Grad School is Weird - March Edition

I got my first B at midterm in graduate school so far. It was disappointing and was even more so due to the fact that this class is a complete mess. A mess in the sense that I can’t determine whether I deserve a B, or an A, or an F. And a mess in the sense that this is supposed to be a serious class on a serious subject necessary for any graduate of this program. I was looking forward to the course because I was interested in the subject and thought it would be an asset to my career ambitions. So far the professor has done nothing but read directly from the text in each class. There has only been one assignment this semester, one that was not graded and, from my February dispatch, required several emails and phone calls to the professor in order to get incredibly late feedback on before presenting to the class. This week I was unable to attend class and I sent an email to inform the professor the day before. I received no reply and later learned that they blew the class off, forgetting to bring in the book to read out of that day. Which just means that next week’s class will be extra long.

Obamacare Rant - 3/31

In closing arguments this week in the Supreme Court on Obamacare, one of the justices spoke favorably on severability, the ability for them to strike down certain aspects of the act as unconstitutional. The positive aspect of this concept in this case is that the current argument in front of the court is in regard to one aspect, the individual mandate. This is because the mandate forces anyone born in this country not exempted by the government to purchase health insurance by threat of fine and imprisonment if that fine is not paid. The justice speaking was speaking in favor of removing the individual mandate, citing this tact as a conservative approach. Certainly this justice, who was once employed as general counsel for the ACLU, did not mean conservative in the political sense. This argument has gained in popularity on the coat tails of two popular clauses in the law, allowing children to remain on their parent’s policies to the age of 26 and disallowing the preclusion of prior conditions to new enrollees. While it sounds reasonable, to get rid of the bad while preserving the politically popular, simply severing the individual mandate is not a workable solution. First, it is not the duty of the court to determine what the law should look like. That’s the job of the legislative branch and the law is what it is, warts and all. Second, congress did not include a severability clause so that certain aspects could be removed if they were later found to be unconstitutional. Second, the current case questions the individual mandate, but does not yet take to account other possibly questionable aspects. Based on this one decision, should the court consider all 2,700 pages of the law in order to determine what should and should not be included? Which brings us back to the first point, making or editing laws is simply not the duty of the Supreme Court. Last, the individual mandate is the core of the entire act’s Rube Goldberg pyramid scheme structure, remove it and the whole thing becomes even worse financially.

Obamacare Rant - 3/30

The waiting is the worst part. No one knows what the US Supreme Court will decide in their deliberations of Obamacare. This week, following a rare multi-day nearly six hour hearing on the law (typically cases get about half an hour), many have weighed in with their assessments of the case, probable decisions and the blame for whomever screwed up. It’s interesting to assess such unknown unknowns and curious with regard to the way that Justice Kennedy is insulted or sucked up to because of his reputation as the so-called crucial swing vote. One writer insists on referring to him as America’s monarch, and like everyone else, wants him to rule one way or another. Before leaving the court, O’Connor was the justice known as the swing vote and Kennedy was a hard core conservative. Or so was his reputation. I’d bet he doesn’t think he’s changed. In ending arguments on Obamacare, Justice Kagan, former solicitor general for this administration spoke what seemed to be on behalf of it bringing up virtue to help those less fortunate. The one thing I don’t understand, because it disappears in these conversations, but is brought up all the time to espouse the virtues of government programs, Medicaid. You know, the means tested program for the less fortunate? Why do we need more when it exists already? Is it because it’s a bloated ineffective government mess? If it isn’t why doesn’t it work? And why should anyone believe that the solution is an even bigger government program?

Obamacare Rant - 3/28

It's striking how far this is going to the detriment of the real issue. That many seem unwilling to accept responsibility for their debts, healthcare or otherwise. It's head shaking to keep seeing this "we" nonsense. Why is it so horrible to consider that people should be responsible for covering their debts? If it leads to bankruptcy, so be it. Clean slate, lesson learned, insurance for next time. And why is it so great to force insurance regulations for mandatory coverage? It's fantastic for those who utilize such things, forcing others to subsidize the popular and cheap. But what about those with no such needs and high deductibles resulting from those regulations faced with something not explicitly covered? Why even have insurance if they consume less than their deductible? Every person is different and the problem is over-regulation and compulsion forcing everyone to accept the same and pay for free-loaders. There are already programs to cover those who honestly can't do for themselves. What is this debate about without considering the obvious failure of these programs? So maddening. The quest for control over everyone else from these people.

