In the pages of this August, more than once nearly abandoned pseudo politically related blog I have raised certain concerns with one Jon Barela, running for congress against Martin Heinrich, defender of New Mexico and our fine union against Jon Barela. Every time that I make note of some misgiving I always caveat with the fact that I look forward to voting for Barela as I would eagerly vote for the neighbor’s Doberman before letting Heinrich go back to Washington.
It’s not that Barela’s bad, I think that he’ll be a fine congressman and vote mostly favorably it’s mostly that I just don’t think I know enough about what he really thinks and what he would actually do. I think that newcomers to the political spectrum are great and all but it is all too easy to become enthralled only to be disappointed so I go forward with cautious optimism. And, I know what Heinrich thinks and I know (via email responses) what he thinks about what I think so again, a Doberman is preferable to that Pelosi clone hack.
Anyway, with that introduction, Barela has been airing better ads lately with one nit to pick, no fault of his own. In recent ads he has been touting himself and touted as by others as a supporter of small business. This is great but in reality an effective politician should be able to favor ALL business but in this anti-business climate created by many politicians led by our community organizer in chief it is just about impossible. Small business is apparently as pure as the wind driven snow.
All business is good. The UAW does not provide jobs; they take dues from members and use those funds to support democrats. Auto companies that create vehicles that people want is what creates jobs. Often demonized, Walmart employs more than a million people, enables families to afford better amenities and is out country’s best hedge against the Chinese. Think about it, we rely on low cost Chinese goods but just as that’s true, China is just as dependent on us to buy things from them. China needs Walmart.
To the point, ALL business is good. A market based economy is the freest and most prosperous and it is a stupid and ridiculous reality that we live in when a politician cannot acknowledge this truth because of the constant demonizing that has occurred almost constantly since the industrial revolution. It’s too bad but all too understandable that Jon Barela has to use “Small Business”, and it will always be that way because politicians need distractions.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Independent Sham
Perhaps the most curious of political affiliations is the “independent”. Many independents seem to be the oblivious, sophomoric and self-exalting types. As may be inferred from the previous sentence, I am generally no fan of self-described independents. Certainly there are those who are independent of specific affiliations that don’t much care to affiliate and vote in no discernible pattern, these are the harmless independents. The independents that earn my ire are those who describe themselves as such for the express reason of appearing reasonable, for being truly bi-partisan and for being above it all.
As someone who listens to a lot of talk radio nothing earns an eye-roll than a caller introducing themselves as “independent” and then spouting self congratulatory or democrat party clap trap. Many of these so-called independents fashion themselves as speaking for every other independent and for understanding what really needs to be done. Which is stupid on both counts because being truly independent means not adhering to groupthink and acknowledgment that there is no real “right” way for things to be done (government policy wise), just different ways to do things with different benefits, interests and results.
I don’t like everything that every Republican does or says nor do I support every initiative from the party and mostly due to that I am a loyal Republican. Every time someone has a thought that isn’t the same as anyone else, that’s independent but just because it is doesn’t mean that anyone is fully independent in every sense. There are two major political parties in this country and history seems to show that it is almost impossible for more than two to exist without other parties simply becoming slight variations of the first two. The Republican Party isn’t perfect but at least it doesn’t pretend to know how every person should live their lives like the party of the donkey.
As someone who listens to a lot of talk radio nothing earns an eye-roll than a caller introducing themselves as “independent” and then spouting self congratulatory or democrat party clap trap. Many of these so-called independents fashion themselves as speaking for every other independent and for understanding what really needs to be done. Which is stupid on both counts because being truly independent means not adhering to groupthink and acknowledgment that there is no real “right” way for things to be done (government policy wise), just different ways to do things with different benefits, interests and results.
I don’t like everything that every Republican does or says nor do I support every initiative from the party and mostly due to that I am a loyal Republican. Every time someone has a thought that isn’t the same as anyone else, that’s independent but just because it is doesn’t mean that anyone is fully independent in every sense. There are two major political parties in this country and history seems to show that it is almost impossible for more than two to exist without other parties simply becoming slight variations of the first two. The Republican Party isn’t perfect but at least it doesn’t pretend to know how every person should live their lives like the party of the donkey.
Mr. Obama Comes to Albuquerque
In what seems like a grievous error, President Obama came to Albuquerque today to hold some kind of heartland heart-to-heart in the South Valley to discuss goings on and have huevos rancheros and my invitation seemingly was lost in the mail.
It is heartening to learn that the sermonizer in chief considers New Mexico part of the heartland and made a stop in between Wisconsin and Iowa. And what better place to gather with supporters than the South Valley, a part of the city that many inhabitants of consider themselves oppressed while at the same time consuming more tax dollars than contributing, culminating in regular attempts to secede?
Best yet, we learned that the community organizer in chief is an amazing tipper, leaving twenty dollars for his to-go order of huevos rancheros at a local joint when the bill was about halfway past eight bucks. I certainly hope that some person who got to eat them enjoyed them. I know, harsh, but what more was that gesture than a photo op? The president travels with quite the entourage, and all he ordered was for himself?
No doubt dear leader praised the work of small business woman and once single mother Diane Denish and defender of New Mexico from Jon Barela Martin Heinrich for their tireless and unspecific efforts as good soldiers.
It is heartening to learn that the sermonizer in chief considers New Mexico part of the heartland and made a stop in between Wisconsin and Iowa. And what better place to gather with supporters than the South Valley, a part of the city that many inhabitants of consider themselves oppressed while at the same time consuming more tax dollars than contributing, culminating in regular attempts to secede?
Best yet, we learned that the community organizer in chief is an amazing tipper, leaving twenty dollars for his to-go order of huevos rancheros at a local joint when the bill was about halfway past eight bucks. I certainly hope that some person who got to eat them enjoyed them. I know, harsh, but what more was that gesture than a photo op? The president travels with quite the entourage, and all he ordered was for himself?
No doubt dear leader praised the work of small business woman and once single mother Diane Denish and defender of New Mexico from Jon Barela Martin Heinrich for their tireless and unspecific efforts as good soldiers.
For Some, Vick Unforgiven
An ESPN Page 2 regular feature called “The Weekly Best” the aim of which is to make recently relevant statements and then qualify them with the author’s opinion for those statements. Among this week’s statements is the following:
Many of these commentators take what it is that Michael Vick did, operating a dog fighting operation in Virginia, very personally and state as such that they will never forgive him. Trouble is, Vick owes none of these people anything and does not deserve feigned outrage based on conceit and misunderstanding.
Owning a dog fighting ring is repulsive, disgusting and illegal. Vick paid the price and more so than just about anyone else who was ever guilty of the same crime. And, it is folly to compare the dogs in these rings to a pet. These were dangerous dogs bred to be vicious and while they deserved better, Vick paid the price. What if any of these self-righteous types had the same upbringing as Vick? Different cultures have different standards and view animals differently. There are cultures that eat dogs, and in India, Cows are revered. In New Mexico, cock fighting was only recently banned.
I root for Michael Vick because he is a good football player and because he was made an example by an overzealous moralizing court system that punishes some (along with Martha Stewart and Plaxico Burress) celebrities beyond the pale. Vick may have several successful seasons left in the NFL and he does not deserve to be berated constantly over that time due to past sins for which an immense debt was paid. As a dog loving writer at SB Nation wrote, Michael Vick Is The American Dream.
Best reason to root for Michael Vick: Unless you're an Eagles fan, I haven't a clue.This throwaway line is just another in a long line of Vick haters blowing their tops over the Eagle QB’s success this season. This behavior is annoying and unfortunately will not cease until Vick is no longer in the NFL or in any type of public role. Vick went to prison for nearly two years for his crimes, which was longer than sentencing guidelines. He has paid his debt, what more do these so-called pundits want? Blood? Another Bankruptcy? Expulsion from society?
Many of these commentators take what it is that Michael Vick did, operating a dog fighting operation in Virginia, very personally and state as such that they will never forgive him. Trouble is, Vick owes none of these people anything and does not deserve feigned outrage based on conceit and misunderstanding.
Owning a dog fighting ring is repulsive, disgusting and illegal. Vick paid the price and more so than just about anyone else who was ever guilty of the same crime. And, it is folly to compare the dogs in these rings to a pet. These were dangerous dogs bred to be vicious and while they deserved better, Vick paid the price. What if any of these self-righteous types had the same upbringing as Vick? Different cultures have different standards and view animals differently. There are cultures that eat dogs, and in India, Cows are revered. In New Mexico, cock fighting was only recently banned.
I root for Michael Vick because he is a good football player and because he was made an example by an overzealous moralizing court system that punishes some (along with Martha Stewart and Plaxico Burress) celebrities beyond the pale. Vick may have several successful seasons left in the NFL and he does not deserve to be berated constantly over that time due to past sins for which an immense debt was paid. As a dog loving writer at SB Nation wrote, Michael Vick Is The American Dream.
Monday, September 27, 2010
But, the Other Guy is Worse!!!
Listening to campaign ads for democrats Diane Denish and Martin Heinrich the casual listener visiting Albuquerque might think that both are political neophytes that are simply caring individuals wishing to protect the citizenry from the purely political cartoon style villains Susana Martinez and Jon Barela. Is it any wonder why it is that most people are severely turned off by political campaigns?
Little more than a month to go and I am left wondering if these politicians will actually campaign on their accomplishments and what they actually want to do in office instead of attempting to scare voters too busy to pay attention with exorbitant charges against their opponents? Most galling is the fact that both democrats running for the highest profile offices in this election cycle have either been in or nearly were in the offices that they are running for and listening to their ads, you would never know.
Earlier in the election cycle, Gubernatorial candidate Denish had touted successes as a fighter of corruption as the Lt Governor over the last eight years that apparently were not believable or ineffective and have been replaced with ads touting Denish as a southern New Mexican small business owner and (for a period of time) single mother who is tired of the corruption in Santa Fe. The candidate simply disregards the fact that they have been Lt Governor for eight years, first ran for the post twelve years ago and was one contractor contributions to presidential campaign almost Commerce secretary scandal away from being Governor since early last year.
Worse, the Lt Governor paints her opponent, Martinez, as someone who misused public funds for cronies, using as an example salaries and bonuses for the DA office in Dona Ana County. To most voters I think it can be assumed that they understand that the District Attorney’s office is paid for with taxes, public funding. On the second accusation, misusing funds, it is unbelievable that Martinez could have been elected from the primary and not prosecuted by democrat political hack Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General or the hacks at the Obama Justice Department. If these accusations are true, we should be more worried that the corrupt official portrayed in the Denish ads is not behind bars. And, that’s if the viewer/listener drinks the Kool-Aid transporting them to some laughable fantasy land where innocent Diane Denish was never around and did not participate in the Richardson administration, a disgrace to New Mexico as Governor due to cronyism and worse. If that’s the case, then Denish should be disqualified for incompetence.
Like his party compatriot, Heinrich has abandoned running on his record. Earlier there were ads portraying Heinrich as working to help and protect New Mexicans and gathering specific constituencies and hyper specific benefits secured for them without any mention of the actual bill. Again, it seems likely that these ads did not go over well and that viewers were smart enough to understand that Heinrich is nothing if not a rubber stamp for the national democrat agenda and has voted as such and the only group to benefit is government, at our expense. Heinrich’s latest ad imagines the policies of his opponent, Barela and lectures the viewer on these dangerous policies, and of course bringing up a caricature of President Bush, with whom Barela is in lock step.
Jon Barela has never served in elected office. He is a lawyer who worked for Republican congressman Joe Skeen many years ago. Heinrich uses the issues plank on Barela’s website that portrays simple values with nary a desire to hurt people and twists these bland statements into a cudgel claiming that Barela’s goal is to take away the livelihoods of New Mexicans. A pathetic caricature.
So, this is what we have from democrat incumbents, Republican criminal boogey men and purported loss of precious government “benefits” without any mention of their own qualifications. It’s perplexing to discern how either Denish or Heinrich have ever been elected to anything. New Mexico will be better served to return both to private life this November.
Little more than a month to go and I am left wondering if these politicians will actually campaign on their accomplishments and what they actually want to do in office instead of attempting to scare voters too busy to pay attention with exorbitant charges against their opponents? Most galling is the fact that both democrats running for the highest profile offices in this election cycle have either been in or nearly were in the offices that they are running for and listening to their ads, you would never know.
Earlier in the election cycle, Gubernatorial candidate Denish had touted successes as a fighter of corruption as the Lt Governor over the last eight years that apparently were not believable or ineffective and have been replaced with ads touting Denish as a southern New Mexican small business owner and (for a period of time) single mother who is tired of the corruption in Santa Fe. The candidate simply disregards the fact that they have been Lt Governor for eight years, first ran for the post twelve years ago and was one contractor contributions to presidential campaign almost Commerce secretary scandal away from being Governor since early last year.
Worse, the Lt Governor paints her opponent, Martinez, as someone who misused public funds for cronies, using as an example salaries and bonuses for the DA office in Dona Ana County. To most voters I think it can be assumed that they understand that the District Attorney’s office is paid for with taxes, public funding. On the second accusation, misusing funds, it is unbelievable that Martinez could have been elected from the primary and not prosecuted by democrat political hack Gary King, New Mexico Attorney General or the hacks at the Obama Justice Department. If these accusations are true, we should be more worried that the corrupt official portrayed in the Denish ads is not behind bars. And, that’s if the viewer/listener drinks the Kool-Aid transporting them to some laughable fantasy land where innocent Diane Denish was never around and did not participate in the Richardson administration, a disgrace to New Mexico as Governor due to cronyism and worse. If that’s the case, then Denish should be disqualified for incompetence.
Like his party compatriot, Heinrich has abandoned running on his record. Earlier there were ads portraying Heinrich as working to help and protect New Mexicans and gathering specific constituencies and hyper specific benefits secured for them without any mention of the actual bill. Again, it seems likely that these ads did not go over well and that viewers were smart enough to understand that Heinrich is nothing if not a rubber stamp for the national democrat agenda and has voted as such and the only group to benefit is government, at our expense. Heinrich’s latest ad imagines the policies of his opponent, Barela and lectures the viewer on these dangerous policies, and of course bringing up a caricature of President Bush, with whom Barela is in lock step.
Jon Barela has never served in elected office. He is a lawyer who worked for Republican congressman Joe Skeen many years ago. Heinrich uses the issues plank on Barela’s website that portrays simple values with nary a desire to hurt people and twists these bland statements into a cudgel claiming that Barela’s goal is to take away the livelihoods of New Mexicans. A pathetic caricature.
So, this is what we have from democrat incumbents, Republican criminal boogey men and purported loss of precious government “benefits” without any mention of their own qualifications. It’s perplexing to discern how either Denish or Heinrich have ever been elected to anything. New Mexico will be better served to return both to private life this November.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Condescending TV by Heinrich
So I have seen two recent commercials in support of Congressman Martin Heinrich and if there was a reason at all to support him in them, it didn’t come through.
The first tout’s Heinrich’s “achievements” in the senate, not in any specificity, but in the kinds of generalities that are easy to feel good about because he has done sooooooooo much for New Mexico over the last two years. If one is gullible enough to mistake the publically stated intentions of legislation other than actual results then I suppose it would be easy to swallow this tripe. Make no mistake, Heinrich is obsessed with moving his career as a “Progressive” politician and is a total ally to the democrat leadership in Washington. His votes are the evidence and attempts to hide behind vague characterizations of happy motives with zero results.
