A Failed Stimuli Analogy

The brilliance of the democrat party is the ability of their mouthpieces to broadly apply the typically incomprehensible machinations of big government logic into effective sound bites applying nonsense that somehow seems similar to day-to-day activities. If the world was just this shell game administered by big government types would be dismissed as laughable. Unfortunately, big government has been winning for so long that the federal government is utterly confounding to most citizens and because of that it’s easier to conceptualize its unnecessary largess by talking point.

Recently a friend and successful small-business owner intoned on how perfectly logical the idea of the government’s stimulus was. The way that he understood it was as analogous to a slow month for his business necessitating some purchases on credit card based on the idea of building future business. And that was exactly how the failed stimulus was sold but never could have worked.

The reason is that the government only consumes. It does not produce anything that is actually demanded by actual consumers. There are certainly ‘entitlements’ and ‘benefits’ but as their names describe, they are demanded by beneficiaries that do not pay for their use. They are paid for by the government taking (in the form of taxes) from citizens who mostly do not consume or demand these ‘entitlements’. Because they are ‘free’ to those who consume them the demand for so-called ‘entitlements’ is often much greater than supply and to provide for more demand those who do not consume these ‘entitlements’ must be taxed even more.

The stimulus was meant to make large capitol purchases and to fix useful government offerings such as roads which in theory require people to do things that they are paid for and then in turn they would buy things after being paid. Bam, economy stimulated. Even better, democrats told us that not only would those who were paid would buy things, but that others would be motivated to spend by their spending resulting in a ‘multiplier’ effect where the economy would somehow magically grow at a rate greater than the money spent by the government.

Problem was that the stimulus was temporary and unsustainable. The new employee might not want to spend that money too quickly knowing that they’ll likely to be out of a job once the stimulus ended. And those businesses augmented by the spending also knew it was temporary, why would they invest in anything knowing that once complete with stimulus work future projects may not be there? Worse, much of the funding was used as stop-gap measures in state budgets, allowing them to avoid deficits by allotting those funds to existing debt where it did nothing useful.

An artificial infusion of cold-hard cash into the economy may provide a sugar rush but in the end that money has to be paid back sometime and those whom are taxed most acutely understand that they and future earners will be on the hook. Whereas my friend understands the business that he is in and can effectively plan for ways to grow his business by spending, our federal government has proven many times over that it cannot understand how to effectively make decisions for every citizen’s business. If my friend loses his investment, he’s out personally so he’s very careful with accounting. The government never does because democrats always blame “the rich” for their addiction to spending and claim that raising taxes will lift all boats. And when the country would have to find $15 trillion just to make it to even there isn’t enough to tax.

Fanboy Death Cultists Ruin Viewing Enjoyment

The first time that I encountered the phenomena was when I started to watch “The Sopranos”. With each successive episode the interwebs were aflutter with rumors surrounding the eventual demise (in the mortal way) of the show’s main character. Discussion centered on the how, when, where and by whom and it had become a foregone conclusion that Tony Soprano just had to be whacked at some point or another. Years went by and nothing. And then in the series finale, the final scene was an intense sequence of happenings about a family dinner in a restaurant. Anxiety built second by second inviting the viewer’s imagination to run wild in regard to what would happen next. And then…nothing, the scene cut to black and “The Sopranos” moved on to syndication. The interwebs exploded with dissatisfaction over the seeming lack of finality. I thought that the ending was perfect as it demonstrated the anxiety Tony Soprano dealt with all the time. But what do I know?

Another HBO show, “Big Love”, about polygamy illustrated another example of the phenomena. Again, the main character’s eventual earthly demise was an oft-discussed topic, which was confusing, as the lead character was a hardware store owning politician. Certainly Bill Hendrickson had a large number of enemies for a suburbanite who wasn’t the head of a mob family but the obsession with whether or not he would be taken out seemed out of place. In the end, the show decided to end poor Bill, by making a peripheral character act out mindlessly over a triviality, and his three wives thrived in his absence. Apparently the moral of the “Big Love” story was that polygamy equals female empowerment, if the dude’s out of the picture. I thought that the ending was silly and meant to sate the palates of the death obsessed and avoid online criticism.

This phenomena, the obsessive cult of death, is a powerfully annoying segment of the fanboy persuasion at the moment. It is made up of know it all, impossible to satisfy sophists who think that no television series is any good unless main character(s) are somehow dispatched someway for the made up reason that these characters’ deaths adds depth to a story. These kinds of people would rather Ross and Rachel run over by a cab than get back together. They would have had Frasier dive off the Space Needle rather than move on. Michael Scott in Colorado? Of course not, they would rather him be face down in the Colorado. Apparently the emotional ties these cultists have to television characters require end of lives to coincide with the end of a show.