A Taco Bell Tale

So apparently that story about that dude in the Taco Bell commercial driving his friends 965 miles for a Doritos shelled taco is real. I thought it was fictional. I’ve heard rumblings demeaning the trip, I wonder why anyone cares. It seems to me that a group of friends wanted to go on a road trip somewhere and the idea of a special, hard to find taco was just the means to an end, a way to determine where to go. After all, if a road trip wasn’t in the plans, why not just buy some Doritos and then spread the innards of a locally purchased Taco Bell taco onto it, creating a yuppie approved Doritos bowl?

Anyway, I wonder why Taco Bell isn’t manned by robots and available in vending machine form yet. I want one of those Doritos Locos tacos but don’t want the hassle of going to a Taco Bell to get one. I went to the Bell Sunday night to get one and it ended up being a disaster. We went through the drive thru and when we got home the order was incorrect. The receipt was only 60% right and the contents of the bag didn’t even match the receipt. Worse, of the correct contents in the bag there was no Doritos Locos taco.

This particular location has screwed up previous orders and out of frustration I didn’t want the order remade, I wanted a refund. Calling ahead to the restaurant I was informed by the on-duty manager that he couldn’t grant a refund and after he called another manager was told that I could get a refund the next day. On Monday I called to talk to this manager a couple hours into what I was informed was the beginning of his shift and told that he had not yet arrived. Before leaving work in the afternoon, six hours into this manager’s supposed shift, I called again and he had not yet arrived. I was informed that this person alone could grant the refund and assured that he would be there when I arrived. I had refrigerated the food and brought it along and was able to get a refund, a day later. Every communication I had with the restaurant was strained and it was difficult to be understood. When I went to the restaurant to get my refund and return the food it was a mess and uncomfortable and the manager was unkempt and lacking in hygiene. It was a nightmare and I won’t make the mistake of visiting that location ever again, and very likely won’t visit any Taco Bell without being incredibly hungry and absent of other options. Basically if I’m driving through Grants, it might happen.

Which gets me to the main point, why can’t a Taco Bell exist as a vending machine? Seriously. Taco Bell’s menu consists of a limited number of set ingredients arranged in various ways. I could imagine a vending machine consisting of pre-measured ingredients separated and managed through various sensors being mixed as ordered through a controlled process. A touch screen that resembles one of those automatic supermarket checkouts would be the interface to the customer. It could also take orders online thorough a website or tablet app and the receipt would work as a key through a locker system to deliver orders. It is a dream of mine to never have to order food in person.

And the Lobos Come Home

The Sweet Sixteen has become the University of New Mexico Lobos men’s basketball team’s Everest. It just is. I don’t know what it is and no one else does either but it just seems insurmountable. Over the last ten years the Lobos have been to the tournament three times. Over the life of the program, many more times than that and have had as high as a number 3 seed in the 16 seed tournament. This year, the Lobos won the Mountain West Conference regular season and tournament and had a 5 seed. Not too far into the second half of this past Saturday night’s second round game against Louisville, the Lobos were down by as much as fifteen points. The lead seemed insurmountable and then the Lobos clawed their way back providing hope for their fans. In the end, they lost by three and don’t get a third game. The Lobos had a great season and every year under current coach Steve Alford has ended in a post-season bid. The thirst of Lobo fans for that third NCAA tournament game will only get larger, hopefully it finally happens. They are a great team and deserve credit from a successful season. Maybe next year.

Broncos to Sign Manning

According to reports, Peyton Manning will soon be a member of the Denver Broncos. It is a good day for the franchise and there is a lot of hope for success in the upcoming season. Many of the reports today mention that the team will be looking to trade incumbent starting quarterback Tim Tebow, who was impressive last year. While Manning was making his decision and the Broncos emerged as a suitor, there was an opinion piece purporting to deconstruct the mental status of Tebow, basically stating that he would be somehow emotionally scarred by the Broncos pursuit of Manning and as a result would be a less effective quarterback if Denver did not secure Manning’s services. I always have a problem with this kind of opinion because there is no way to truly understand someone’s thinking, you can only go by the very real actions and statements by the person being analyzed. Based on what is known, Tebow has never been anything but a consummate professional. He very may well end up emotionally tried by this episode but there is no way to know how it will manifest at this point. Tebow may remain in Denver, backing up Manning or he may be traded or cut and then sign with another team. No one knows at this point and he deserves the benefit of the doubt and provided the opportunity to do what he does best, win football games, as a backup in Denver or as a starter somewhere else. On Manning, the signing is a risk because of his recent injury history but again, no one really knows. He has been examined by multiple doctors and cleared for playing. There’s nothing more that can be said that isn’t conjecture and we will know soon, once Manning steps onto the field, whether or not he can return to his hall of fame career. The possibilities are very positive and Broncos fans have something to cheer for. Welcome to the team, Peyton Manning. And, thank you Tim Tebow for what you did for the Broncos.