The second ad is an attack on Heinrich’s opponent, Jon Barela in which the claim is made that Barela wants to take us back to the dark period of the Bush presidency. Oh, the horrors! In a stunning visual cue, a truck with a Barela ad on it backs up! Apparently Heinrich thinks that the voters are stupid. You mean go back to the lower unemployment and lower deficits and growing economy of the Bush years? Beginning with the 2008 campaign the democrats have attempted to sell the fiction that our country was in ruin and only they could save it. It was true that during President Bush’s term that there was too much spending but democrats who have spent even more become hypocrites when attacking those years. Most of the economic problems faced by the country came after the 2006 election when democrats took control of congress. Besides, some recent polls show that a majority of voters prefer President Bush today! What a dumb campaign commercial.
Heinrich has been nothing if not one of the most reliable democrats in congress for the speaker eagerly voting for legislation that will harm the country to include cap and trade, the stimulus, multiple bailouts and of course “Obamacare”. Both of these commercials demonstrate an out of touch person who views political opponents whom disagree with his preferred policies as cartoon villains. It seems as though he really believes that supporting legislation that has failed is still good based only on objective and assumes that the public can’t determine for themselves what to think. It is time that we send him home, wherever that is, or on to a democrat think tank where he can bask in his “achievements” while leaving us alone.
The first tout’s Heinrich’s “achievements” in the senate, not in any specificity, but in the kinds of generalities that are easy to feel good about because he has done sooooooooo much for New Mexico over the last two years. If one is gullible enough to mistake the publically stated intentions of legislation other than actual results then I suppose it would be easy to swallow this tripe. Make no mistake, Heinrich is obsessed with moving his career as a “Progressive” politician and is a total ally to the democrat leadership in Washington. His votes are the evidence and attempts to hide behind vague characterizations of happy motives with zero results.
The second ad is an attack on Heinrich’s opponent, Jon Barela in which the claim is made that Barela wants to take us back to the dark period of the Bush presidency. Oh, the horrors! In a stunning visual cue, a truck with a Barela ad on it backs up! Apparently Heinrich thinks that the voters are stupid. You mean go back to the lower unemployment and lower deficits and growing economy of the Bush years? Beginning with the 2008 campaign the democrats have attempted to sell the fiction that our country was in ruin and only they could save it. It was true that during President Bush’s term that there was too much spending but democrats who have spent even more become hypocrites when attacking those years. Most of the economic problems faced by the country came after the 2006 election when democrats took control of congress. Besides, some recent polls show that a majority of voters prefer President Bush today! What a dumb campaign commercial.
Heinrich has been nothing if not one of the most reliable democrats in congress for the speaker eagerly voting for legislation that will harm the country to include cap and trade, the stimulus, multiple bailouts and of course “Obamacare”. Both of these commercials demonstrate an out of touch person who views political opponents whom disagree with his preferred policies as cartoon villains. It seems as though he really believes that supporting legislation that has failed is still good based only on objective and assumes that the public can’t determine for themselves what to think. It is time that we send him home, wherever that is, or on to a democrat think tank where he can bask in his “achievements” while leaving us alone.
More Bogeymen...
After two days of listening to Rush Limbaugh hitch his wagon to Christine O’Donnell and listen to Sean Hannity becoming unbearable in his me-too-ism attacks on the “Republican” establishment I was hoping for a reprieve. I was wrong, so very wrong. Rush’s substitute (due to a cold) host Mark Davis took the microphone today and ran with it attacking columnists Karl Rove and Charles Krauthammer who do not find O’Donnell to be an acceptable candidate.
From all I can tell, O’Donnell is the preferred candidate almost due solely to the resume of her opponent. Other than that, there is nothing. O’Donnell is a regular candidate, without no wins so far, and makes statements that are amiable to conservative interests but has no resume in politics. It is a great thing to get newcomers involved but in a position as important as senator it is imperative to have some experience, city council, state representative, mayor of a small town, something by which a person’s experience can be adequately judged with regard to their probable actions as a legislator. O’Donnell has none and won by virtue of running against a terrible candidate who was running for the general election and ignored the primary. He opponent could have learned a few things from John McCain.
Can O’Donnell win? Perhaps, her opponent is a self-described marxist and we will learn the preference of Delaware, which is their choice. I have read the pieces from Rove and Krauthammer and cannot find anything objectionable in their writing. It will be used by the opposition in painting O’Donnell in a negative light but so what? They are valid opinions and screaming against Republican bogeymen by Limbaugh, Hannity and Davis is of no benefit. It makes them appear to be unreasonable by not even entertaining opposing viewpoints and that’s a democrat game. Not one of these three has mentioned anything positive in regard to O’Donnell excepting her primary election victory. They should take caution in backing this candidate until they have something in their resume lest they set themselves up for disappointment.
From all I can tell, O’Donnell is the preferred candidate almost due solely to the resume of her opponent. Other than that, there is nothing. O’Donnell is a regular candidate, without no wins so far, and makes statements that are amiable to conservative interests but has no resume in politics. It is a great thing to get newcomers involved but in a position as important as senator it is imperative to have some experience, city council, state representative, mayor of a small town, something by which a person’s experience can be adequately judged with regard to their probable actions as a legislator. O’Donnell has none and won by virtue of running against a terrible candidate who was running for the general election and ignored the primary. He opponent could have learned a few things from John McCain.
Can O’Donnell win? Perhaps, her opponent is a self-described marxist and we will learn the preference of Delaware, which is their choice. I have read the pieces from Rove and Krauthammer and cannot find anything objectionable in their writing. It will be used by the opposition in painting O’Donnell in a negative light but so what? They are valid opinions and screaming against Republican bogeymen by Limbaugh, Hannity and Davis is of no benefit. It makes them appear to be unreasonable by not even entertaining opposing viewpoints and that’s a democrat game. Not one of these three has mentioned anything positive in regard to O’Donnell excepting her primary election victory. They should take caution in backing this candidate until they have something in their resume lest they set themselves up for disappointment.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Bad Choices and Assumed Motive
A big problem with the President’s opinion deriding those that have reservations of the proposed Mosque blocks from the World Trade Center Ground Zero is the ignorant way he assigns the motives of those who think differently based on his own viewpoint. It would be different if every single person, 70 percent of the country by recent polling, thought exactly the same or only opposed the construction without saying anything or by making disgusting statements. No matter how much some may want to believe that all the opposition is malevolent, the facts just don’t support that conclusion. Many issues are complicated and anyone who ignores contrasting arguments doesn’t want to debate because it’s easier to demonize by playing on emotion rather than defending the abstract.
Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.
Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?
Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.
The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.
The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.
Based on a brief senatorial career and more than eighteen months in office, this kind of behavior is to be expected from our community organizer (read: head protester) in chief. It’s harder to comprehend when this kind of tactic places you opposite from someone you respect. On yesterday’s show Rush Limbaugh spent almost all three hours manning his guns in the circular firing squad of today’s Republican Party in an attempt to defend now Delaware senatorial candidate Christine O’Donnell against “establishment” Republicans. If only the nearly three hour diatribe featured any actual support of O’Donnell, instead it was attack after attack on opponent Mike Castle and the Republican Party. Rush practiced the same tactic that he often points out in others by attacking opponents of O’Donnell as only having a single, fallacious motive.
Earlier in the week the race came to national attention as O’Donnell, who had campaigned as an outsider, had not only caught up but surged ahead in polls against Castle who was assumed to cruise to victory. A writer for The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine, had found some very disturbing information regarding O’Donnell’s work and tax history. First, the candidate had filed an impractical wrongful termination lawsuit against a previous employer that reached in every direction for accusations, asking for a preposterous sum and ignored the fact that this person had misled that employer in regard to qualifications. Next O’Donnell had re-filed and re-filed tax documents and made payments on past taxes just as the campaign started to become successful. Then, allegations started to come from past campaign staffers. O’Donnell apparently is a full time candidate and had been living off of contributions and not paying staffers as contracted. Add to that no experience so no one knows exactly how she would vote. Sure, O’Donnell talks a great game but no one knows exactly how she would act as an actual legislator. Seems like plenty of points that would make a reasonable person question whether or not they want this person representing them, no?
Candidate Castle is the House member from Delaware, and has served as the Governor of that state. This familiarity was likely the reason for his assumptive behavior. In his time in office he has often been derided as a RINO and maybe that’s fair, I don’t know. The only thing that is for certain is that Castle is a career politician and has been around the scene for a long time. Much of the opinion this morning after the O’Donnell victory is that it was a result of a rejection of familiarity, of disfavoring incumbency. This is a good thing in most cases but in this one, just as Castle was not really a good candidate, neither was O’Donnell. Definitely a choice between bad and worse and difficult to determine which side was which.
The foremost point to take from this whole episode is to ponder why it is that there seems to be a dearth of good candidates? Too many are re-treads or lackeys who have been in or around politics and twist with the times attempting to flatter whatever audience they happen to be speaking too. Delaware deserved better and one can only hope that as more and more people get involved in politics, qualified citizens who have real life experience and truly care about maintaining our system of government are welcomed to the fold. A choice between bad and worse isn’t really a choice and only leads to bigger government and candidates who only want to be a part of the party in Washington and maintain status.
The only way that we are going to succeed in finding these types of candidates that work for us and not just themselves is to have substantive discussions. It does no one any good to tell people what they think when their opinion differs from your own, leave that game to democrats. Believe it or not there is a benefit to having moderate Republicans in office, if they are the preferred choice of their constituency, then they should be able to serve their districts. RINOs may make some cringe with their positions but their presence alone often keeps much hideous legislation from even making it to deliberation.
Monday, September 13, 2010
A Good Sell-out
Today was almost a good day owing to the fact that about halfway through a meeting that always lasts longer than scheduled I thought that this really was going to be the day that it ended on time, even early. I was wrong. And I will always be wrong about this meeting. And unfortunately for me, over the next nine months I will be participating in an awful lot of these meetings.
The reason why is because these meetings are led by the most curious of people, the type of person that speaks almost entirely in puns and analogies. Of course, having the luck that I have I almost never understand the pun or the analogy which leads my participation to listening for anything useful and always replying that I have no further questions. It’s easy to never have any questions or anything to add when you don’t understand what is going on.
And after a while, I just don’t care anymore. There is supposed to be knowledge gained from these meetings but the person who was tasked with leading them just has no self awareness at all. I find myself thankful for the mute button when this leader starts touting his ability to keep projects on task and spouting euphemisms for time sucks when he could just talk about himself, oh wait, he is.
Add to that lack of self awareness an ability to talk almost endlessly and a disarming folksy tone and a desire to analogize the simplest of constructs into incoherent slush and you have yourself a real winner. The inconvenient truth is that I will happily continue my support of these meetings because while I dread them and am constantly annoyed by them they are led by the customer. This dude basically pays my bills and I am happy to sell out as my son needs milk and my Infiniti needs gas.
The reason why is because these meetings are led by the most curious of people, the type of person that speaks almost entirely in puns and analogies. Of course, having the luck that I have I almost never understand the pun or the analogy which leads my participation to listening for anything useful and always replying that I have no further questions. It’s easy to never have any questions or anything to add when you don’t understand what is going on.
And after a while, I just don’t care anymore. There is supposed to be knowledge gained from these meetings but the person who was tasked with leading them just has no self awareness at all. I find myself thankful for the mute button when this leader starts touting his ability to keep projects on task and spouting euphemisms for time sucks when he could just talk about himself, oh wait, he is.
Add to that lack of self awareness an ability to talk almost endlessly and a disarming folksy tone and a desire to analogize the simplest of constructs into incoherent slush and you have yourself a real winner. The inconvenient truth is that I will happily continue my support of these meetings because while I dread them and am constantly annoyed by them they are led by the customer. This dude basically pays my bills and I am happy to sell out as my son needs milk and my Infiniti needs gas.
Other People's Money
Recently dominating the news has been much discussion in regard to the expiring “Bush” tax cuts. The President has been espousing populist rhetoric about extending the cuts but only to those that make less than $200,000 dollars a year individually or $250,000 for couples. The administration’s stance relies on typical statist tripe in regard to the “costs” of these tax cuts and pontification on the worthiness of the earners in regard to keeping their own money. Of course, being statist, the administration apparently views these earnings as the governments first.
This view is dangerous and is tyranny as it represents a desire to divide the people of this country and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding in regard to the way that our economy works. On the costs of the tax cuts, these costs are simply estimations made on current data what ifs. These estimations are entirely fictional because they rely on assumptions that current conditions would be the same based on higher tax rates for some. This is simply impossible to prove. Second, by ignoring the fictional costs of retaining the tax cuts on the lower brackets their argument omits important information. Last, the 700 billion dollar over ten years figure provided does not carry any seriousness from an administration that spent more than that last year in a single act, the failed stimulus.
Most disappointing is the tenacity in which the President and his administration have taken to attacking a significant portion of the United States population. It is disgusting for the President of the United States of America to accuse decent Americans of being greedy and to tell them that they can afford it without seeking their opinion to cheering from crowds. This act is simply political in nature and is utilized in order to distract the populace from unpopular policies and actions. Because the higher income brackets represent a tiny minority of citizens the President does not believe that their votes matter and cynically believes that the rest of Americans will approve and encourage the demonizing of and taking from “them”.
If the action to only extend rates for some and not all tax brackets is carried out, it is tyrannical because the difference in tax rates will grow ever larger and will represent the will of an overwhelming majority confiscating the incomes of a small minority of citizens. By virtue of our current tax system and common sense, those with higher incomes pay more taxes and at a higher rate. Even if there was a flat tax, those with higher incomes would pay more taxes.
How it was somehow determined to be fair to pine for the incomes of others for ever increasing government “services” is discouraging and was inevitable, resulting from vote hungry politicians promising citizens spending that is neither warranted nor reasonable from a budgetary standpoint. The biggest problem with the tax cuts was that there was not a cut to government to balance any theoretical loss of government “revenue”. Political theatre pitting us against each other is a ridiculous distraction from the real issue and that is a government too big to sustain and too burdensome to understand.
This view is dangerous and is tyranny as it represents a desire to divide the people of this country and demonstrates a gross misunderstanding in regard to the way that our economy works. On the costs of the tax cuts, these costs are simply estimations made on current data what ifs. These estimations are entirely fictional because they rely on assumptions that current conditions would be the same based on higher tax rates for some. This is simply impossible to prove. Second, by ignoring the fictional costs of retaining the tax cuts on the lower brackets their argument omits important information. Last, the 700 billion dollar over ten years figure provided does not carry any seriousness from an administration that spent more than that last year in a single act, the failed stimulus.
Most disappointing is the tenacity in which the President and his administration have taken to attacking a significant portion of the United States population. It is disgusting for the President of the United States of America to accuse decent Americans of being greedy and to tell them that they can afford it without seeking their opinion to cheering from crowds. This act is simply political in nature and is utilized in order to distract the populace from unpopular policies and actions. Because the higher income brackets represent a tiny minority of citizens the President does not believe that their votes matter and cynically believes that the rest of Americans will approve and encourage the demonizing of and taking from “them”.
If the action to only extend rates for some and not all tax brackets is carried out, it is tyrannical because the difference in tax rates will grow ever larger and will represent the will of an overwhelming majority confiscating the incomes of a small minority of citizens. By virtue of our current tax system and common sense, those with higher incomes pay more taxes and at a higher rate. Even if there was a flat tax, those with higher incomes would pay more taxes.
