Again, with the “Fat Cats”

The President of the United States believes that our country has a revenue problem, that all of the fiscal problems that now exist are the result of government not making enough money. The solution, of course, is to raise revenue and the way to do so is easy according to the great seer Obama, by going after greedy oil companies, private jet owners and “millionaires and billionaires” who are not paying their fair share. Only then when those who pay up from their ill-gotten gains will the country be healed by way of college scholarships for whomever wants them and construction jobs for those tackling the nation’s decrepit (according to the President) infrastructure.

How much sophomoric class warfare nonsense is enough? How many people actually believe the President’s constant demagoguery and simplistic view of the world? Has the country already forgotten the stimulus from 2009? The more than $800 billion in spending that the President told us would limit unemployment and fix our crumbled infrastructure? With the rash of waivers given to political allies does anyone believe that Obamacare will actually deliver better health care for less and allow everyone to keep their current coverage if desired as promised by the President?

Politically there is no consequence to the President’s irresponsible rhetoric. The top ten percent of earners in this country pay 70% of taxes and average $114,000 in income per year. This demographic is hardly made up of millionaires and billionaires and for those that happen to earn more than the President’s arbitrary $200,000 per year ($250,000 for couples) limit defining “the rich” there simply aren’t enough of them as a voting block for the President to care. The thinking goes something like this, if you can convince 90% of the country that the 10% of top earners are their enemies you will earn the majority of the vote of the 90% therefore controlling the 70% of taxes paid by that 10%.

And what of the idea that “evil” corporations don’t pay enough in taxes? On its face this argument is inane because it’s simply an emotional ploy. Taxing certain industries may seem cathartic to the soul but what will be the real effect? Increased taxes are really an increased cost on the offering of a product and will only result in higher prices for the consumer. For necessities, such as those related to transportation, these increased costs will actually hurt those with lower incomes as they must divert savings and disposable income as a result. What about “millionaires and billionaires”? We already have what is called a “progressive” tax system where a higher rate is paid on higher levels of income. How much more should high earners pay? Not to ignore the fact that many “millionaires and billionaires” did not get there in one year but as the result of years of hard work and much of that worth is not in cash so not even subject to taxes.

One of the President’s most reliable talking points is blaming the Bush tax cuts of 2003 for the government’s so-called lack of revenue. It’s easy to understand as stated the assumption being that if incomes being the same a higher tax rate would then result in higher revenues being collected by the government. Unfortunately for the President macroeconomics isn’t that simple. There is no way to prove that income would be the same if tax rates were higher and history shows that lower rates can lead to higher revenues. There is a point where higher tax rates actually lead to lower revenue. Tax revenue as a portion of GDP actually increased following the tax cuts of 2003. The key is to find the point where revenue is maximized and history has shown that it’s not at high rates.

So what is the best path? Should the government institute all kinds of programs and then collect taxes to meet their costs? Or should the government limit what it spends to what it’s able to collect while enacting tax policies that encourage economic growth? To this President it’s simple enough to trot out the less fortunate amongst us as representative of the nation and rely on emotions to gain support for growing government. Problem is, government already spends more than it has and eventually bills come due. People should be able to keep most of what they earn and should not have to pay more as consumers when corporations are taxed higher. The President does not seem to care about reality instead chasing cheap political points. Our country deserves better.

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.