This week the interwebs gleamed with self-satisfaction and congratulations over the “brave” decision HBO made in killing off the character in the excellent “Game of Thrones” played by the actor listed first in the opening credits, apparently the ‘lead’ character. But was it really that brave? I ask knowing that “Game of Thrones” is the television adaptation of a book first published in 1996 in which this ‘lead’ character was assassinated as part of the larger story, which really isn’t about him. It wasn’t brave; it was true to the story on which the television show was based. Unfortunately the obsessive cult of death, who apparently doesn’t read, being obsessive and all couldn’t help themselves. It’s too bad because “Game of Thrones” is an excellent and riveting fantasy done well as a television show and is better enjoyed for what it is rather than congratulated for killing off characters.

The never-ending campaign

It depends on one’s perspective the virtue of certain candidates for President next year. There are a number of reasons, beyond simple partisan politics, that this country should elect a new President next year even though the incumbent is running for re-election.

The current President was elected on a wave of charisma and sloganeering making sweeping proclamations, blaming President Bush for every ill in the country and winning on a thin resume that was mostly ignored by the media believing in the nebulous hope and change. Unemployment is worse than at his inauguration and at any point during the prior President’s tenure, and is much higher than that promised by the President if his “stimulus” package were passed. It was passed and benefits are hard to identify. Instead it has opened the gate to further proliferate spending leading to a two year increase in the nation’s deficit that is worse than that of the previous eight combined.

The President does not identify policies implemented throughout his tenure as deficient for not meeting his grandiose assurances, instead continuing to blame President Bush and asking for more of the same as if the problem isn’t with spending money that doesn’t exist, instead the problem is that we do not spend enough of what we do not have. We are expected to accept higher prices and more control in the private sector because we are told that central planners better understand the best interests of 300 million people in countless disparate communities and across thousands of industries better than ourselves and that our planet’s security is best suited by unproven at best methodologies. We are expected to accept indeterminate metrics such as jobs “saved”. Corporations are demonized for “sitting” on trillions of dollars while changing and growing regulations increase the cost of employment and doing business.

The President has already begun his campaign for re-election and is running as the same unknown quantity in face of a resume as President. Will it work? It depends. Much of the added deficit has been dedicated to increasing unemployment benefits and increasing welfare rolls to unprecedented levels, increasing dependency on government. The President’s case rests in the idea that the failures of his policies as stated are attributable to past events or require more time than projected. It also requires a significant portion of the electorate to believe that they cannot do any better than the just enough provided them by government programs once meant only to be a safety net but are now considered entitlements. Enough, the only thing that this President seems to be able to do is campaign. This President has failed by any real metric and does not deserve to be President for another four years.

And the NBA crowns a deserving champion

As a dedicated anti-fan of the Dallas Cowboys and as a fan of the outclassed and vanquished LA Lakers, it was not easy to cheer for the Mavericks in the NBA finals. Or was it? The Mavs do represent an annoying portion of an annoying state after all. But, they have a roster made up of likeable players including familiar veterans and are owned by a crazy billionaire who has the passion of a fan. Also, they are anchored by a 13 year veteran of the league, a fun loving 7 footer who plays like a 2 guard. And, in the finals they were pitted against a team that defined arrogance and premature celebration. Sure, Jason Terry of the Mavs tattooed the NBA trophy on his arm last post season, but that was mere silly exuberance from a role player when compared with “The Decision” and braggadocios statements about not 6. OK, maybe it wouldn’t be too hard to root for the Mavs after all.

It wasn’t that hard to admit that the Lakers deserved to lose. They were blown out and fell apart in the process. Kobe Bryant is one of the greatest players of his generation (and we happen to share a birth year) but he too often resorts to being a ball hog, making Lakers’ games difficult to watch. The Mavericks beat the Lakers in four straight in this year’s Western Conference Semifinals and it wasn’t even close.

Twice recently, the Mavericks lost in the first round of the NBA playoffs seeded first in the Western Conference, last year to the Spurs and in 2007 to the Golden State Warriors. In 2006, they made the finals and won the first two games, only to lose to the Miami Heat. These playoff failures branded the Mavs as chokers. Even with that reputation the Mavs have become playoff regulars, making it to the NBA’s playoffs every season since 2000, the year that Mark Cuban bought the team. Before that, the Mavs made the playoffs six times in twenty seasons. Eleven in a row is quite a feat.