How it was somehow determined to be fair to pine for the incomes of others for ever increasing government “services” is discouraging and was inevitable, resulting from vote hungry politicians promising citizens spending that is neither warranted nor reasonable from a budgetary standpoint. The biggest problem with the tax cuts was that there was not a cut to government to balance any theoretical loss of government “revenue”. Political theatre pitting us against each other is a ridiculous distraction from the real issue and that is a government too big to sustain and too burdensome to understand.
Friday, September 03, 2010
A Bad Teacher Complains, Should we Care?
Back in high school I had an elective called “Adventures in Supercomputing” that was supposed to be focused on teaching students computer skills and encouraging technology related careers. In reality it was an hour excuse to play games and surf the primitive, at the time (around 1996), internet. I cannot think of what the grading criteria for this class was and there just wasn’t much to it other than showing up most of the time.
The worst part of this course was the teacher, who mostly taught remedial math courses, with whom I never had any earlier classroom interaction. This teacher was the sanctimonious type often bemoaning the plight of the impoverished school teacher and their own selfless commitment to the cause. A frequent assertion of this teacher was that they could make twice their salary if they worked somewhere else and there were no shortage of offers. This statement was inferring that this teacher was sacrificing their and their family’s well being on account of us students and was meant to indoctrinate the idea that teachers are not paid enough or fairly.
One of my least enduring qualities rears itself whenever I think I’m being badgered or hinted at incessantly or tire of the same tired argument again and again; I say something that is not very kind. After about halfway through the semester and another sermon from this teacher about mythical high paying jobs for a high school basic math instructor I snapped, got up from my desk and asked, “Why don’t you leave, why don’t you take one of those jobs? If we are soooooooo difficult and you can do soooooooo much better away from here, why are you here? I think we would be just fine with you making all that money at one of those jobs. I don’t think they even exist”. After about five minutes of the teacher staring at me intently while their face returned from a deep red, they attempted to explain it as a selfless act, a sacrifice even and that we students really needed them. I rolled my eyes and went back to looking up scores on ESPN.com. Surprisingly I received an A in that class, I did show up most of the time…
I was reminded of that story recently when a friend of my wife’s friend, who is a bad teacher, trotted out the “teachers are under and unfairly paid” trope and added “merit pay is bad” in a Facebook posting. It reminded me of that story because it was the clearest memory that I have of a horrible teacher complaining about not being rewarded for being horrible. It seems as though the most vocal teachers, complaining about pay and testing and any number of things, are usually inadequate and are poor at presenting their case in a way that does not anger observers.
First, are teachers unfairly or poorly compensated? In New Mexico, the average teacher salary is nearly 42 thousand dollars and comes from 31 percent of tax revenues directed towards education. This is for nine months of employment, accounting for 12 months this extrapolates to an equivalent of nearly 56 thousand dollars. That does not sound too bad. The unadjusted figure (42k) is almost four times the federal poverty line (11k) so it is hard to believe that teachers are impoverished. More to the point, being a teacher is a choice and it's not like those choosing to become teachers have no clue in regard to their earning potential. They knew what they were getting in to.
Most difficult is the fact that it is almost impossible to determine what is right for teacher pay. Because education is absolutely dominated by the public sector there is no reliable market for teachers so we have no way to determine the right salary, what is it really worth to the consumer? Ask any of the complainers and they don’t have an answer either. It seems as though there will never be a salary high enough and because bad, self-righteous teachers are never introspective they just do not know how bad their preening on this subject looks to the average citizen, many of who would love to make 40k a year and have three months off.
Another argument that makes teachers look bad is when they denounce merit pay tied to testing initiatives. It would be unfair to tie the salaries of teachers only to the testing results of their students without any other metrics or considerations but it is misguided to ignore them as an important piece. Questions arise when teachers seem so skeptical of testing and deny any share of culpability when the dropout rate approaches fifty percent and some who do graduate can’t even read.
Teachers are a fundamental part of our society and it is imperative that they are compensated fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately the public sector dominated union infested education system we have will not allow for serious discussion. The public is told to shut up and hand over their wallets with no better results time and again. It is easy to think that it may be time to blow up the system and start from scratch.
The worst part of this course was the teacher, who mostly taught remedial math courses, with whom I never had any earlier classroom interaction. This teacher was the sanctimonious type often bemoaning the plight of the impoverished school teacher and their own selfless commitment to the cause. A frequent assertion of this teacher was that they could make twice their salary if they worked somewhere else and there were no shortage of offers. This statement was inferring that this teacher was sacrificing their and their family’s well being on account of us students and was meant to indoctrinate the idea that teachers are not paid enough or fairly.
One of my least enduring qualities rears itself whenever I think I’m being badgered or hinted at incessantly or tire of the same tired argument again and again; I say something that is not very kind. After about halfway through the semester and another sermon from this teacher about mythical high paying jobs for a high school basic math instructor I snapped, got up from my desk and asked, “Why don’t you leave, why don’t you take one of those jobs? If we are soooooooo difficult and you can do soooooooo much better away from here, why are you here? I think we would be just fine with you making all that money at one of those jobs. I don’t think they even exist”. After about five minutes of the teacher staring at me intently while their face returned from a deep red, they attempted to explain it as a selfless act, a sacrifice even and that we students really needed them. I rolled my eyes and went back to looking up scores on ESPN.com. Surprisingly I received an A in that class, I did show up most of the time…
I was reminded of that story recently when a friend of my wife’s friend, who is a bad teacher, trotted out the “teachers are under and unfairly paid” trope and added “merit pay is bad” in a Facebook posting. It reminded me of that story because it was the clearest memory that I have of a horrible teacher complaining about not being rewarded for being horrible. It seems as though the most vocal teachers, complaining about pay and testing and any number of things, are usually inadequate and are poor at presenting their case in a way that does not anger observers.
First, are teachers unfairly or poorly compensated? In New Mexico, the average teacher salary is nearly 42 thousand dollars and comes from 31 percent of tax revenues directed towards education. This is for nine months of employment, accounting for 12 months this extrapolates to an equivalent of nearly 56 thousand dollars. That does not sound too bad. The unadjusted figure (42k) is almost four times the federal poverty line (11k) so it is hard to believe that teachers are impoverished. More to the point, being a teacher is a choice and it's not like those choosing to become teachers have no clue in regard to their earning potential. They knew what they were getting in to.
Most difficult is the fact that it is almost impossible to determine what is right for teacher pay. Because education is absolutely dominated by the public sector there is no reliable market for teachers so we have no way to determine the right salary, what is it really worth to the consumer? Ask any of the complainers and they don’t have an answer either. It seems as though there will never be a salary high enough and because bad, self-righteous teachers are never introspective they just do not know how bad their preening on this subject looks to the average citizen, many of who would love to make 40k a year and have three months off.
Another argument that makes teachers look bad is when they denounce merit pay tied to testing initiatives. It would be unfair to tie the salaries of teachers only to the testing results of their students without any other metrics or considerations but it is misguided to ignore them as an important piece. Questions arise when teachers seem so skeptical of testing and deny any share of culpability when the dropout rate approaches fifty percent and some who do graduate can’t even read.
Teachers are a fundamental part of our society and it is imperative that they are compensated fairly and treated with respect. Unfortunately the public sector dominated union infested education system we have will not allow for serious discussion. The public is told to shut up and hand over their wallets with no better results time and again. It is easy to think that it may be time to blow up the system and start from scratch.
Wednesday, September 01, 2010
The importance of a good Cruise Director
It is my ever unchanging opinion that the role of cruise director (organizer, leader) is important to any type of group activity be it business or leisure and that any person who immediately volunteers or vociferously seeks this post should be locked out of the room and only let in once the agenda is set. Almost every time there is a person who actively seeks this role, they turn out to be a control freak know-it-all who only ensures that nothing gets done or that nobody has any fun.
Traveling in large groups for leisure can be difficult because if there is no set agenda, like on a cruise, it can be difficult to come to consensus on what to do. This kind of situation can even get worse when there is a group of people that don’t know what they want to do and can only disagree with what anyone else wants to do. This is a problem and needs some kind of cruise director to keep things moving along or else the entire trip will consist of people staring each other exchanging “I don’t knows” and being bored.
The aggressive type is the wrong choice as cruise director for leisure because they never seem to have the capacity to mitigate disagreement or consider all the options with regard to the people involved. It always seems to be the case that the aggressive types only consider what they want which invariably is the opposite of what anyone wants so the cruise director seems to think they deserve and of course do not receive any appreciation because everyone else is miserable and having no fun.
In business the cruise director is tasked with “herding cats”, taking disparate groups within a single company or multiple companies and focusing a project so that it adheres to its scope and deadlines. Individual companies and IEEE type working groups assign titles like project or program manager and offer courses like six sigma which gives out karate like “belts” for attending courses on and adherence to high-minded albeit vague principles.
Adherence to vague principles and reams of work-making paperwork to track that adherence seems to attract the overly bureaucratic control freak type, the worst possible choice for the business cruise director. Meetings will be absolutely wasted with discussions about philosophies, inane policies, leverage, platitudes (rabbit holes anyone?), synergy, adherence to irrelevant project management guidelines and discussions about how to appropriately talk about the project while never actually discussing the topics of the meeting.
The bureaucratic project manager is quick to jump to conclusions and always seems to proclaim a mastery of subject matter before it can be explained to them by actual people in the know. They completely monopolize meetings (which always go over time) by attempting to referee discussions when it is not warranted and incorrectly reiterating everything that is said by any party because they believe that they are the only person that really understands all viewpoints while the really understand nothing. In the end the participants are frustrated, hopelessly behind and wishing for the project manager to contract laryngitis or some kind of flu.
Inadequate cruise directors are the bane to anything getting done anywhere. In the leisure sense it leads to a rash of boring outings and indecisiveness. In business it’s entirely to blame for projects taking way too long to complete and costing much more than necessary. Many projects only get done entirely in spite of bad cruise directors. It is important to either get in on the ground floor and be a part of the selection process in the beginning or be wary that you will either regret not staying home or be sick of platitudes and never be able to get any work done.
Traveling in large groups for leisure can be difficult because if there is no set agenda, like on a cruise, it can be difficult to come to consensus on what to do. This kind of situation can even get worse when there is a group of people that don’t know what they want to do and can only disagree with what anyone else wants to do. This is a problem and needs some kind of cruise director to keep things moving along or else the entire trip will consist of people staring each other exchanging “I don’t knows” and being bored.
The aggressive type is the wrong choice as cruise director for leisure because they never seem to have the capacity to mitigate disagreement or consider all the options with regard to the people involved. It always seems to be the case that the aggressive types only consider what they want which invariably is the opposite of what anyone wants so the cruise director seems to think they deserve and of course do not receive any appreciation because everyone else is miserable and having no fun.
In business the cruise director is tasked with “herding cats”, taking disparate groups within a single company or multiple companies and focusing a project so that it adheres to its scope and deadlines. Individual companies and IEEE type working groups assign titles like project or program manager and offer courses like six sigma which gives out karate like “belts” for attending courses on and adherence to high-minded albeit vague principles.
Adherence to vague principles and reams of work-making paperwork to track that adherence seems to attract the overly bureaucratic control freak type, the worst possible choice for the business cruise director. Meetings will be absolutely wasted with discussions about philosophies, inane policies, leverage, platitudes (rabbit holes anyone?), synergy, adherence to irrelevant project management guidelines and discussions about how to appropriately talk about the project while never actually discussing the topics of the meeting.
The bureaucratic project manager is quick to jump to conclusions and always seems to proclaim a mastery of subject matter before it can be explained to them by actual people in the know. They completely monopolize meetings (which always go over time) by attempting to referee discussions when it is not warranted and incorrectly reiterating everything that is said by any party because they believe that they are the only person that really understands all viewpoints while the really understand nothing. In the end the participants are frustrated, hopelessly behind and wishing for the project manager to contract laryngitis or some kind of flu.
Inadequate cruise directors are the bane to anything getting done anywhere. In the leisure sense it leads to a rash of boring outings and indecisiveness. In business it’s entirely to blame for projects taking way too long to complete and costing much more than necessary. Many projects only get done entirely in spite of bad cruise directors. It is important to either get in on the ground floor and be a part of the selection process in the beginning or be wary that you will either regret not staying home or be sick of platitudes and never be able to get any work done.
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Forced Purchase Canard
With discussions ongoing on net-neutrality or as I like to call it, congress taking Al Gore’s invention and ruining it with nonsensical burdensome regulations that what will ultimately lead to higher costs for less access, what needs more understanding ultimately is exactly what is meant by privacy on the interwebs. After all, privacy and equal access (whatever that means) are the stated goals of high-minded control schemes such as net neutrality.
An informative article in the Wall Street Journal online this morning makes an attempt at identifying ten internet privacy myths and then debunking them, most interesting to me is the following:
I know people that every time they have a dollar coming in have already spent two and the reason why they never drown in their debt is because of bailouts and “protective” mechanisms that keep them afloat. These people have no one to blame but themselves and should instead declare bankruptcy so that they no longer can get credit to buy things that they cannot afford. This instructional moment should serve as a moment of introspection and a learning experience. These types of people are too often deemed victims by power hungry legislators and “protective” actions invariably become ways for some to defer responsibility. While billed as compassionate, “protective” legislation is often anything but.
Much of the content on the web is offered at no cost to the consumer, paid for by directed advertisements. Without these advertisements there could not be any no-cost to the consumer services. These advertisements do not force the consumer to do anything. And when they direct the user to a product or service the consumer still does not have to do anything, it requires a conscious decision by a person to make a purchase. There is no coercion here and stating otherwise is a lie.
An informative article in the Wall Street Journal online this morning makes an attempt at identifying ten internet privacy myths and then debunking them, most interesting to me is the following:
10) Targeted advertising leads people to buy stuff they don't want or need. This belief is inconsistent with the basis of a market economy. A market economy exists because buyers and sellers both benefit from voluntary transactions. If this were not true, then a planned economy would be more efficient—and we have all seen how that works.This myth is oft repeated and typically put forth by democrat politicians as a protection for “the people” against the unscrupulous “big business”. In reality it is a misunderstanding of a market based economy by liberal politicians that apparently believe that “the people” are incapable of being responsible for their own behavior.
I know people that every time they have a dollar coming in have already spent two and the reason why they never drown in their debt is because of bailouts and “protective” mechanisms that keep them afloat. These people have no one to blame but themselves and should instead declare bankruptcy so that they no longer can get credit to buy things that they cannot afford. This instructional moment should serve as a moment of introspection and a learning experience. These types of people are too often deemed victims by power hungry legislators and “protective” actions invariably become ways for some to defer responsibility. While billed as compassionate, “protective” legislation is often anything but.
Much of the content on the web is offered at no cost to the consumer, paid for by directed advertisements. Without these advertisements there could not be any no-cost to the consumer services. These advertisements do not force the consumer to do anything. And when they direct the user to a product or service the consumer still does not have to do anything, it requires a conscious decision by a person to make a purchase. There is no coercion here and stating otherwise is a lie.
A Call to Action or Shoving off Responsibility?
Recently populating the radio waves are calls to action imploring citizens of Albuquerque to tattle on other citizens. The first concerns spills at auto salvage yards and the second concerns suspected intoxicated drivers.
Both of these initiatives are flawed in that they require people who may not have the proper grasp of the subject to make judgments that can adversely affect a business or an individual. This is an undue responsibility to non-experts and only invites false alarms reported by busy bodies.