Absurd Random Phoniness - 3/15

If this year’s election is decided based on a bogus argument based on the supposed lack of access to contraceptives it might be time to move. The way that the story, that once seemingly dominated headlines, has faded to the background while honest disagreement with the mandate is promising but there are still many whom allow themselves to confuse access to such things with the desire that someone else pay for them. And that’s what the point is, after all. Because contraceptives are in wide use, it is a subject that would seem uncontroversial to most people. But the mandate has nothing to do with contraceptives. Health and Human Services deemed that a tangentially health-care related product be provided free of charge through health care plans. That a person can go to a no or low-cost clinic to obtain a contraceptive prescription and then have it filled by Wal-Mart for less than $10 a month doesn’t seem to matter to the takers in our society.

I wonder what would have been the reaction to recent comments by Rush Limbaugh comparing the testimony given by the Georgetown law student (average starting salary upon graduation: $160,000) and self-described reproductive-rights activist to some less than kind words would have been if phrased differently. Something like, I wonder the reason why this person believes that it’s so necessary for contraceptives be provided at no cost as part of health care coverage, could it be because of promiscuity? And it seems as though this person is desirous of being compensated, in a roundabout way, for their coitus related activities. Many wouldn’t have even noticed. However, the resulting feigned indignation wouldn’t have changed one bit because those faking outrage didn’t care so much about what was said but who said it. Rush has been around for a long time. No matter the desires of those who disagree with him and his popularity, he will be around for a lot longer.

It’s cliché to say ‘keep your laws off my body’. In response, no one cares what you do with your body so long as you keep it out of my wallet.

School Photos are a Sham

No doubt, out of self-interest, there are many photographers working the school photo racket, and in any other kind of photography, that would disagree with my opinion. I’ve even argued with a professional photographer about whether or not the client should own the rights to the work that they paid them to do. It was a dead-end conversation and simply resulted in the hiring of a different wedding photographer who did not insist that they owned the photographs that I paid them to take. But I digress.

The other day I went to pick up my son at his pre-school and they had a setup for school photos. My son, being precocious, did his part and was even presentable in what was taken. Then, I saw the prices. One hundred and forty dollars for eight pieces of paper with my hijo’s likeness on them, along with negatives! I certainly understand that the labor involved in taking the pictures, editing and producing the things and then dragging them back to school incurs a cost. I do wonder though, exactly what the mark-up on those pieces of paper exactly are. I also learned that I had only that afternoon to decide whether or not I desired to purchase the already printed images. That’s right, not only do they overcharge, but they also presume that you’re going to purchase. The representative of the photographer was rude and pushy. Fantastic salesmanship for an overpriced presumptively produced product.

Can the industry be saved, or at least become more honest? Of course it can. In today’s digital photography world, there is no reason to ever produce completed pictures before the customer even sees them. Why not set up a website with the images previewed for customers with the option to purchase all the high resolution results on a disk for $45 or digital download at $40? Savvy customers can then order prints from their preferred provider. Additionally, the photographer could partner with a picture printer, to offer prints and many other photo-related products, shipped directly to the customer’s home at a 100% mark-up. Partnering with Walgreens the photographer could charge 40 cents for 4 X 6, $3.20 for 5 X 7 and $6 for 8 X 10 photos. And what if the customer cannot or does not want to go online? Then send a representative for an afternoon with a couple laptops with the website as a standalone program available for customers to review and make purchases. Done, and done. No more ticked-off customers, wasted prints and because costs are lowered, demand will go up enough to make up for the previous price structure. It could even increase photographer revenue. Would it work? I think so. I could be wrong but so long as they continue as they have they will not get one cent from me.

Grad School is Weird - February Edition

Graduate school is weird. Certainly, it’s to be expected that graduate students should be more proactive in their studies and not waiting for their professors to guide every little step and decision. What’s different is that it can devolve to the point that no one, student nor professor knows what’s going on and that kind of thing can start to take a toll.

About two and a half hours into a leadership class this week the professor started into discussion of an academic paper, one that turns out to be quite luddite on information technology but more on that another time, to which I replied that I was confused because I hadn’t read the expected paper but another one. The reason I had read the other paper was because two weeks earlier we were to select a paper from a list to analyze and critique. That critique was due and the paper mentioned in class was on the list as a competitor for our review. Or so I thought. Since it wasn’t the one I had chosen I figured I didn’t have to read it. After all, I read one chapter in one book, two in another and an academic paper that I wrote a critique and analysis of, I guess it wasn’t enough. Fortunately, every other student who did not read the paper did the same thing I did. The professor was confused that we were confused, why did we not understand the syllabus that he had just revised that day for clarity when they didn’t mention, nor has ever mentioned assignments?

