.
When it first aired it was funny, interesting and different. And many years later after changing nothing, it is the complete opposite; unamusing, boring and derivative. What went wrong was that the show outlived its usefulness after a few years, addicted to high ratings which seemed to have made the creators resistant to any meaningful change. It’s impossible to blame the creators for their adherence to a strict formula as the show continues to garner top scripted comedy ratings year after year.
Sitcom is a compound made up word short for situation comedy, which is typically referred to as a group of recurring characters in a common environment who find themselves in farcical situations. Hilarity ensues. Rinse, lather, syndication. The failure of Two and a Half Men is in that it is an all-too-literal sitcom meaning that the entire show is predicated on a very specific situation that for the purposes of the title can bear no variance whatsoever, therefore the characters can never change and nothing different can occur. This can work in a cartoon, like the Simpsons, but not for long in a live action show.
CBS, the network which airs Two and a Half Men is a master of this genre, their half-hour comedy offerings are littered with examples. How I met your Mother, a decent show is so stale and riddled with false starts related to the show’s premise that if Henry Winkler guest starred for some shark jumping off the Hudson River, no one would be surprised. It might have already occurred. Mike and Molly and Mad Love, two shows about the romance of a specific couple are basically interchangeable minus the settings and specific characters and can never veer from that romance. Rules of Engagement stars a perpetually engaged couple whom are always talking about a wedding that never comes. All rubbish.
The only comedy on CBS that is currently watchable is The Big Bang Theory which follows a group of Physicists, an Engineer and one Physicist’s actress object of affection as they mostly do nothing. It will grow stale as well, but after a longer time and for normal reasons, the characters will get old. Being a physicist is a career and not a situation. And it’s plausible that a socially awkward group of friends would likely be long-term roommates. And that hilarity will often ensue. Friends and Seinfeld proved in the 90’s that shows based on basically nothing have the longest shelf life and one can only hope that the demise of Two and a Half Men will lead to more shows based on generalities rather than the hyper specific.
When it first aired it was funny, interesting and different. And many years later after changing nothing, it is the complete opposite; unamusing, boring and derivative. What went wrong was that the show outlived its usefulness after a few years, addicted to high ratings which seemed to have made the creators resistant to any meaningful change. It’s impossible to blame the creators for their adherence to a strict formula as the show continues to garner top scripted comedy ratings year after year.
Sitcom is a compound made up word short for situation comedy, which is typically referred to as a group of recurring characters in a common environment who find themselves in farcical situations. Hilarity ensues. Rinse, lather, syndication. The failure of Two and a Half Men is in that it is an all-too-literal sitcom meaning that the entire show is predicated on a very specific situation that for the purposes of the title can bear no variance whatsoever, therefore the characters can never change and nothing different can occur. This can work in a cartoon, like the Simpsons, but not for long in a live action show.
CBS, the network which airs Two and a Half Men is a master of this genre, their half-hour comedy offerings are littered with examples. How I met your Mother, a decent show is so stale and riddled with false starts related to the show’s premise that if Henry Winkler guest starred for some shark jumping off the Hudson River, no one would be surprised. It might have already occurred. Mike and Molly and Mad Love, two shows about the romance of a specific couple are basically interchangeable minus the settings and specific characters and can never veer from that romance. Rules of Engagement stars a perpetually engaged couple whom are always talking about a wedding that never comes. All rubbish.
The only comedy on CBS that is currently watchable is The Big Bang Theory which follows a group of Physicists, an Engineer and one Physicist’s actress object of affection as they mostly do nothing. It will grow stale as well, but after a longer time and for normal reasons, the characters will get old. Being a physicist is a career and not a situation. And it’s plausible that a socially awkward group of friends would likely be long-term roommates. And that hilarity will often ensue. Friends and Seinfeld proved in the 90’s that shows based on basically nothing have the longest shelf life and one can only hope that the demise of Two and a Half Men will lead to more shows based on generalities rather than the hyper specific.
Tuesday, March 01, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)