No one advocates for the spilling of hazardous materials anywhere and it is difficult to believe, as the commercial implies, that auto salvage yards refuse to participate in monitoring activities. With a myriad of federal and local regulations there surely must be some way for authorities to verify compliance. A person unfamiliar with the chemicals in use and the conditions that lead to spills should not be left to make this determination. What also must be considered are property rights, the commercial almost goes to the point to encourage people to spy on private companies which could unnecessarily hinder legal action because of due process.
The program that the city of Albuquerque has in place for people to report suspected drunk drivers is even more troubling. Imagine the following scenario; a relationship goes sour and one party follows the other to a bar and after the followed leaves the follower immediately calls the reporting number and gives details about the first party’s path home. The first party may or may not be intoxicated and there is a fuzzy line concerning what constitutes intoxication. In this scenario the first party is right at that line where it is at the officer’s discretion to determine if a person is impaired. This person is not driving erratically and by subjective means may not be considered drunk by the casual observer but may be by an overly cautious or aggressive officer. Without this “tip” this person never would have been stopped. However it is now possible because of an act motivated by malevolence they will now be stopped and may be arrested for being impaired which could seriously damage this person’s immediate future.
This state does have a problem concerning drunk driving and everything must be done to counter it however a dedicated hotline will only cause more problems than it solves. Any thinking person recognizing a dangerous driver, no matter the underlying circumstance, can and should report that person through existing means. Having a dedicated line will only encourage misuse which will add strain to existing resources and has the potential to harm innocents.
Secondary as a concern is the question of the effectiveness of current regulations and their enforcement. Citizens pay a large amount of their incomes in order to support these activities and it is disparaging to citizens listening to these types of ads because it lowers confidence in those entrusted with enforcement when they must implore those who pay for services to perform them as well.
Both of these initiatives are flawed in that they require people who may not have the proper grasp of the subject to make judgments that can adversely affect a business or an individual. This is an undue responsibility to non-experts and only invites false alarms reported by busy bodies.
No one advocates for the spilling of hazardous materials anywhere and it is difficult to believe, as the commercial implies, that auto salvage yards refuse to participate in monitoring activities. With a myriad of federal and local regulations there surely must be some way for authorities to verify compliance. A person unfamiliar with the chemicals in use and the conditions that lead to spills should not be left to make this determination. What also must be considered are property rights, the commercial almost goes to the point to encourage people to spy on private companies which could unnecessarily hinder legal action because of due process.
The program that the city of Albuquerque has in place for people to report suspected drunk drivers is even more troubling. Imagine the following scenario; a relationship goes sour and one party follows the other to a bar and after the followed leaves the follower immediately calls the reporting number and gives details about the first party’s path home. The first party may or may not be intoxicated and there is a fuzzy line concerning what constitutes intoxication. In this scenario the first party is right at that line where it is at the officer’s discretion to determine if a person is impaired. This person is not driving erratically and by subjective means may not be considered drunk by the casual observer but may be by an overly cautious or aggressive officer. Without this “tip” this person never would have been stopped. However it is now possible because of an act motivated by malevolence they will now be stopped and may be arrested for being impaired which could seriously damage this person’s immediate future.
This state does have a problem concerning drunk driving and everything must be done to counter it however a dedicated hotline will only cause more problems than it solves. Any thinking person recognizing a dangerous driver, no matter the underlying circumstance, can and should report that person through existing means. Having a dedicated line will only encourage misuse which will add strain to existing resources and has the potential to harm innocents.
Secondary as a concern is the question of the effectiveness of current regulations and their enforcement. Citizens pay a large amount of their incomes in order to support these activities and it is disparaging to citizens listening to these types of ads because it lowers confidence in those entrusted with enforcement when they must implore those who pay for services to perform them as well.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Tax Dollars to Send Baseball Player to Prison...
It was when I was 8 or 9 years old on a trip to the flea market at the New Mexico fairgrounds my parents bought me my first set of baseball cards. It was the 1987 Revco drugs all star pack featuring a couple dozen cards of standout players. Roger Clemens was one of the included players in that set and from that pack on I have considered myself a fan of Clemens. I have never been a fan specifically of any of his four teams and I think the theme of that pack of cards likely laid the road to the way that I am; more a fan of players in Major League Baseball as opposed to any single team.
Today, Roger Clemens finds himself under indictment for lying under oath to Congress before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform stating that he did not use steroids while a former trainer and a teammate asserted that he had. The charges under the indictment include “obstruction of Congress”, making false statements and perjury and are based on a grand jury investigation into Clemens that began hearing testimony more than 18 months ago.
The Congress show trials on the scourge of steroids in baseball, of course in the name of the children, all those years ago was unnecessary and wasteful and this indictment only furthers the valid point that the Congress spends too much time on things that just don’t matter and outside of their responsibilities. In this trial it is asserted that in the face of his denials Clemens knew exactly that he had used steroids in the past based on the testimony of others.
Based on others grilled by the Congressional panel who changed statements, if Clemens had later contradicted himself and apologized he would not have faced any further scrutiny while actually perjuring himself. According to sources he could face up to thirty years in prison on the charges. While it would be unlikely that he would be found guilty on all counts and there is much leeway in regard to sentencing guidelines the possibility of 30 years incarceration is completely over the top even if he is guilty.
No doubt detractors of Clemens, such as ESPN’s Sport’s Guy Bill Simmons, may view this news as a reason to celebrate, a reaction completely tied to emotion. Clemens, like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, to cite recent examples, are being trotted out for public ridicule and faces losing his freedom as he approaches his fifties (and could be into his eighties!) because Congress cannot help itself to wade into issues that it has no business in and then taking out convenient targets on politically motivated charges.
This is not justice; instead it is more proof that the US government is too big, disorganized and preoccupied to serve the citizens of this country. Here’s to Clemens beating this wrap and embarrassing Congress at the same time. And, here’s to more Obstruction of Congress, something that I think everyone can get behind. They need to be stopped.
Today, Roger Clemens finds himself under indictment for lying under oath to Congress before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform stating that he did not use steroids while a former trainer and a teammate asserted that he had. The charges under the indictment include “obstruction of Congress”, making false statements and perjury and are based on a grand jury investigation into Clemens that began hearing testimony more than 18 months ago.
The Congress show trials on the scourge of steroids in baseball, of course in the name of the children, all those years ago was unnecessary and wasteful and this indictment only furthers the valid point that the Congress spends too much time on things that just don’t matter and outside of their responsibilities. In this trial it is asserted that in the face of his denials Clemens knew exactly that he had used steroids in the past based on the testimony of others.
Based on others grilled by the Congressional panel who changed statements, if Clemens had later contradicted himself and apologized he would not have faced any further scrutiny while actually perjuring himself. According to sources he could face up to thirty years in prison on the charges. While it would be unlikely that he would be found guilty on all counts and there is much leeway in regard to sentencing guidelines the possibility of 30 years incarceration is completely over the top even if he is guilty.
No doubt detractors of Clemens, such as ESPN’s Sport’s Guy Bill Simmons, may view this news as a reason to celebrate, a reaction completely tied to emotion. Clemens, like Martha Stewart and Scooter Libby, to cite recent examples, are being trotted out for public ridicule and faces losing his freedom as he approaches his fifties (and could be into his eighties!) because Congress cannot help itself to wade into issues that it has no business in and then taking out convenient targets on politically motivated charges.
This is not justice; instead it is more proof that the US government is too big, disorganized and preoccupied to serve the citizens of this country. Here’s to Clemens beating this wrap and embarrassing Congress at the same time. And, here’s to more Obstruction of Congress, something that I think everyone can get behind. They need to be stopped.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
The Cell Phone Ban is not the Answer
The Albuquerque city council is considering strengthening the city’s ban on cell phone usage while driving. Distracted driving is a serious thing and there must be laws on the book that discourage such behavior. The cell phone ban is inadequate to stop distracted driving and should be replaced with widely applicable, simplified legislation that is easy to understand and enforce.
The reason why city council has to add to the law is because the way it is currently written, a person who is stopped at a light or a stop sign and using their phone is technically not in violation. It leads one to wonder what will be next. After the latest spackling of a hole found by a defense lawyer where will the next one be found?
The most troubling aspect of this law is that it only applies to cell phones and not anything else that leads to distracted driving. It is confounding if considered in the context that distracted driving is really just another form of reckless driving – “driving with a willful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”.
Instead of making new laws, offenses that are applicable within the framework of existing laws should be punishable under existing law. Whenever new laws are considered they are more often than not lengthy and the longer they get the more holes exist. It better serves the public to simplify legislation.
The cell phone ban should be wiped from the books and in its place reckless driving statutes should specify the act of distracted driving defined as the operation of a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property because of any distraction.
The simpler the better and if the legal terms must be better defined, fine. Let the city attorney determine what is appropriate but remember to give them a strict word count limit and a list of words they can use so that drivers can comprehend the result.
The reason why city council has to add to the law is because the way it is currently written, a person who is stopped at a light or a stop sign and using their phone is technically not in violation. It leads one to wonder what will be next. After the latest spackling of a hole found by a defense lawyer where will the next one be found?
The most troubling aspect of this law is that it only applies to cell phones and not anything else that leads to distracted driving. It is confounding if considered in the context that distracted driving is really just another form of reckless driving – “driving with a willful or a wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property”.
Instead of making new laws, offenses that are applicable within the framework of existing laws should be punishable under existing law. Whenever new laws are considered they are more often than not lengthy and the longer they get the more holes exist. It better serves the public to simplify legislation.
The cell phone ban should be wiped from the books and in its place reckless driving statutes should specify the act of distracted driving defined as the operation of a motor vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property because of any distraction.
The simpler the better and if the legal terms must be better defined, fine. Let the city attorney determine what is appropriate but remember to give them a strict word count limit and a list of words they can use so that drivers can comprehend the result.
Assumptions of Groupthink
Earlier this week the majority leader of the US Senate, democrat Harry Reid of Nevada made a statement about how he could not understand how any Hispanic could be Republican. After being questioned further on the subject Reid’s office sent out a statement clarifying that he meant he couldn’t understand why anyone would ever vote Republican because they are against Teachers, Police, Firemen, Bigfoot, Tinkerbell, Sunshine, Rainbows, etc.
These statements come from the leader of the United States Senate. Ostensively the US Senate is an august body comprised of noble and respected leaders. With a majority leader like Reid the Senate has become even more of a joke than low opinion poll ratings suggest.
On the original statement there have been some liberal commentators agreeing with the sentiment and there have been some conservative and Hispanic commentators refuting the comment and the senator. What is woefully missing from both sides is an ability to allow for the idea that Hispanics are free thinking people and as such, depending on many things come to political stances for many reasons. It is condescending for anyone, even with egocentric good intentions, to assign groupthink to any person or group because of ancestral origin.
Based on similar statements that I have heard throughout my lifetime it seems as though democrats are playing to an audience of certain groups that they assume buy in to this kind of talk. I happen to be Hispanic but my opinion amounts to almost nothing to democrats because I do not share their views on governance. It doesn’t matter how angry that these kind of comments make me because they don’t have my vote anyway. Because of this it appears that this statement was a calculated attempt at strengthening the assumptions of like minded voters. That the assumption is false is of no consequence.
In the clarification statement Reid peddles the tired liberal characterization of the Republican platform. An illustration of this came this week as congress was called back into session to vote on a 26 billion dollar funding of certain public sector jobs. Teachers were to benefit the most but the bill has a poison pill wherein the funds must be spent on expanded spending and on not recovering deficits in state budgets. The funding for the bill came from the roll back in expansion of food stamps to occur from 2013-1015. Democrats like Reid point to initiatives like this to prove that Republicans are against teachers but that just isn’t true. The funding for the food stamps program doesn’t exist yet, it is assumed savings. The gargantuan stimulus bill (targeted and short term) passed early last year still has not been fully spent and the democrat controlled congress would not allow the Republican suggestion to use unused stimulus funds. The Republican stance here was not to spend money that we simply do not have on programs that may not be necessary. It seems that to democrats; every teacher, police and fire fighter jobs must be funded no matter the state of the budget and without proper accounting. Worse yet these three hallowed positions are always used to cover other, less palatable political spending on public sector employment.
These statements come from the leader of the United States Senate. Ostensively the US Senate is an august body comprised of noble and respected leaders. With a majority leader like Reid the Senate has become even more of a joke than low opinion poll ratings suggest.
On the original statement there have been some liberal commentators agreeing with the sentiment and there have been some conservative and Hispanic commentators refuting the comment and the senator. What is woefully missing from both sides is an ability to allow for the idea that Hispanics are free thinking people and as such, depending on many things come to political stances for many reasons. It is condescending for anyone, even with egocentric good intentions, to assign groupthink to any person or group because of ancestral origin.
Based on similar statements that I have heard throughout my lifetime it seems as though democrats are playing to an audience of certain groups that they assume buy in to this kind of talk. I happen to be Hispanic but my opinion amounts to almost nothing to democrats because I do not share their views on governance. It doesn’t matter how angry that these kind of comments make me because they don’t have my vote anyway. Because of this it appears that this statement was a calculated attempt at strengthening the assumptions of like minded voters. That the assumption is false is of no consequence.
In the clarification statement Reid peddles the tired liberal characterization of the Republican platform. An illustration of this came this week as congress was called back into session to vote on a 26 billion dollar funding of certain public sector jobs. Teachers were to benefit the most but the bill has a poison pill wherein the funds must be spent on expanded spending and on not recovering deficits in state budgets. The funding for the bill came from the roll back in expansion of food stamps to occur from 2013-1015. Democrats like Reid point to initiatives like this to prove that Republicans are against teachers but that just isn’t true. The funding for the food stamps program doesn’t exist yet, it is assumed savings. The gargantuan stimulus bill (targeted and short term) passed early last year still has not been fully spent and the democrat controlled congress would not allow the Republican suggestion to use unused stimulus funds. The Republican stance here was not to spend money that we simply do not have on programs that may not be necessary. It seems that to democrats; every teacher, police and fire fighter jobs must be funded no matter the state of the budget and without proper accounting. Worse yet these three hallowed positions are always used to cover other, less palatable political spending on public sector employment.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Friendly Gestures
More than once I have been told by female friends that they have few, if any, female friends for various reasons most of which seem to be stereotypical. A couple events recently relayed to me by my wife had me shaking my head and rethinking these stereotypes. Maybe there’s more truth than assumptions there.
One of my wife’s friends recently got married to her long time boyfriend and from what I could determine was every bit the bridezilla type.
In one instance the bride to be gave a list of instructions to the bridesmaids detailing every second of the wedding day. At face this was no big deal, who wouldn’t want to be more organized? Reading the actual instructions I was struck by the detail and the way it was written. It was incredibly insulting; this woman was treating her friends like infants. I thought about what would happen if a dude distributed this note to his friends. He would have no more friends.
This same bride prided herself on planning every detail and inviting every guest to her groom’s bachelor party. This poor dude already had a problem getting enough groomsmen evidenced by two of them questioning their presence throughout the wedding and before that he couldn’t even be trusted to enjoy himself at a party for himself by his friends. Thankfully I was not invited so I didn’t have to turn down the invitation. The bride remained in constant contact with the groom throughout the night, ignoring her friends at the bachelorette party and further emasculating him. I could just imagine a group of dudes only tangentially knowing the groom sitting in a room afraid of the bride. Yes, that’s correct they stayed home, probably playing pin the juevos on the whipped dude.