In addition to finals MVP and 13 year veteran Dirk Nowitzki, the Mavs also feature Jason Kidd, a hall of fame point guard who was drafted by the Mavs in 1994 before leaving 1996 and spending 12 years between the Suns and Nets before returning. They also feature Shawn Marion and Caron Butler, two excellent players who have been on many different teams. They also feature JJ Barea, a 5 foot 9 point guard who seems to be able to score on anyone and even guarded 6 foot 9 LeBron James for appreciable stretches.

What the Mavs are is a great team, one that deserved to win the NBA championship. They proved it by winning four series against top competition. They beat the defending NBA champion Lakers in four straight games. They beat two up and coming teams in the Trailblazers and the Thunder. And, as a finale they beat the Miami Heat, a team with three of the league’s best players put together by a person with five rings as a coach and one as a player. The Mavericks were easy to root for and they deserved to win.

And the Heat lose...

I wanted to write about the conclusion to the NBA season in two parts because of the divergent storylines dominant today. The less important of the two is in regard to the so-called failure of the Miami Heat; the on his way out Chris Bosh, the apparently soon to be fired Erik Spoelstra, the unretiring Pat Riley, Dwyane Wade the premature showboating snot and the sometimes anointed greatest player in the game and serial choker, LeBron James.

That’s a lot of baggage for a basketball team located in one of the nicest parts of our country. And none of it matters, after all, basketball is just a game and while the goal of the NBA is to win the championship it isn’t really that much of a failure to win two games in the finals.

LeBron James showed his arrogant immaturity with an otherwise benign comment at the conclusion of the series meant to demonstrate that life is bigger than basketball but since he doesn’t think before speaking and has had no one do anything other than kiss up to him since he was like 12 he missed and said it in the most condescending way possible. Watching the comment I understood his meaning but couldn’t help wincing, what a jerk.

James couldn’t help himself earlier either, mocking the easiest to cheer player on the court, mindlessly following Wade’s faux coughing fits. Wade himself attempted to assert himself as a leader but instead couldn’t come back completely from a hip injury in game 5 and wasted years of goodwill with boorish behavior.

Of the so-called “big 3” Chris Bosh is who everyone thought he was. He played as well as he ever has and no one should expect anything more. Only disillusioned Miami fans or those whom have never seen a game before (all apologies for the redundancy) would have mistaken Bosh’s game for a close approximation of Wade’s or Jame’s. And that’s ok, it’s the NBA’s weird max salary rules that lead to a player like Bosh, who is very good but not great, to be paid like the absolute best in the game. It would be shameful if Bosh is scapegoated and then traded, but if he is, one hopes he is sent somewhere he can be appreciated and play his game.

So what does Miami do now? Do they blow everything up and start from scratch? That’s ridiculous. No matter the drama, no matter the disappointment of this season, the Miami Heat is a work in progress. Coach Erik Spoelstra has proven himself able and ready. He has worked for the Heat for more than ten years and earned his job the hard way. The Heat, with a completely revamped roster and employing with two players used to being the number one option, won two games in the NBA finals in their first year. Starting over for the second year will do nothing but lead to more disappointment. Considering the chaos, the constant chatter and pressure on the Heat this past NBA season, for them to make it to the finals, they will be back. So long as they build on what they have already done.

An Overreaction in College Sports

In recent college sports related news a ten year football coach with a national championship on his resume resigned because of NCAA regulations, an eight year athletic director who has fired two high profile coaches (one considered a legend and another who broke NCAA rules) and hired another who left after one year (and also supposedly broke NCAA rules) resigned, A QB who exchanged memorabilia for tattoos and perhaps received other benefits will abandon his senior year in college and finally, a storied football program will have a national title from nearly a decade ago vacated in addition to ongoing punishments to the current team because the family of one player on that team took benefits.

Certainly college athletics is going through a very interesting time. When news like this breaks en masse over a relatively short period of time it can seem as though there is an intractable mess of things in college athletics and can convey an unflattering image. When considered against hundreds of colleges with sports programs that exist, further examination of NCAA rules and enforcement and uncertainty in regard to the behavior of past college programs that image softens a bit.

There seems to be a conventional wisdom within sports media that an NCAA violation constitutes some malicious deed resulting in a news cycle hate of a person who may have just lost their career or their opportunity for an education or preparation for a future in professional sports. It certainly isn’t easy to find sympathy with someone who broke rules governing their livelihood and the punishments received are justified because those in these positions must understand the consequences of such actions when entering that environment, however, the public condemnation of these people is often over the line and is unnecessary.

