Blowhards out in Force

For whatever reason the field of sports writing seems to lack the ability to resist sensationalism, rushing broad judgments from single games and overindulging with inane rhetoric with regard to anything considered contentious. The last week of NFL games provided two happenings for typical overreach. Following the Packers losing to the Chiefs, all of a sudden a team that was to that point undefeated (and now 13-1) were vulnerable, provided a ‘blueprint’ (whatever that is) of how to beat them, were no longer Super Bowl favorites and their Quarterback had irretrievably damaged his candidacy for league MVP. No matter that the Packers lost to a real, actual NFL team, one with a poor record but still a professional team and that their quarterback still had a decent game and that the phrase ‘any given Sunday’ really holds meaning in the NFL. Second, many sports writers/commentators seemed to take 6 weeks (Denver’s 6 week winning streak) of frustration out in one day following the Broncos loss in Denver to the Patriots. The barbs were out, writers who insisted that the Broncos were winning in spite-of their quarterback Tim Tebow, who thought that the quarterback was receiving too much press along with those who disapprove of his personal life had at it with reckless abandon. Colin Cowherd, on his radio show and on ESPN’s Sports Nation, a Tebow detractor, was basically unlistenable due to smugness. Grantland.com’s Charles P. Pierce wrote a condescending and obnoxious true-believer anti-Christian missive on Tebow’s religion.

It has been said before that sports writers seem to have a chip on their shoulders because of a perceived lack of respect because of what they cover, games. Also known is that while there are many outlets for sporting journalism, it’s not exactly an open field and fierce competition for readership is thought to encourage exaggeration. Of course, it could simply be that some writers are foolish. It’s impossible to know exactly the reason for so much know it all, concocted seriousness judgmental flimflam passed off as writing associated with sports. Certainly every person’s opinion is allowed no matter how disrespectful, it doesn’t make it readable and the only solution is to become a better headline reader to avoid wasting any time and providing eyes to those pieces.

Burnt Pants in Santa Fe

A long time ago, George Costanza once taught us “it's not a lie if you believe it”. More recently, Attorney General Eric Holder testified to congress that “Lying has to do with your state of mind”. Even more recently, Albuquerque State Representative Sheryl Williams Stapleton apologized to Governor Susana Martinez for a derogatory (considered racial by the race obsessed, but was really a dumb, crude and ugly nationalistic slur) comment made about a certain someone whose office is on the fourth floor of the state capitol (where Governor Martinez’s office is) but, according to Williams Stapleton, definitely wasn’t about Governor Martinez.

After not resigning when it was discovered that Representative Williams Stapleton was double dipping on the taxpayer dime, receiving compensation for working at Albuquerque Public Schools when actually working in Santa Fe at the capitol not for APS, Williams Stapleton has confirmed that she will not be resigning for this spiteful comment directed at an unspecified person whose office is on some fourth floor somewhere but was categorically not directed at but was apologized for to Governor Martinez.

Say it ain’t so Gary…

Once upon a time I found myself taking part in the selection of a replacement for a management job I was leaving. Someone who wasn’t right for the position, for a multitude of reasons, applied and was interviewed as a courtesy. When that person wasn’t hired they reacted in a negative and callow way. Their view was that he wasn’t given proper consideration even though he was the most qualified. In reality he wasn’t qualified and there were better candidates. It was admirable that they were ambitious enough to try but that person, in their vanity and lust for authority, behaved in a way proving the selection group right.

We have reached a similar point with former Governor Gary Johnson. Mr. Johnson was a good governor for New Mexico. Certainly there are some who disagreed with certain policies but no one agrees with anyone on everything and he left the state in great shape financially. Leaving office almost ten years ago he has given speeches in support of libertarian causes but has not done much else related to politics. Having mulled the decision publically Mr. Johnson entered his name into the Republican primary for President. Unfortunately he never gained any traction and has been omitted from almost every primary debate so far because of national polling numbers less than the margin of error effectively reducing his campaign to a statistical flourish in terms of voter support.

Mr. Johnson meets all the required qualifications for President and he was an effective and conservative Governor; the only positions causing many voters concern included libertarian leanings towards drugs, foreign policy among others. Perhaps the combination of being Governor of a sparsely populated state, mostly out of politics for nearly ten years and having no discernable national political profile doomed his candidacy. Even with the base qualifications he just did not resonate with enough potential voters to matter in the primary which is the most important qualification of all.