Another instance involves a friend of my wife who is looking into buying a new car. She was talking to a life-long, best friend of hers specifically about the friend's new-ish car that she had bought earlier this year. This best-friend of my wife’s friend proceeded to tell her that her car cost eight thousand dollars more than it did. My wife was astounded by the fake price of the car and asked me about it. I went to Edmunds.com to check it out and learned that at the trim level of the car there were no options so the base price of just over 17 thousand dollars was the final price. It was a strange lie. First because it was so easily found out and second because lying about the price of the car had no benefit. This is not a sought after car, there is no premium added by the dealer and no one would be jealous of someone who paid eight grand over sticker for a subcompact. It appears as though the best friend was trying to discourage my wife’s friend from buying the same car.
When I was in my last semester of college I almost bought the same car as one of my best friends and he went with me to the test drive. A dude would talk up his car and then brag about fleecing the dealer. By the way, the car I bought last fall, I bought for almost 5 grand under sticker. It’s wicked fast and looks awesome.
So what’s the deal? As with anything involving the female world I’m clueless but with more stories like the above I start to understand my female friends a little more when they complain about their female friends.
One of my wife’s friends recently got married to her long time boyfriend and from what I could determine was every bit the bridezilla type.
In one instance the bride to be gave a list of instructions to the bridesmaids detailing every second of the wedding day. At face this was no big deal, who wouldn’t want to be more organized? Reading the actual instructions I was struck by the detail and the way it was written. It was incredibly insulting; this woman was treating her friends like infants. I thought about what would happen if a dude distributed this note to his friends. He would have no more friends.
This same bride prided herself on planning every detail and inviting every guest to her groom’s bachelor party. This poor dude already had a problem getting enough groomsmen evidenced by two of them questioning their presence throughout the wedding and before that he couldn’t even be trusted to enjoy himself at a party for himself by his friends. Thankfully I was not invited so I didn’t have to turn down the invitation. The bride remained in constant contact with the groom throughout the night, ignoring her friends at the bachelorette party and further emasculating him. I could just imagine a group of dudes only tangentially knowing the groom sitting in a room afraid of the bride. Yes, that’s correct they stayed home, probably playing pin the juevos on the whipped dude.
Another instance involves a friend of my wife who is looking into buying a new car. She was talking to a life-long, best friend of hers specifically about the friend's new-ish car that she had bought earlier this year. This best-friend of my wife’s friend proceeded to tell her that her car cost eight thousand dollars more than it did. My wife was astounded by the fake price of the car and asked me about it. I went to Edmunds.com to check it out and learned that at the trim level of the car there were no options so the base price of just over 17 thousand dollars was the final price. It was a strange lie. First because it was so easily found out and second because lying about the price of the car had no benefit. This is not a sought after car, there is no premium added by the dealer and no one would be jealous of someone who paid eight grand over sticker for a subcompact. It appears as though the best friend was trying to discourage my wife’s friend from buying the same car.
When I was in my last semester of college I almost bought the same car as one of my best friends and he went with me to the test drive. A dude would talk up his car and then brag about fleecing the dealer. By the way, the car I bought last fall, I bought for almost 5 grand under sticker. It’s wicked fast and looks awesome.
So what’s the deal? As with anything involving the female world I’m clueless but with more stories like the above I start to understand my female friends a little more when they complain about their female friends.
Taxing the Wealthy?
One interesting aspect of politics is that it is completely fungible. Depending on one’s perspective a political stance can basically mean anything and it doesn’t seem to be something that is always consistent with an accepted line of thinking.
In a recent with a conversation with a friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative we talked about an issues that is in the forefront in regard to this fall’s election, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush in 2001 and 2003 that are set to expire next year.
In the context of this conversation I learned that my friend, who I thought was mostly conservative, is an advocate of tax increases and more specifically an advocate of raising taxes on “the wealthy”. I was appalled because that position is something that I will never support. Every time that I hear politicians rant against “the rich” not paying their “fair share” I am instantly turned off. I am not wealthy and if anyone commits tax fraud I believe that they are certainly not paying their fair share by literal definition.
My friend’s position is that because there are so many obligations of government, benefits and services, taxes must go up and that because “the wealthy” make so much they would not miss it so they should be taxed more. And with that my friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative changed to my friend who apparently is an advocate of big government.
Assuredly there is some validity in the first part of that argument, as government grows it costs more and as a result the money to pay for it must come from the taxpayer. That is how government makes money. Personally I disagree with that because I do not believe that every “benefit” of government is necessary and that the solution lies in a drastic reduction in spending. See, fungible, depending on one’s viewpoint.
The second part of the statement was the one that I found the most appalling. Anyone who honestly believes that “the wealthy” don’t pay their fair share is in acute need of study. In this country we have something called a “progressive” tax code that is comprised of six tax brackets. Using the brackets the higher a person’s income, the more taxes are paid on each ascending level. At the top of the bracket the earner pays each bracket on each slice of income and from the top up to the rest of their income is assigned the highest percentage.
An analysis of tax receipts shows that the top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of taxes collected while earning 22.8% of income on an average income of about $410k. The top 10% of income earners on average make $113k making 48.05% of income and pay 71.22% of taxes.
10% of income earners is a minority of citizens in our country and because they are earners are not likely to get any “benefits” from the government outside of paved roads, sidewalks and the common defense, what the government should be providing. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 3% of taxes and along with the people who do not pay any taxes basically have a majority voting block on the other 97% of tax revenue, voting themselves “benefits”.
This condition is a form of tyranny. On emotion alone it can be argued that this view is cruel or reflexively anti poor. This argument and how it is arrived to is the problem. Too many people make decisions made on emotion alone and doing so discounts reality leading to the countless problems that come from big government picking winners and losers and making too many citizens into dependents. It robs the freedom of people and it has an ill effect on many communities where too many people never have a chance because they are conditioned to believe that the role of government is to provide everything and when the government provides everything it only provides just enough and there can be no success.
There should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens and there must be accountability from those citizens to hold government to that promise. The low wage earner should strive to earn more as they gain experience and not be jealous of those that earn more and not making claims on the earnings of others. The pursuit of happiness is a core founding principle of our country. Over taxation and pitting us citizens against each other on the basis of income robs us of that pursuit.
In a recent with a conversation with a friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative we talked about an issues that is in the forefront in regard to this fall’s election, the tax cuts enacted under President Bush in 2001 and 2003 that are set to expire next year.
In the context of this conversation I learned that my friend, who I thought was mostly conservative, is an advocate of tax increases and more specifically an advocate of raising taxes on “the wealthy”. I was appalled because that position is something that I will never support. Every time that I hear politicians rant against “the rich” not paying their “fair share” I am instantly turned off. I am not wealthy and if anyone commits tax fraud I believe that they are certainly not paying their fair share by literal definition.
My friend’s position is that because there are so many obligations of government, benefits and services, taxes must go up and that because “the wealthy” make so much they would not miss it so they should be taxed more. And with that my friend whom I had assumed was mostly conservative changed to my friend who apparently is an advocate of big government.
Assuredly there is some validity in the first part of that argument, as government grows it costs more and as a result the money to pay for it must come from the taxpayer. That is how government makes money. Personally I disagree with that because I do not believe that every “benefit” of government is necessary and that the solution lies in a drastic reduction in spending. See, fungible, depending on one’s viewpoint.
The second part of the statement was the one that I found the most appalling. Anyone who honestly believes that “the wealthy” don’t pay their fair share is in acute need of study. In this country we have something called a “progressive” tax code that is comprised of six tax brackets. Using the brackets the higher a person’s income, the more taxes are paid on each ascending level. At the top of the bracket the earner pays each bracket on each slice of income and from the top up to the rest of their income is assigned the highest percentage.
An analysis of tax receipts shows that the top 1% of income earners pay 40.4% of taxes collected while earning 22.8% of income on an average income of about $410k. The top 10% of income earners on average make $113k making 48.05% of income and pay 71.22% of taxes.
10% of income earners is a minority of citizens in our country and because they are earners are not likely to get any “benefits” from the government outside of paved roads, sidewalks and the common defense, what the government should be providing. The bottom 50% of earners contribute less than 3% of taxes and along with the people who do not pay any taxes basically have a majority voting block on the other 97% of tax revenue, voting themselves “benefits”.
This condition is a form of tyranny. On emotion alone it can be argued that this view is cruel or reflexively anti poor. This argument and how it is arrived to is the problem. Too many people make decisions made on emotion alone and doing so discounts reality leading to the countless problems that come from big government picking winners and losers and making too many citizens into dependents. It robs the freedom of people and it has an ill effect on many communities where too many people never have a chance because they are conditioned to believe that the role of government is to provide everything and when the government provides everything it only provides just enough and there can be no success.
There should be a limit to what government can take from its citizens and there must be accountability from those citizens to hold government to that promise. The low wage earner should strive to earn more as they gain experience and not be jealous of those that earn more and not making claims on the earnings of others. The pursuit of happiness is a core founding principle of our country. Over taxation and pitting us citizens against each other on the basis of income robs us of that pursuit.
Friday, August 06, 2010
This week...
It was a strange week and a busy week. There was a lot of news and most of it requires more waiting which I find especially frustrating because of my current work situation, which involves lots of waiting.
Brett Favre is back in the news. One day this week he was retiring. And the next he was going to play if he was physically able to. So, effectively nothing happened. But it was covered nearly breathlessly by the sports media for several days. Continue to stand by.
A judge in California strikes down the state’s Prop 8, defining state sanctioned marriage as between one male and one female or denying the right to marriage to gay couples depending on one’s viewpoint, because the traditional definition was no longer valid and of 80 “fact” findings of the judge, all agreed with his viewpoint. How convenient. This was a state judge so it now heads to the federal appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. Continue to stand by. The most sense I have read on this came from David Harsanyi:
Last week the pricing for the Chevy Volt and the government “benefit” of $7500 towards that price was announced. The President hailed the vehicle as a beacon to our future. Others made fun of a car that costs more than twice as much as its gas powered equivalent that can only go 40 miles on a charge while others derided both sides and deemed themselves correct, in the middle. Whatever that is.
The First Lady, Mrs. Obama, took to Spain on vacation. Renting dozens of hotel rooms with dozens of friends. Some of it was on their dime. Much on ours, including Air Force 2 and the salaries and travel costs of up to 60 secret service agents. Interesting how the news isn’t reporting on this trip as much as President Bush was hammered for vacations at his own ranch.
It was the President’s 49th birthday this week and he celebrated by going home to Chicago and meeting with Unions and throwing fundraisers for democrat candidates. In continuing to blame President Bush for today’s economic circumstances the current President is actually calling out the former President, by name. How presidential. It makes one wonder when this president will actually be president, when exactly does history begin for President Obama?
And unfortunately, Denver Broncos linebacker and sack specialist Elvis Dumervil has torn a pec muscle. It is likely that he will miss the season. A bad sign for an inconsistent defense.
Brett Favre is back in the news. One day this week he was retiring. And the next he was going to play if he was physically able to. So, effectively nothing happened. But it was covered nearly breathlessly by the sports media for several days. Continue to stand by.
A judge in California strikes down the state’s Prop 8, defining state sanctioned marriage as between one male and one female or denying the right to marriage to gay couples depending on one’s viewpoint, because the traditional definition was no longer valid and of 80 “fact” findings of the judge, all agreed with his viewpoint. How convenient. This was a state judge so it now heads to the federal appeals court and then to the Supreme Court. Continue to stand by. The most sense I have read on this came from David Harsanyi:
isn't it about time we freed marriage from the state?...Imagine if government had no interest in the definition of marriage. Individuals could commit to each other, head to the local priest or rabbi or shaman -- or no one at all -- and enter into contractual agreements, call their blissful union whatever they felt it should be called and go about the business of their lives.In the end though it’s all about government “benefits”. “Benefits” that I never seem to be eligible for and every day it becomes clear is simply a code word for the ability of the government to take from some and give to others for “the greater good”.
Last week the pricing for the Chevy Volt and the government “benefit” of $7500 towards that price was announced. The President hailed the vehicle as a beacon to our future. Others made fun of a car that costs more than twice as much as its gas powered equivalent that can only go 40 miles on a charge while others derided both sides and deemed themselves correct, in the middle. Whatever that is.
The First Lady, Mrs. Obama, took to Spain on vacation. Renting dozens of hotel rooms with dozens of friends. Some of it was on their dime. Much on ours, including Air Force 2 and the salaries and travel costs of up to 60 secret service agents. Interesting how the news isn’t reporting on this trip as much as President Bush was hammered for vacations at his own ranch.
It was the President’s 49th birthday this week and he celebrated by going home to Chicago and meeting with Unions and throwing fundraisers for democrat candidates. In continuing to blame President Bush for today’s economic circumstances the current President is actually calling out the former President, by name. How presidential. It makes one wonder when this president will actually be president, when exactly does history begin for President Obama?
And unfortunately, Denver Broncos linebacker and sack specialist Elvis Dumervil has torn a pec muscle. It is likely that he will miss the season. A bad sign for an inconsistent defense.
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Criminalizing "Finders Keepers"...
From the “Would this even stand up in court file”:
It seems that APD is really reaching with this tactic because as far as I can tell, “finders keepers” is not nor has have ever been a crime. In the story the details of a bust are shared in which a man was arrested after officers followed him for more than an hour after he found the bag. So, on top of entrapment, APD is wasting officer’s time by having them follow people for holding on to something that they have found.
Is it genial to find a backpack with $2500 worth of items in it and not report it to anyone? Of course not but it isn’t a crime either. And what do the people that find the backpack and then return it to the officers standing nearby get, a cookie?
I get it, it’s rough if you leave anything of value somewhere and then after going back it’s gone and there’s no lost and found and no one has called to let you know they have it. But, you only have yourself to blame. I have lost things in multiple places and often I’m lucky and it’s either right where I left it or someone someplace found it and kept it in a safe place. Other times, it’s gone. And I only have myself to blame in that situation.
Another problem with this kind of plan is that it does not appear that after being caught, could the person arrested even be successfully prosecuted? Imagine the lack of laws in regard to “finders keepers” legislation that a competent attorney could drive a car through in court. Imagine a situation where the person arrested attests that they kept it for safekeeping until they got home in order to contact the owner in some way and because the officers arrested them before they could do that that they did not get to complete their plan. A lot of the charge has to be intent and it seems impossible to tell in this kind of situation. You know, contrived.
The purpose of the plan as stated is to stop thefts of personal bags in the downtown Albuquerque area. Tricking people who would not otherwise actually rob anyone by leaving a bag stuffed with valuables is dirty and can only distract officers from protecting ordinary citizens from actual criminals. This plan should never be awaken from its current slumber.
Under the new Tac Plan, officers leave a backpack with items worth more than $2,500 at Gold and Fourth. If passersby take the backpack without reporting it to police, they are arrested and charged with felony counts of larceny.The story linked is about how this plan, hatched by the Albuquerque Police Department, is on hold but I’m left wondering how it was ever approved. Surely APD has their plans reviewed by the district attorney and apparently this plan was, as the story states. As a matter of fact, the reason why this plan is being put on hold is not because it is clearly entrapment but because it was approved by someone who no longer works in the district attorney’s office.
It seems that APD is really reaching with this tactic because as far as I can tell, “finders keepers” is not nor has have ever been a crime. In the story the details of a bust are shared in which a man was arrested after officers followed him for more than an hour after he found the bag. So, on top of entrapment, APD is wasting officer’s time by having them follow people for holding on to something that they have found.
Is it genial to find a backpack with $2500 worth of items in it and not report it to anyone? Of course not but it isn’t a crime either. And what do the people that find the backpack and then return it to the officers standing nearby get, a cookie?