Much of the reason lies within NCAA rules and enforcement. Coaches are fired for too much contact with recruits, an arbitrary limit set each time technology provides a new possibility. Coaches are chastised for not knowing the personal lives of a single player of more than a 100 while they work 15 hour days throughout the season. Players are made out to be simpletons who cannot understand the rules and likened to servants because to some their relatively charmed college existence isn’t more like that of a professional’s, a life which very few of them will ever know. Players on a team in 2011 cannot play in the postseason because of the actions of a single player and his family who moved on six years ago.

Sports media opinion when it comes to college sanctions range from the lecturing and judgmental to insane, suggesting prison or outrageous fines for what basically amount to thought crimes and selfishness. Others irresponsibly use it to push for making college sports into basically a minor league, advocating salaries for players while completely ignoring the fact that most programs could never survive such a system and could effectively destroy college sports. What’s missing is a sense of proportion and an ability to step back and contemplate that sports is not a life and death thing and that while these actions are wrong they are not doing real, actual harm to anyone. No one is being literally robbed nor physically harmed. A need for drama and hate objects too often clouds effective reasoning.

And “The Diesel” Retires

Seven foot one inch center Shaquille O’Neal spent eighteen years in the NBA, playing for six teams, his longest and most successful stint of eight seasons, coming with the Lakers. The Lakers have announced that they plan to retire 34, Shaq’s uniform number when he was on the team, a deserved honor. In those eight Lakers seasons, O’Neal averaged 27 points on a 58.4% shooting average, 12 rebounds and 2 blocks over about 64 games per season. And even those gaudy statistics don’t do complete justice to the menacing physical presence that defined Shaq during his Lakers tenure. He wasn’t a great free throw shooter and he never made a 3 pointer in purple and yellow but his rap, “Shoot Pass Slam” answers what kind of player Shaq was and why he was so effective a center.

I remember first seeing Shaq when he absolutely dominated opposing college teams across two seasons at LSU. His first four seasons in the NBA, with the Orlando Magic (who were fortunate to have the first pick in the draft when Shaq joined the NBA) that dominance almost instantly translated; he averaged 23.4 points a game his rookie season and improved to a staggering 29.3 in both his second and third. Some speculated that Shaq would have a relatively short NBA career because of his size and a propensity for shortened seasons and overweight appearances at the beginning of training camp. Ultimately, he was able to prove that idea wrong by remaining at least a factor for 18 seasons, even averaging 17.8 points over 75 games during his 2008-2009 season for the Suns.

Shaq has been known for his personality almost as much as his game, releasing multiple rap albums, staring in movies (including the serious Blue Chips in 1994) and making himself available for appearances and comments regarding sports, pop culture and most anything.

As a Lakers fan I had to choose when Shaq’s conflicts with Kobe Bryant became untenable and even though he can be a ball-hogging snit, I chose Kobe just like the Lakers did. In comments and behavior Shaq made his dislike of Bryant and dissatisfaction with the Lakers well known, even attributing it as a motivational factor in the NBA Championship he earned with the Heat in 2006.

Begrudged statements from Shaq were often over the line in my opinion and the fact that he played for four teams, in ever decreasing amounts of time following his Lakers tenure soured Shaq for me. Many seemed to identify him as media savvy and as an intelligent self-marketer and certainly Shaq was both but he also made himself a caricature because of his appetite for attention and dismaying things that he said often about Kobe and many others. And because he can’t help himself, Shaq the icon unfortunately cannot be separated from Shaq the bully, just another reason to make explicit the fact that he cannot be considered a role model. But he did give LA eight great seasons and he will no doubt have many more years in the public eye. I wince at the thought while wishing Shaq good luck in retirement.

What Costs What, Medically?

Two months ago, I received a bill from my healthcare provider related to a visit a month prior where some medical things were done. It was a simple one page document listing the dates of service and a hand written request for several hundred dollars for services on those dates. Apparently my health care plan did not cover whatever it was that occurred during that visit and the provider did not know until a month later. Missing from this bill was any information regarding what it was that I was paying for. At the bottom of the page was a phone number for a “Jessica”.

I called and left a message informing “Jessica” that I do not pay several hundred dollars for anything in the absence of details regarding services performed. My call was unanswered but several days later I received another package from the provider containing several pages detailing my account showing that according to their records that I owed several hundred dollars for a visit but alas there was no information about what exactly I was paying for. I called “Jessica” the next day and left another message requesting detailed billing information. My call again went unreturned and a couple days later I received another bill, this time asking for several hundred dollars plus twenty dollars for another visit. Of course there were no details beyond dates.