Mr. Johnson has decided otherwise telling a local news program:

"From what I see and hear on the ground, I think a lot more people embrace this message than not, and the Republicans certainly aren't even letting me be heard,"

Mr. Johnson has decided to seek the office as the libertarian candidate blaming a conspiracy against him for his lack of support in the Republican primary. New Mexico is a swing state and while it does not have many electoral votes they will count in a close race. Mr. Johnson is willfully ignoring reality thinking that he would have any chance to do anything other than hurt the eventual Republican candidate towards earning New Mexico’s, and possibly other states, electoral votes. It is of the utmost importance next election year to select a sober and responsible candidate who can defeat the incumbent and sore losers running on distant third party tickets splitting the right-ish vote won’t help.

In an age where people who are unknown can become celebrities overnight through internet videos it is difficult to believe that Gary Johnson’s message is being withheld by dark forces. Because of vanity he won’t accept the reality that he is not a viable candidate for President for the reason that almost everyone prefers someone else. Mr. Johnson should reconsider this decision.

Affordable means what now?

A recent affordable housing initiative was launched to much fanfare. Comprised of 180 homes in Santa Fe, Las Cruces and Deming, this initiative is a partnership of UnitedHealth, a private health insurer, contributing $22M and the New Mexico Mortgage Finance Authority, a “quasi-public entity” contributing the remainder of the $50M. Let the self-congratulations begin! Or should it?

First, why exactly is UnitedHealth ‘investing’ in these homes? It has nothing to do with their core business and is an awful lot for the company to fork over only in the name of community do-goodery.

Second, why does it cost so much? 50,000,000 dollars divided by 180 homes is about 278 thousand dollars per home. Doesn’t that seem a bit much for a so-called ‘affordable home? According to Trulia, the median home price paid in Santa Fe is 226 thousand dollars. And not all of the homes are set to be in Santa Fe. 120 of them are to be located in Las Cruces and Deming both with median home prices of about 145 thousand dollars? If the 180 houses are divided by location and multiplied by those locations’ median home price the result is 31 million dollars.

Why is it that an affordable house costs 17% more than the median home price in one of our state’s most expensive to live in cities? And why is it that an affordable home initiative funded mostly though a “quasi-public entity” costs 38% more than the median home price of their neighborhoods? And why is no one asking these questions? Could it be because affordable housing is the perfect cover, dissuading inconvenient questions?

Passing Debt

The so-called ‘debt counseling’ industry is a vexing parasite reliant on the gullibility of the irresponsible. Perhaps some people are too simple to understand the concept of credit. Maybe though, it’s that many people who find themselves in trouble financially as a result of credit default are just careless and willfully disregard the terms of the contracts they sign in order to pretend that they didn’t understand. People looking for excuses for their own bad decisions find their match in credit counseling which is often paired with deals to restructure their debt, which is just another term for allowing deadbeats to circumvent their financial obligations under the auspices of victim-hood.

One advertisement states that mortgages should be illegal because they rip people off. This claim is then elaborated on; that over the course of the loan it will cost as much as the cost of the home in interest and fees. Anyone who has secured a home loan, who can also read and do a little math, understands this and it is a bitter pill to swallow but it is what it is. The length of a home loan is typically thirty years. There is no entity that can lend the cost of a home over that time without charging for it. Because of inflation that initial outlay is not worth what it is today thirty years from now. There is an option for those who do not want to pay the cost of borrowing, don’t. Save up and purchase whatever it is outright. Ignoring reality and demonizing the mortgage mechanism may be emotionally satisfying to the self indulgent but it is a complete misrepresentation.

Another advertisement encourages listeners to call in order to learn ways to handle their debt. They should call because of the advertised firm’s years of experience helping people figure out how to get their debt under control. How difficult is it really to understand that the way to handle debts is to pay them off? That if a contract is signed requiring payment for some service, in this case the lending of money with binding payment terms, that is has to be paid back? Credit counseling allows the utterly irresponsible to feign ignorance at the expense of the prudent.

It isn’t the fault of the banks for lending money within boundaries regulated by the federal government. Unfortunately, in an era where individuals are judged on the impossible to articulate such as ‘intent’, irresponsible borrowers are not held to account for their transgressions. That’s because it is easier to blame a faceless corporation than take responsibility.