I get it, it’s rough if you leave anything of value somewhere and then after going back it’s gone and there’s no lost and found and no one has called to let you know they have it. But, you only have yourself to blame. I have lost things in multiple places and often I’m lucky and it’s either right where I left it or someone someplace found it and kept it in a safe place. Other times, it’s gone. And I only have myself to blame in that situation.
Another problem with this kind of plan is that it does not appear that after being caught, could the person arrested even be successfully prosecuted? Imagine the lack of laws in regard to “finders keepers” legislation that a competent attorney could drive a car through in court. Imagine a situation where the person arrested attests that they kept it for safekeeping until they got home in order to contact the owner in some way and because the officers arrested them before they could do that that they did not get to complete their plan. A lot of the charge has to be intent and it seems impossible to tell in this kind of situation. You know, contrived.
The purpose of the plan as stated is to stop thefts of personal bags in the downtown Albuquerque area. Tricking people who would not otherwise actually rob anyone by leaving a bag stuffed with valuables is dirty and can only distract officers from protecting ordinary citizens from actual criminals. This plan should never be awaken from its current slumber.
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Take out WikiLeaks
In a column titled “WikiLeaks must be stopped”, the Washington Post’s Marc Thiessen writes on a subject that I have often thought about recently as a result of the WikiLeaks website publishing of more than seventy five thousand US Military classified documents:
The owner of WikiLeaks is an Australian who travels through friendly countries in Europe and brags that his web site is impenetrable which surely can’t be true. There must be some government agency, specifically the two listed above that could have taken this threat and wiped it from the web. This gross criminal act, if another country did this it would be rightly considered an act of war, is not the first time that this site has posted classified U.S. documents and they even allowed U.S. and European newspapers to look at the current batch before they were posted online. There was plenty of warning and time for some government agency to take positive action to protect this information.
And in the absence of government action, why are there no patriotic hackers able to attack the web site as an act in service of their country? Certainly there are hackers in this country capable to taking out WikiLeaks and covering their tracks so that they cannot be found. It would be a source of national pride that some individual or group with the capability to do so would.
The opinion exists that much of the documentation is old and therefore not all that important. This opinion completely misses the point. The point is that a criminal has taken it on their own to illegally obtain and share secrets of our country. It does not matter that the harm done is less than if the documents were more current. That argument requires blind luck and the next time that WikiLeaks posts U.S. classified information that luck may not be there.
It is frustrating and pathetic that our government either can’t or will not confront the criminals that comprise WikiLeaks. It cannot be soon enough that the decision is made to take this criminal organization out and a visit to their website leads to a site not found error and the operators themselves are in jail.
WikiLeaks is not a news organization; it is a criminal enterprise. Its reason for existence is to obtain classified national security information and disseminate it as widely as possible -- including to the United States' enemies. These actions are likely a violation of the Espionage Act, and they arguably constitute material support for terrorism. The Web site must be shut down and prevented from releasing more documents -- and its leadership brought to justice.Thiessen continues by outlining his reasoning for shutting down WikiLeaks, arresting the operators and the methods that are available to the United States government to do both. This article is more than overdue. It is hard to understand why the recently commissioned U.S. Cyber Command and/or the National Security Agency seemingly do not have the initiative and authority to remove WikiLeaks from cyberspace.
The owner of WikiLeaks is an Australian who travels through friendly countries in Europe and brags that his web site is impenetrable which surely can’t be true. There must be some government agency, specifically the two listed above that could have taken this threat and wiped it from the web. This gross criminal act, if another country did this it would be rightly considered an act of war, is not the first time that this site has posted classified U.S. documents and they even allowed U.S. and European newspapers to look at the current batch before they were posted online. There was plenty of warning and time for some government agency to take positive action to protect this information.
And in the absence of government action, why are there no patriotic hackers able to attack the web site as an act in service of their country? Certainly there are hackers in this country capable to taking out WikiLeaks and covering their tracks so that they cannot be found. It would be a source of national pride that some individual or group with the capability to do so would.
The opinion exists that much of the documentation is old and therefore not all that important. This opinion completely misses the point. The point is that a criminal has taken it on their own to illegally obtain and share secrets of our country. It does not matter that the harm done is less than if the documents were more current. That argument requires blind luck and the next time that WikiLeaks posts U.S. classified information that luck may not be there.
It is frustrating and pathetic that our government either can’t or will not confront the criminals that comprise WikiLeaks. It cannot be soon enough that the decision is made to take this criminal organization out and a visit to their website leads to a site not found error and the operators themselves are in jail.
Monday, August 02, 2010
Albuquerque takes a step towards limiting HOAs
Several years ago, shortly after moving into my first home, I found trouble with the homeowner’s association (HOA). It was my original preference to find a neighborhood that did not have an HOA because even though I had never lived within one everything I heard or read about them was negative. The whole concept to me seemed akin to signing up to be bullied by neighbors. My trouble was in regard to dead lawn in my front yard that was that way when I moved in; eventually everything was cleared up but not without much hassle.
Albuquerque City Councilor Isaac Benton will be presenting a proposal so that homeowners can xeriscape their yards even if a HOA covenant requires a certain amount of the homeowner’s front yard be grass. An attorney representing the Tanoan Community Association derides the proposal as government interjecting itself into “private” rights.
Let me be clear, there is no such thing as “private” rights in connection with a homeowner’s association. The only purpose served by an HOA is to allow power hungry control freaks to lord over their neighbors and dictate actual private rights. By sanctioning such burdensome organizations, our local governments have made it almost mandatory for the individual to cede many rights to these control freaks as a requirement of homeownership.
Take for example the story of a HOA in Texas that repossessed and auctioned a 300,000 dollar home for 3,500 dollars on account of 800 dollars owed in dues. This is tyranny. While letters were sent to the homeowner no one ever visited or called the homeowners to verify in person. These were these people’s neighbors, who wouldn’t have had to walk even a quarter mile to talk to them, taking their house over a negligible amount and selling it for a joke of a price. There was no court date, in Texas HOAs can take property without going to court. They can take property without due process. This is an abomination.
While this story is ending favorably for the original homeowners, it never should have happened. HOAs do serve the purpose of ensuring that people take care of their homes so that they do not have a negative effect on the property values of neighbor’s. If that is all that they did there would be no problem but as time has gone by HOA covenants have become epic tomes that would make the US House of Representatives envious by account of page count and doubletalk. All of this nitpicking results in the complete micromanaging of one’s homes, trampling rights and prizing conformity.
Adding to my personal insult, when I moved into my home it was accepted that some of the 206 dollars in yearly dues would be used toward common area maintenance. Since, I have learned that those common areas are very limited as I am charged with maintaining to their standard the common sidewalk areas immediately in front of my home. Additionally, while the HOA excels at sending threatening letters they have no teeth as evidenced by poor upkeep at homes within several hundred yards of my own.
So, what exactly do I pay 206 dollars a year for? For the pleasure of being harassed by self-important control freaks, that’s what. The proposal in front of city council is a good start and hopefully it will pass. The next step that must be pursued is legislation that limits what and what not HOAs can force on peaceful residents, ensuring that covenants are clear and of a reasonable length and that a responsible homeowner has some way of defending themselves within the law against these tyrants.
Albuquerque City Councilor Isaac Benton will be presenting a proposal so that homeowners can xeriscape their yards even if a HOA covenant requires a certain amount of the homeowner’s front yard be grass. An attorney representing the Tanoan Community Association derides the proposal as government interjecting itself into “private” rights.
Let me be clear, there is no such thing as “private” rights in connection with a homeowner’s association. The only purpose served by an HOA is to allow power hungry control freaks to lord over their neighbors and dictate actual private rights. By sanctioning such burdensome organizations, our local governments have made it almost mandatory for the individual to cede many rights to these control freaks as a requirement of homeownership.
Take for example the story of a HOA in Texas that repossessed and auctioned a 300,000 dollar home for 3,500 dollars on account of 800 dollars owed in dues. This is tyranny. While letters were sent to the homeowner no one ever visited or called the homeowners to verify in person. These were these people’s neighbors, who wouldn’t have had to walk even a quarter mile to talk to them, taking their house over a negligible amount and selling it for a joke of a price. There was no court date, in Texas HOAs can take property without going to court. They can take property without due process. This is an abomination.
While this story is ending favorably for the original homeowners, it never should have happened. HOAs do serve the purpose of ensuring that people take care of their homes so that they do not have a negative effect on the property values of neighbor’s. If that is all that they did there would be no problem but as time has gone by HOA covenants have become epic tomes that would make the US House of Representatives envious by account of page count and doubletalk. All of this nitpicking results in the complete micromanaging of one’s homes, trampling rights and prizing conformity.
Adding to my personal insult, when I moved into my home it was accepted that some of the 206 dollars in yearly dues would be used toward common area maintenance. Since, I have learned that those common areas are very limited as I am charged with maintaining to their standard the common sidewalk areas immediately in front of my home. Additionally, while the HOA excels at sending threatening letters they have no teeth as evidenced by poor upkeep at homes within several hundred yards of my own.
So, what exactly do I pay 206 dollars a year for? For the pleasure of being harassed by self-important control freaks, that’s what. The proposal in front of city council is a good start and hopefully it will pass. The next step that must be pursued is legislation that limits what and what not HOAs can force on peaceful residents, ensuring that covenants are clear and of a reasonable length and that a responsible homeowner has some way of defending themselves within the law against these tyrants.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wired's Defense of Nonsense
Almost two months ago I posted in regard to a mystical Wired magazine equation that attempted to prove just how much CO2 is produced by humans. The flaw with this equation is that it starts with a variable F, meant to show Global CO2 emissions, that was explicitly on both sides which means that any other variable in the equation does not matter.
Being monks in the secular religion of global warming/man caused climate change the editors at Wired cannot help themselves from further obfuscation. In a reply titled “It Is What It Is” from the August 2010 issue, they state “Of course the two sides are equal-that’s what scientists call an equation”.
On the face of things, that is true but what the editors neglect is that an equation is to show that one can arrive at a value by calculating some combination of other values. If the right side of the equation relies on the same exact value as the left side and contains other values that cancel each other out, those other values are meaningless.
Let’s look at an example. Ohm’s law, V = IR can be written as V = I * V/I which means V = V, but it is not written that way because current (I) and resistance (R) are tangible quantities and so long as two values are known, the third can be determined. From the way it is written, the user needs to know I and R to determine V or the left side is determined by known values on the right. Wired’s equation tries to show how to calculate the left side but it requires that left side to solve itself (by way of being explicitly on the right) which is ridiculous. This is forcing the issue by using unknowable values that can be whatever the user desires because if A = B*C/B*D/C*A/D all you’re proving is that A = A and B, C and D never matter. B, C and D can literally (H/T Sean Hannity) be anything. And if one plays with the equation on the Wired website that anything is used to show that the Earth is always doomed because humans are awful.
To Wired, this doesn’t matter. Like every other climate alarmist instead of acknowledging the obvious they mock inquiries into their methods and continue to push mythology. The title of the response should have been “It Is What It Is And You Should Believe Us Just Because, Ignore What You Know, There Is Nothing To See Here”. And these are not the droids that you are looking for.
While Wired sticks to nonsense equations I will stick to my earlier statement;
Being monks in the secular religion of global warming/man caused climate change the editors at Wired cannot help themselves from further obfuscation. In a reply titled “It Is What It Is” from the August 2010 issue, they state “Of course the two sides are equal-that’s what scientists call an equation”.
On the face of things, that is true but what the editors neglect is that an equation is to show that one can arrive at a value by calculating some combination of other values. If the right side of the equation relies on the same exact value as the left side and contains other values that cancel each other out, those other values are meaningless.
Let’s look at an example. Ohm’s law, V = IR can be written as V = I * V/I which means V = V, but it is not written that way because current (I) and resistance (R) are tangible quantities and so long as two values are known, the third can be determined. From the way it is written, the user needs to know I and R to determine V or the left side is determined by known values on the right. Wired’s equation tries to show how to calculate the left side but it requires that left side to solve itself (by way of being explicitly on the right) which is ridiculous. This is forcing the issue by using unknowable values that can be whatever the user desires because if A = B*C/B*D/C*A/D all you’re proving is that A = A and B, C and D never matter. B, C and D can literally (H/T Sean Hannity) be anything. And if one plays with the equation on the Wired website that anything is used to show that the Earth is always doomed because humans are awful.
To Wired, this doesn’t matter. Like every other climate alarmist instead of acknowledging the obvious they mock inquiries into their methods and continue to push mythology. The title of the response should have been “It Is What It Is And You Should Believe Us Just Because, Ignore What You Know, There Is Nothing To See Here”. And these are not the droids that you are looking for.
While Wired sticks to nonsense equations I will stick to my earlier statement;
This is a perfect illustration of why many don’t take warmmongers seriously anymore. Why should the public believe in this stuff if the purveyors treat us like imbeciles?
Friday, July 30, 2010
In search of clarity
In an interesting business turn recently I had the pleasure to ask in all seriousness if someone who was looking for me to give them something if they were indeed looking for me to give them something. This seemingly strangely worded account stems from one of my deepest desires, the desire that those I interact with tell me exactly what it is that they want and why. It is a perplexing and much too common occurrence that someone wants something but for whatever reason determines that the best method to get that something is to obfuscate.
It all started with a University that was looking into obtaining a software application that my company developed for a particular class and to be used in lab. The initial query came in the form of an email and was worded in a way that could be taken in multiple ways. And multiple ways were taken by several people in my company’s chain of command evidenced by the Office Space style way that I received the same note from multiple people imploring that I rush to take care of this business opportunity.
While my boss’ boss read it as a possible large sale and even the prospect of a development partner (!?), I read it from the beginning as someone looking to us to give them product and support. This read of the request was apparent to me because the request was wordy and mentioned the word agreement many times, non-monetary benefits to my company for participation and an appeal to the CEO of the company who, tangential interest in the purpose of this particular school. Not exactly a sales inquiry.
Several days after responding by email and phone the representative of the school called and we spoke about it for several minutes. Details of the class and flattering comments of the software were shared by this representative while not once mentioning that his purpose was a hand out. While I do have the almost supernatural ability to recognize winks and nods over the phone and in writing I won’t respond to them. I asked the representative to send me an email detailing their proposal, stressing the importance of clarity.
When that email came it again was heavy on platitudes while empty on details. This led to my question, asking specifically if what was being proposed was the dispatch of software at no cost and finally the representative replied in the affirmative.
It could be thought that because I knew exactly what was going on that this whole episode was not necessary and while valid is beside the point. There is no reason why adults need to hide their intentions when talking business with other adults. There is no reason for a University to hide their intentions and it is not uncommon for companies to provide students with complementary products, after all I bought a calculator for college based on experiences with one that I used in high school compliments of the manufacturer. Let me be clear, I want to be asked.
It is not too much to ask for someone looking to solicit something for nothing to tell you what exactly they want. This kind of behavior is much too common and it is confusing as to the cause. It seems almost as if there are some people that believe sharing their true intentions would lead to a negative response. It is beyond puzzling why making the other person guess while hiding those intentions is better. Whatever happens in the future it is certain that I will stubbornly continue to always insist on clarity.
It all started with a University that was looking into obtaining a software application that my company developed for a particular class and to be used in lab. The initial query came in the form of an email and was worded in a way that could be taken in multiple ways. And multiple ways were taken by several people in my company’s chain of command evidenced by the Office Space style way that I received the same note from multiple people imploring that I rush to take care of this business opportunity.