The next day I called several times until “Jessica” actually answered the phone. I was told multiple times that the cost of the service received was what I owed but was not told what those services were. I mentioned that I was not even given a choice during the visits nor was I presented with cost information that could have been used to make an informed decision. “Jessica’s” reply was that it was my responsibility to request that information and that the doctor only acts in my best interests. After restating my case several times, “Jessica” repeated the same information over and over again, raising her voice to the point where she was basically incoherently screeching. I needed to talk to an adult. I inquired about her supervisor and was given the number for and transferred to “Mary Bell”.

After a couple of calls I was able to reach “Mary Bell” who had a very sympathetic tone and promised to send me the requested information and was able to describe a couple of the services performed and their incredibly high costs. I balked at those costs and “Mary Bell” told me that their costs were set by Medicare. I told “Mary Bell” that I did not care about Medicare as I was not a Medicare patient. She then told me that the costs were set by insurance. I replied that this obviously wasn’t true because if my insurance had set the costs wouldn’t they had paid it? I mean, I pay them. “Mary Bell” very sympathetically attempted to feign empathy and again promised to send me the requested details and offered to have someone call me to discuss prices. That was three weeks ago and I have received no more information and have not been called by anyone from the provider.

I ask myself why is it that my healthcare provider does not want to send me details regarding services performed leading to a bill for several hundred dollars? Should I not expect to know what it is that I’m paying for? This is a huge problem with our country’s third party (that would be my health plan) payer health care system, providers become incredulous when the receiver (me) wants to know what’s behind the curtain. Imagine if you went to a restaurant and the waiter decided what you would eat and instead of paying for the meal, you “co-pay” according to a food provider that you pay monthly and then later you receive another bill for the meal because the food provider didn’t cover the meal that the waiter chose for you. That’s insane and so is what I’m dealing with. And to think, some uniformed people think the answer is to involve the government. We’re doomed.

Difficulties within the Law

Another holiday weekend in New Mexico and more repeat DWI offenders kill innocents in traffic accidents. It’s like clockwork with hand-wringing and explorations of the reasons behind these kinds of occurrences and how to punish the offenders on 770 KKOB this morning. Some of the opinions are vague and pointless such as suggesting some kind of undefined and undiscovered magic pharmaceutical to “cure” alcoholics. Other opinions are more of the “throw up the hands in the air” variety, decrying the judicial system and connections that many offenders seem to have and a lack of will from judges to follow strict sentencing guidelines. Others offer police state solutions to include forcing retailers to have breathalyzers to the implantation of chips in people that would monitor their blood-alcohol level and tying that information to the operation of their vehicles. The host, Jim Clark, laid all responsibility on the accused and suggested mandatory life sentences for repeat DWI offenders who commit vehicular homicide, a reasonable opinion and solution. Too much of the conversation from the listeners, however, disassociated responsibility from the perpetrators, blaming others for these horrific actions and offering up so-called solutions that will likely prove ineffective while taking away freedoms from people who are responsible.

Drunk drivers have plagued our society since the advent of the automobile and a solution to the problem has proved elusive. Spreading responsibility, considering servers and alcohol sellers equal in guilt for the actions of adults in not the answer. Of course the clearly inebriated should not be provided more to drink but there is no way for someone to judge a person’s capacity for drinks by sight alone and keep track of every person’s intake simultaneously considered against that capacity. It is also impossible to know if a repeat offender will eventually commit a deadly crime driving in the future and there is no justification to preemptively jail anyone based on the presumption of future crimes as some suggest. It is one thing to install a breathalyzer in a person’s car but another to physically implant something (if such a technique actually existed) in a person.

Giving up isn’t an option. Encouraging responsibility and punishing crimes harshly makes sense. A first time DWI requires sincere reflection and a reconsideration of one’s priorities and situation. A second should require one to consider their consumption of alcohol. While a one-time DWI is a reason for concern, punishment should not destroy a person’s life. A second should include a much stiffer punishment that still allows the perpetrator to re-integrate into society. More occurrences should increase punishment and if a multiple DWI offender should kill someone when they are driving drunk their three strikes should be up. These punishments must be non-negotiable and applied in every case without any other consideration. Starting from grade school, public education must include strict and frequent lessons on personal responsibility and the consequences that can result in its absence. There is no way to eliminate DWI without eliminating automobiles and every possible kind of stimulant. The best that can be done is to ensure that it isn’t a worthwhile path and that people understand and accept their responsibilities.

A Couple Sporting Thoughts

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

Random Debt Thoughts – 4/14

A quote from the Wall Street Journal this morning:

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.

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.

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.

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.