While my boss’ boss read it as a possible large sale and even the prospect of a development partner (!?), I read it from the beginning as someone looking to us to give them product and support. This read of the request was apparent to me because the request was wordy and mentioned the word agreement many times, non-monetary benefits to my company for participation and an appeal to the CEO of the company who, tangential interest in the purpose of this particular school. Not exactly a sales inquiry.
Several days after responding by email and phone the representative of the school called and we spoke about it for several minutes. Details of the class and flattering comments of the software were shared by this representative while not once mentioning that his purpose was a hand out. While I do have the almost supernatural ability to recognize winks and nods over the phone and in writing I won’t respond to them. I asked the representative to send me an email detailing their proposal, stressing the importance of clarity.
When that email came it again was heavy on platitudes while empty on details. This led to my question, asking specifically if what was being proposed was the dispatch of software at no cost and finally the representative replied in the affirmative.
It could be thought that because I knew exactly what was going on that this whole episode was not necessary and while valid is beside the point. There is no reason why adults need to hide their intentions when talking business with other adults. There is no reason for a University to hide their intentions and it is not uncommon for companies to provide students with complementary products, after all I bought a calculator for college based on experiences with one that I used in high school compliments of the manufacturer. Let me be clear, I want to be asked.
It is not too much to ask for someone looking to solicit something for nothing to tell you what exactly they want. This kind of behavior is much too common and it is confusing as to the cause. It seems almost as if there are some people that believe sharing their true intentions would lead to a negative response. It is beyond puzzling why making the other person guess while hiding those intentions is better. Whatever happens in the future it is certain that I will stubbornly continue to always insist on clarity.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Unfriending Congress
There have been several times over the last year where I found myself motivated to write to the congressional delegation of New Mexico, always in fierce opposition to some ridiculous expensive, wordy and unread legislative “framework”. Neither senator’s staff, Udall nor Bingaman, has ever responded although Bingaman’s office did put my address on their spam email list. Thanks for that. I have received responses from representative Heinrich’s office, informing me that everyone else wants what I don’t and that my opposition likely stems from a misunderstanding and that I will be appreciative some day when my life is enriched by the congress’ benevolence. Needless to say, I’m not exactly enamored with my state’s representation.
This morning there were two columns on National Review Online discussing the apparent antipathy congress has shown towards much of their constituency and how that has led to a distrust and even intense dislike from that constituency. Victor Davis Hanson explores ethical issues and the current congress’ inability/refusal for contemplation:
While the corruption angle is a valid one it is not the most important one simply because, as Hanson mentions, congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past. The most detrimental aspect is that many of these criminals are often re-elected. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Bought a Third Term-NY) reminded people that Rangel had done so much for NY. If certain areas continue to hire these people then they deserve what they get.
The most important detail starts with a more informed electorate. With the internet anyone can be as informed on any subject in relation to what the government is up to as desired. And being informed it is possible for the individual to understand how what congress does affects them directly and how to identify political posturing and nonsense. Stephen Spruiell examines an example of nonsense:
This is an old story and as more and more of the electorate becomes informed and shares knowledge in casual conversation the less this tactic will work. That’s the glass half full view. The half empty view wonders if enough of the electorate cares enough to become informed and with gerrymandered house districts how much does it matter? After all, how many congressmen have been re-elected after being sent to prison? Starting this November we will learn which direction is correct. Mr. Heinrich, I am not the only person in NM-1 that does not care for the democrat utopia.
This morning there were two columns on National Review Online discussing the apparent antipathy congress has shown towards much of their constituency and how that has led to a distrust and even intense dislike from that constituency. Victor Davis Hanson explores ethical issues and the current congress’ inability/refusal for contemplation:
Recent polls show that more than 70 percent of the public holds an unfavorable view of Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) wins about a 10 percent approval rating; Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) has similarly rock-bottom poll numbers…Why this astounding — and growing — disdain for our lawmakers? After all, Congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past, such as the House post-office and check-kiting messes, the Charles Keating payoffs, and the Abscam bribery…But lately, Congress seems not merely corrupt, but — far more worrisome — without apparent concern that it has become so unethical.This is certainly believable as one avenue. In the last week, anyone who happened to pay attention, was able to witness former House Ways and Means Chair Charles Rangel (D, NY) dismissing charges against him stemming from failure to pay taxes and taking advantage of his position for illegal perks. It is debatable though how many people pay attention, Rangel could be thrown in prison tomorrow and would likely sail to re-election.
While the corruption angle is a valid one it is not the most important one simply because, as Hanson mentions, congress has had plenty of scandals and corruption in the past. The most detrimental aspect is that many of these criminals are often re-elected. NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg (Bought a Third Term-NY) reminded people that Rangel had done so much for NY. If certain areas continue to hire these people then they deserve what they get.
The most important detail starts with a more informed electorate. With the internet anyone can be as informed on any subject in relation to what the government is up to as desired. And being informed it is possible for the individual to understand how what congress does affects them directly and how to identify political posturing and nonsense. Stephen Spruiell examines an example of nonsense:
Judging from the previous remarks of key Senate Democrats, Senate majority leader Harry Reid isn’t likely to get enough votes for the energy bill he unveiled this week. Even without carbon caps or renewable-energy mandates on utility companies, Reid’s bill is too much of a job-killer to pass…Reid settled on a different strategy — a political one. He put forward a bill that eliminated the $10 billion cap entirely, even though that likely dooms the bill’s chances. “They’re hoping it will be defeated,” says a GOP Senate aide who works on energy issues. “They have the talking points ready about how it’s the Republicans’ fault. But this is going to be a little bit harder for them to put on the Republicans when we had an alternative bill they rejected out of hand.”It can and will be argued that because National Review is a conservative magazine their opinion is biased in this regard but anyone who actually takes the time to examine the issues and the way that congress works will understand that this is the way that the democrats operate. They have complete control of the house and have a 59-41 seat advantage in the Senate, meaning they need not one Republican vote for anything. They would need one Republican vote in the Senate for cloture (the procedure to move a bill to the floor for a final vote) but there is no example of them not getting past that threshold. Further evidence can be found in examining the comments of the President and the leaders of both chambers of congress, every problem we face and the lack of a solution is because of the Republican boogeyman.
This is an old story and as more and more of the electorate becomes informed and shares knowledge in casual conversation the less this tactic will work. That’s the glass half full view. The half empty view wonders if enough of the electorate cares enough to become informed and with gerrymandered house districts how much does it matter? After all, how many congressmen have been re-elected after being sent to prison? Starting this November we will learn which direction is correct. Mr. Heinrich, I am not the only person in NM-1 that does not care for the democrat utopia.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Pro Stupid Lawsuit Rhetoric from Sports Media
Apparently it is beside the point that Tennessee Titan coach Jeff Fisher’s ex-employer scorned fueled lawsuit is frivolous and pathetic because USC head coach Lane Kiffin is a bad guy. Fox Sports’ Kalani Simpson:
It’s even worse when the author is respectable, from CBS Sports’ Ray Ratto:
What is it with USC coach Lane Kiffin and the vitriol that he endears in the sports media? Watching Pardon The Interruption this afternoon Tony Kornheiser, on an unrelated subject, had to mention that Kiffin had never done anything. Seemingly to further the idea that Kiffin does not deserve the job that he has. Every time Kiffin is mentioned there is some sports writer preening about the right way to do things. It is strange and unfortunate.
This is someone saying loudly, publicly, "I don't like that guy." And, "This guy is such a jerk, I want it entered in some kind of court record."… it seems to be that maybe this is just who Lane Kiffin is, this is what he does, this is how people react to him, this is the chaos that seems to swirl constantly around him. This is what you get when you hire him, along with Monte, his much beloved football genius of an old man, and Ed Orgeron, perhaps the best recruiter on God's green Earth.Yes, because that is the appropriate way to deal with someone who is a jerk, defined as such because he hired someone who worked for you, have it entered in a court record. Simpson goes on even more:
And he just splattered all over (new USC athletic director) Pat Haden's first week on the job…Look, Lane. Buddy. Sweetheart. You're at USC now. You don't have to try so hard…It's OK to tweak people, to be a little bit of an instigator. See Spurrier, Steve…It's not OK to actually get served with legal papers.So, it is actually some type of unforgiveable crime for a pathetic lawsuit to be filed against them? Simply ridiculous is this line of opinion.
It’s even worse when the author is respectable, from CBS Sports’ Ray Ratto:
The Tennessee Titans-USC (read: Lane Kiffin) lawsuit is yet one more reminder why Kiffin's scorched-sport policy, while completely suicidal, is so much fun to watch…What we enjoy is Kiffin's absolutely mad dash to be the man he once shared a hatefest with -- Al Davis. ..In other words, he wants to be hated by all people not currently in his employ, and if he can manage it in time, to be feared by those in his employ. There is no other explanation for the number of ways he seeks out the disapproval of others, and how swiftly he achieves it.Ratto dawns his psychiatrist hat and determines for us that Kiffin has some pathological need to be hated and that explains all of these nefarious transgressions, the latest of which was to hire someone?
What is it with USC coach Lane Kiffin and the vitriol that he endears in the sports media? Watching Pardon The Interruption this afternoon Tony Kornheiser, on an unrelated subject, had to mention that Kiffin had never done anything. Seemingly to further the idea that Kiffin does not deserve the job that he has. Every time Kiffin is mentioned there is some sports writer preening about the right way to do things. It is strange and unfortunate.
Buying your car
Government Motors is soon to release the Chevrolet Volt the first mass produced Hybrid vehicle primarily powered by electricity. This type of drive train is typically referred to as a “plug in” Hybrid. The way that it works is that on a full charge the car can travel up to forty miles. That “up to” being quite the caveat as it is determinant on weather, traffic, and the driver’s right foot amongst others. After this “up to” forty miles has been exhausted there is a small four cylinder internal combustion fossil fuel oil derived gasoline engine that works as a generator to propel the car another 300 miles.
The big announcement today was the pricing, at 41,000 dollars which appears steep for a car that cannot be described as large, fast, comfortable, luxurious or competitive amenity wise with the Volt’s price peers. But wait, there’s more:
This is a testament to both government waste and the lack of market viability for this kind of vehicle. I don’t care one way or another in regard to anyone’s choice of vehicle but I certainly will never believe that it is acceptable for anyone to dip into my pocket to help with that purchase. It is my money that is being thrown at immature technology that is supposedly environmentally friendly but in reality is just a political control measure intended to put people into the vehicles preferred by certain constituents that otherwise would be unfeasible without federal “incentives”.
If the Chevy Volt is the future then sell it without incentives and let it lead us into the “alternative” energy future that features electricity that is produced using such “alternatives” as coal and natural gas. There have been some who chuckle at the high price because the snobs that will buy it can be thought of as rubes for buying at such an untenable price. That’s nonsense as well. If that rube will pay a premium for a hippie status symbol, let them pay 7,500 dollars more and buy their own damn charging station.
The big announcement today was the pricing, at 41,000 dollars which appears steep for a car that cannot be described as large, fast, comfortable, luxurious or competitive amenity wise with the Volt’s price peers. But wait, there’s more:
applying the U.S. federal tax credit will whittle $7500 from the purchase priceWhich means that after taking into consideration a U.S. federal tax credit, the Volt’s price is reduced to 33,500 dollars. Huzzah. But wait, there’s even more:
The first buyers of the Chevrolet Volt electric vehicle with extended-range capability will be eligible for one of 4,400 free home charging stations. The program will provide Volt owners with a 240-volt charge station from either ECOtality, Inc. or Coulomb Technologies. In many cases, it will include the cost of home installation. The projects are made possible with a grant of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds from the Transportation Electrification Initiative administered by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)…."For Volt owners who want to install a faster 240-volt charge station, we expect the Department of Energy project to save $1,000 and $2,000."What does it all mean? It means that every single Chevy Volt buyer will get to dip into the pockets of their fellow taxpaying citizens to the tune of seven thousand, five hundred dollars and if they are among the first 4,400 they get to help themselves to another one to two thousand more. You’re welcome leeches.
This is a testament to both government waste and the lack of market viability for this kind of vehicle. I don’t care one way or another in regard to anyone’s choice of vehicle but I certainly will never believe that it is acceptable for anyone to dip into my pocket to help with that purchase. It is my money that is being thrown at immature technology that is supposedly environmentally friendly but in reality is just a political control measure intended to put people into the vehicles preferred by certain constituents that otherwise would be unfeasible without federal “incentives”.
If the Chevy Volt is the future then sell it without incentives and let it lead us into the “alternative” energy future that features electricity that is produced using such “alternatives” as coal and natural gas. There have been some who chuckle at the high price because the snobs that will buy it can be thought of as rubes for buying at such an untenable price. That’s nonsense as well. If that rube will pay a premium for a hippie status symbol, let them pay 7,500 dollars more and buy their own damn charging station.
Thanks, but Seriously, No Thanks
Yesterday afternoon on my bike ride home my front tire’s tube blew out in a loud pop leaving the tire loosely applied to the rim of the wheel with tire sealant, the tube and a liner flapping as I attempted to stop. I was unable to stop, veering instead to the right of the bike trail and promptly falling down. Being lucky there was not too much damage to myself, a jammed thumb and some scratches on both legs. As for my bike, the full extent is yet to be fully explored. There are some scratches that don’t affect anything and the rim is roughed up but may still be useable, even the tire seems to be in an almost unaffected state. Earlier that morning I had aired up the tires and suspect that I may have added too much pressure for the afternoon heat. Or perhaps it was a combination of things, after all the tube in that tire had been in place for more than a year so age could have contributed. It’s hard to tell when a blowout occurs.
Shortly after falling, another cyclist who was on the same trail was kind enough to stop and ensure that I was alright and offer assistance. He offered to sell me a spare tube and presumptively I could have used it to get home but I didn’t much feel like riding anymore and the tires on his own bike being more narrow than my own I wasn’t certain that the tube would have fit.
If that were the balance of my interaction with the other cyclist there would be nothing to write about, however I have no such luck. Shortly after offering the tube the other cyclist, no doubt based on an assumption of helpfulness, decided to inspect my wheel in order to diagnose the problem that led to the tube blowout. His first assumption was that the sidewall was not properly installed. As kindly as possible I mentioned that the tire had been seated for more than a year and mentioned again that I was fine and appreciated him stopping and assured that I had everything under control. Undeterred, the cyclist condescendingly began to offer multiple maintenance suggestions all of which were either basic or even common sense to any cyclist.
At this point the encounter became strange and insulting. The other cyclist assumed that I was unfamiliar with the proper operation of my own bike. There was no reason for this assumption at all. While I am not a bike mechanic I am familiar with maintaining a bike and have built several while replacing complex components on others. Now, the other cyclist had no knowledge of my experience so he couldn’t know what I knew but why treat me like a child? I have a nice bike with quality mid-range components. It doesn’t squeak and is in very good condition (with some new scratches). There was no reason for this person to make the judgment that he did.
It is an all too common occurrence nowadays. It seems as though there are many people that believe that they are being helpful by being condescending and making the assumption that everyone else is an idiot. It is not helpful and when someone turns down your help, it’s not because they don’t know any better and require your sage advice, it’s that they have the situation under control and can make their own decisions.
Shortly after falling, another cyclist who was on the same trail was kind enough to stop and ensure that I was alright and offer assistance. He offered to sell me a spare tube and presumptively I could have used it to get home but I didn’t much feel like riding anymore and the tires on his own bike being more narrow than my own I wasn’t certain that the tube would have fit.
If that were the balance of my interaction with the other cyclist there would be nothing to write about, however I have no such luck. Shortly after offering the tube the other cyclist, no doubt based on an assumption of helpfulness, decided to inspect my wheel in order to diagnose the problem that led to the tube blowout. His first assumption was that the sidewall was not properly installed. As kindly as possible I mentioned that the tire had been seated for more than a year and mentioned again that I was fine and appreciated him stopping and assured that I had everything under control. Undeterred, the cyclist condescendingly began to offer multiple maintenance suggestions all of which were either basic or even common sense to any cyclist.
At this point the encounter became strange and insulting. The other cyclist assumed that I was unfamiliar with the proper operation of my own bike. There was no reason for this assumption at all. While I am not a bike mechanic I am familiar with maintaining a bike and have built several while replacing complex components on others. Now, the other cyclist had no knowledge of my experience so he couldn’t know what I knew but why treat me like a child? I have a nice bike with quality mid-range components. It doesn’t squeak and is in very good condition (with some new scratches). There was no reason for this person to make the judgment that he did.
It is an all too common occurrence nowadays. It seems as though there are many people that believe that they are being helpful by being condescending and making the assumption that everyone else is an idiot. It is not helpful and when someone turns down your help, it’s not because they don’t know any better and require your sage advice, it’s that they have the situation under control and can make their own decisions.
A Scorned NFL Coach Sues
It seems as though most people agree that the world of sports is not an essential matter of society. And with that the life or death pontifications in regard to sports goings on by some sports opinion columnists at best appear sophomoric. While it is easy to point out the shortcomings of these columnists, what cannot be missed is the material they have to work with. A perfect story for ridicule dropped yesterday:
It appears that Titan’s coach Jeff Fisher has had his feelings hurt and has filed a lawsuit in order to be made whole emotionally, which is ridiculous. Fisher, as the longest tenured coach in the NFL, is supposedly highly respected and above reproach but in this instance comes off as small and mostly whiny. In pursuing a lawsuit in this matter, he seems to be doing the equivalent of a person suing the current boyfriend of an ex-girlfriend for taking her out. Yes, it is that silly.
So, in this case sports begets silly and opinion writers have it served on a platter. USC coach Lane Kiffin is a convenient whipping boy so it will no doubt feed the narrative that he has no regard for the “rules” or “etiquette”. Kiffin has ascended to this position by taking a different, likely preferable to him, job and being accused of violating minor NCAA rules. Let’s be clear the NCAA rulebook is at least as lengthy and inane as the federal income tax code. The only thing Kiffin is guilty of is taking advantage of favorable circumstances and not sucking up to sportswriters.
Kiffin offered a job to someone who already had a job. That person determined that they preferred the job offered by Kiffin over the one that they already had so they changed jobs. The previous employer may have been caught by surprise but how do we know that this person had not been looking? How do we know that the person had not voiced a desire for more responsibility or pay or concerns in their current position? We don’t and it doesn’t matter anyway. And while the previous employer may be upset over the way this transpired it is nothing more than juvenile for them to sue the new employer.
Southern California coach Lane Kiffin says he was surprised by the lawsuit filed against him and USC by the Tennessee Titans after he hired away one of the NFL team's assistant coaches.It is difficult to get one’s mind around this; a professional football team is suing a college football team of violating the contract of an individual by hiring him. If there is any dignity left in our court system this bogus suit will be dismissed with prejudice as soon as it is reviewed by a judge. How could any contract state that another entity could not reach out to an individual for another position and if they did, that the other entity would be in breach of that individual’s contract?
Kiffin hired Kennedy Pola on Saturday to be offensive coordinator and running backs coach for the Trojans.
Titans coach Jeff Fisher said he was upset by the fact that Kiffin didn't contact him before reaching out to Pola.
On Monday, Tennessee Football Inc., the company that owns the Titans, filed a suit accusing Kiffin and USC of violating Pola's contract.
It appears that Titan’s coach Jeff Fisher has had his feelings hurt and has filed a lawsuit in order to be made whole emotionally, which is ridiculous. Fisher, as the longest tenured coach in the NFL, is supposedly highly respected and above reproach but in this instance comes off as small and mostly whiny. In pursuing a lawsuit in this matter, he seems to be doing the equivalent of a person suing the current boyfriend of an ex-girlfriend for taking her out. Yes, it is that silly.
So, in this case sports begets silly and opinion writers have it served on a platter. USC coach Lane Kiffin is a convenient whipping boy so it will no doubt feed the narrative that he has no regard for the “rules” or “etiquette”. Kiffin has ascended to this position by taking a different, likely preferable to him, job and being accused of violating minor NCAA rules. Let’s be clear the NCAA rulebook is at least as lengthy and inane as the federal income tax code. The only thing Kiffin is guilty of is taking advantage of favorable circumstances and not sucking up to sportswriters.
Kiffin offered a job to someone who already had a job. That person determined that they preferred the job offered by Kiffin over the one that they already had so they changed jobs. The previous employer may have been caught by surprise but how do we know that this person had not been looking? How do we know that the person had not voiced a desire for more responsibility or pay or concerns in their current position? We don’t and it doesn’t matter anyway. And while the previous employer may be upset over the way this transpired it is nothing more than juvenile for them to sue the new employer.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Ken Sanchez, union candidate
Power hungry as usual, Albuquerque City Council President Ken Sanchez desperate to keep his name in the news has decided to ignore reality in labeling Mayor Berry’s negotiations with the many unions “representing” city employees a “failure”. The fantasy laden, reality ignorant plan presented for the budget presented by the city council is simply unsustainable and is irresponsible. Tax revenues are down and the city unions only exist to maintain the status quo and ever increase salaries regardless of merit or monies taken in. Pay cuts are lamentable but the fact that the Mayor was able to avoid layoffs and keep pay cuts to less than two percent is admirable.
As usual, Sanchez is preparing himself for a mayoral run and is ensuring the endorsement of all the bloated unions the city is straddled with. Fortunately that tactic did nothing for Martin Chavez in the last election and one can only hope that in this regard, history repeats itself.
As usual, Sanchez is preparing himself for a mayoral run and is ensuring the endorsement of all the bloated unions the city is straddled with. Fortunately that tactic did nothing for Martin Chavez in the last election and one can only hope that in this regard, history repeats itself.
Sports and Politics with a Wiff, again
On his ESPN radio talk show this morning, The Herd, Colin Cowherd waded into the world of politics in order to analogize a brash and ugly attack on the recently departed George Steinbrenner. Cowherd decided to share his opinion that he did not understand why any “regular” person would support Steinbrenner because he did not care about “regular” people much like former President George Bush did not care about anyone making less than 40 grand a year because he only cared about big business. Adding to that tripe, Cowherd went on with the oft spouted rubbish that “regular” people that don’t have six figure salaries shouldn’t admire successful people like Steinbrenner, Bush, (Donald) Trump, et al because they don’t care about them and that “regular” people don’t understand their own interests when they support the aforementioned.
It truly is a pity that Cowherd, not unlike most sports media members, doesn’t have the ability to avoid subjects that he doesn’t have a clue about. By most accounts Steinbrenner was a complicated person and certainly was not liked by many he crossed paths with. With his passing last week there have been many stories about Steinbrenner making a difference in the lives of many “regular” people. Cowherd’s main point was that Yankee games are too expensive and while that is true, almost all major sporting events are too expensive for most people with a family. To many fans, television is the most common way to follow a team and with that there is no substitute for success, defined in sports as winning and championships and it cannot be said that the Yankees under Steinbrenner’s tutelage lacked either.
Worse yet, bringing in the silly stereotypical caricature of President Bush as the big business cheerleader weakened an already weak hissy fit. Like Steinbrenner, President Bush made a positive difference in the lives of many “regular” people, like me, personally. The best way to look at this is in terms of campaign contributions from big business which perennially benefits democrats and to look at the affiliations of many titans of big business, names that include Gates, Jobs, Buffett and Soros, all democrats.
Cowherd is good on radio but is difficult to listen to when he makes personal attacks without acknowledging the whole person that was George Steinbrenner and drags our former President into the mud to make an ill-conceived and ultimately incorrect point.
It truly is a pity that Cowherd, not unlike most sports media members, doesn’t have the ability to avoid subjects that he doesn’t have a clue about. By most accounts Steinbrenner was a complicated person and certainly was not liked by many he crossed paths with. With his passing last week there have been many stories about Steinbrenner making a difference in the lives of many “regular” people. Cowherd’s main point was that Yankee games are too expensive and while that is true, almost all major sporting events are too expensive for most people with a family. To many fans, television is the most common way to follow a team and with that there is no substitute for success, defined in sports as winning and championships and it cannot be said that the Yankees under Steinbrenner’s tutelage lacked either.
Worse yet, bringing in the silly stereotypical caricature of President Bush as the big business cheerleader weakened an already weak hissy fit. Like Steinbrenner, President Bush made a positive difference in the lives of many “regular” people, like me, personally. The best way to look at this is in terms of campaign contributions from big business which perennially benefits democrats and to look at the affiliations of many titans of big business, names that include Gates, Jobs, Buffett and Soros, all democrats.
Cowherd is good on radio but is difficult to listen to when he makes personal attacks without acknowledging the whole person that was George Steinbrenner and drags our former President into the mud to make an ill-conceived and ultimately incorrect point.
Monday, July 19, 2010
If you don't know, why not ask?
Recently I found myself enjoying an evening with friends when like a foul smell that wafts in quickly and without notice a friend of a friend came by and soured the mood by looking at my side of the table and stating “you’re tea baggers, aren’t you?” with a giggle. I looked at my friend to my right and we both looked like we had just driven by a dairy after morning coffee on a humid day. This hippie liberal jerk interloper was no doubt bringing up the political tea party movement with the oft used smear erstwhile used to denote a vile bedroom act. Personally I have never been to a tea party event, not because I do not agree with the idea, but mostly because I am lazy and am not a fan of crowds. I think that the movement is honorable and a commendable exercise in the face of current governmental excess.
While the offender is not a member of my regular circle of friends I have known them for a few years and they are known for every once in a while wading in with inane comments disparaging my political views so there was no surprise. The curious thing is that this person has no clue whatsoever about what it is that I truly believe. Over the years I have been privy to various lectures by them in regard to the nobleness of being “liberal” or “progressive”, living in mud huts and the sustainable lifestyle with disdain for oil, “consumption” and “big business” but when it comes time for actual conversation, they leave or shout down any kind of differing opinion as disrespectful. Basically my aura, labeled as conservative, is enough for this person to deduce my every opinion as evil and not worthy of examination. And I mean every, to this person every aspect of the world has some kind of political tie and they seemingly believe that to be conservative is to be wrong in all matters.
It is frustrating that this person has no idea what I actually think about anything. At least I have listened to them time and again about what their beliefs are. This type of one sided argument seems to be typical of my interaction with self described progressive liberals. I have some progressive friends but I cannot seem to get anywhere when it comes to actual discussion of issues. There seem to be two kinds of people that I interact with. The first, typified by the hippie liberal jerk above, tend to lecture on their ideals mostly in an ill-defined egocentric kind of way, while not welcoming of other views and often impugning opposing views in a disparaging manner. The second type openly, and often with heralded self-regard, declares as “progressive” but never discusses anything with regard to politics or policy. To the latter I have no idea what they think beyond that they believe that being progressive is in itself inherently superior.
To me, caricature like mischaracterization and insult passing without discussion is empty because meaningful discussion is a good thing and a way to test one’s convictions and belief system. It can be a way to learn new things that may challenge or can clarify the reasons why a person thinks the way that they do. For whatever reason many of my close friends either identify themselves as conservative or at least appear to be so and when it comes to subjects involving politics or policy we disagree as often as we agree and this leads to often fascinating conversations. I relish the chance to learn from people I respect and look forward to the opportunity to defend what I believe based on the strength of my convictions and intellectual rigor.
Another reason that any type or political or policy related conversation is considered impolitic seems to be that many people believe that such discussions become harsh and argumentative. While the premise may have some truth to it, it is often a debate and there is nothing wrong with a debate becoming contentious. Debates are supposed to be challenging and while there are certain lines that should not be crossed that doesn’t mean that this kind of talk should be disparaged. Obviously it is not a good thing to get into a heated conversation with someone who can easily lose their head.
It would be a better and more solid more argument to call me a nasty name if the offender at least made the effort to listen to my opinions rather than infer them based on caricatured assumptions. Conversely I would like to know what and why it is that self-described progressive liberals believe what they do. I would like to have the conversation where someone can explain to me how a Keynesian stimulus works while citing historical examples instead of just saying that it does in the face of all proof and logic. Instead of being called a cretin for thinking that welfare for the most part is a bad thing I want to know why it is that some believe it is a good thing. Unfortunately, I doubt things will change, so I will refrain from holding my breath.
While the offender is not a member of my regular circle of friends I have known them for a few years and they are known for every once in a while wading in with inane comments disparaging my political views so there was no surprise. The curious thing is that this person has no clue whatsoever about what it is that I truly believe. Over the years I have been privy to various lectures by them in regard to the nobleness of being “liberal” or “progressive”, living in mud huts and the sustainable lifestyle with disdain for oil, “consumption” and “big business” but when it comes time for actual conversation, they leave or shout down any kind of differing opinion as disrespectful. Basically my aura, labeled as conservative, is enough for this person to deduce my every opinion as evil and not worthy of examination. And I mean every, to this person every aspect of the world has some kind of political tie and they seemingly believe that to be conservative is to be wrong in all matters.
It is frustrating that this person has no idea what I actually think about anything. At least I have listened to them time and again about what their beliefs are. This type of one sided argument seems to be typical of my interaction with self described progressive liberals. I have some progressive friends but I cannot seem to get anywhere when it comes to actual discussion of issues. There seem to be two kinds of people that I interact with. The first, typified by the hippie liberal jerk above, tend to lecture on their ideals mostly in an ill-defined egocentric kind of way, while not welcoming of other views and often impugning opposing views in a disparaging manner. The second type openly, and often with heralded self-regard, declares as “progressive” but never discusses anything with regard to politics or policy. To the latter I have no idea what they think beyond that they believe that being progressive is in itself inherently superior.
To me, caricature like mischaracterization and insult passing without discussion is empty because meaningful discussion is a good thing and a way to test one’s convictions and belief system. It can be a way to learn new things that may challenge or can clarify the reasons why a person thinks the way that they do. For whatever reason many of my close friends either identify themselves as conservative or at least appear to be so and when it comes to subjects involving politics or policy we disagree as often as we agree and this leads to often fascinating conversations. I relish the chance to learn from people I respect and look forward to the opportunity to defend what I believe based on the strength of my convictions and intellectual rigor.
Another reason that any type or political or policy related conversation is considered impolitic seems to be that many people believe that such discussions become harsh and argumentative. While the premise may have some truth to it, it is often a debate and there is nothing wrong with a debate becoming contentious. Debates are supposed to be challenging and while there are certain lines that should not be crossed that doesn’t mean that this kind of talk should be disparaged. Obviously it is not a good thing to get into a heated conversation with someone who can easily lose their head.
It would be a better and more solid more argument to call me a nasty name if the offender at least made the effort to listen to my opinions rather than infer them based on caricatured assumptions. Conversely I would like to know what and why it is that self-described progressive liberals believe what they do. I would like to have the conversation where someone can explain to me how a Keynesian stimulus works while citing historical examples instead of just saying that it does in the face of all proof and logic. Instead of being called a cretin for thinking that welfare for the most part is a bad thing I want to know why it is that some believe it is a good thing. Unfortunately, I doubt things will change, so I will refrain from holding my breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)