In my other class, business law, there aren’t even any assignments. The syllabus lists readings but there isn’t anything else to do that I can figure out. Class is basically made up of a blow-by-blow of the readings and forced, and not entirely relevant, legal examples from small towns in New Mexico. By reading the book, one effectively renders attendance not all that important if not for the fact that it’s required. There was one assignment. The writing of a legal case brief and presentation based on a case presented in the book and to be delivered at the time the class goes over the subject. Based on the syllabus I turned mine in one week early for review as requested by the professor. There was no response. I asked during the next class (when I thought it was due) and was told that my chapter would actually be a week later and rest assured, I would be provided feedback with ample time. Five emails and three phone calls over another week and then, two hours before class, I received an email reply with suggested changes.

The worst part is that there’s nothing to do about it. Not a thing. I’m carrying quite the GPA and am paranoid of doing anything to endanger it. So I grit my teeth, a big pushover, awaiting graduation. With three classes left after this semester the finish line is too close.

Keep it Going!

Earlier today on an email front page containing news there was a top story claiming that Mitt Romney was limping towards the Republican presidential nomination. Purportedly this headline was all about how the once and current front-runner isn’t doing as well as a prohibitive favorite should at this point. Certainly there’s some consternation from those who, you know, actually care about who will be the Republican nominee this fall over the length of the process but it’s not really credible in an opinion piece thinly disguised as news from a supposedly straight news wire service. It seems, at least on matters of most importance this year, that there is not much difference between these candidate’s stances. There is much to be said for a long process that continually tests and improves the eventual nominee, not to mention that many states have yet to vote and their citizens deserve a chance to contribute. If, in the general election, the worst that can be said is that the Republican candidate couldn’t win the primary right away, because everything else that could have been said already was, that’s a good thing. And, a compliment to GOP voters, as it proves that they make careful considerations when selecting a Presidential candidate. The worry-warts in the party will worry, and if not over this then something else, like Maine. At least they have concern for something they care about. Beware the advice of those who wish to see us lose.

Beware of Leftists Claiming Right

In somewhat expectable but still humorous fashion, some supporters of President Obama’s policies have begun the tactic of attempting to convince the skeptical that the President is actually center-right, whatever that is. This tactic can be recognized first by an attempt to claim that the President’s political critics are off-base painting certain policies and speeches as in line with Republican priorities such as his recent speech touting a lowering of the corporate tax rate from 35% to 28%. Second, they’ll mention that because of all these conservative tendencies, the President has alienated liberals and that no one has ever really tried true progressive/liberal reform that would be certain to work. As an example they’ll likely claim that the President is actually a tax cutter.

There are no convincing purveyors of this nonsense otherwise. One could ask about the President’s statements on taxes, real-actual tax increases in Obamacare, attempts to increase taxes in the past and submitted budgets containing tax increases, none of these count because Obamacare isn’t in effect yet and the President hasn’t signed a budget because the Senate hasn’t passed one. One could question the validity of tax credits and reductions in the payroll tax, which ostensively fund Social Security, as actual tax cuts and be ignored. One could then remind their tormentor that the President’s speech on lowering corporate tax rates doesn’t exist in any legislative form, and be ignored further.

Relatively, the Republican Presidential candidates have been lobbing rhetorical softballs at the President on his policies. Some seem convinced that he’s just in over his head, trying not to offend voters who consider tone an electoral consideration. This President is a politician of the left and has pushed liberal/progressive policies and advocated for much more his entire political career. Annoyed utopians expecting what can only be delivered from government action by way of magic wand and fans of the administration wanting to confuse may have convinced themselves that this President is something other than he is, even somewhat right-ish in office. Fortunately, this President is who he is, his record speaks volumes and most voters aren’t as dumb as liberals would like to think they are.

Alternate 'Free' Access

Imagine you are a person full of idealistic civic virtue who happens to be a vegan, one who honestly believes that eating meat is not just bad but morally wrong. One day you join an organization made up of similarly thinking vegans. Eventually your life becomes more and more involved with this organization to the point that you become employed through one of their subsidiaries. As part of that employment you enroll in a food co-op system in which your employer, along with many others of similar disposition, create a system aimed to share the costs of and increase access to delicious vegan food. This arrangement is great and works for those involved. One day the government decides that food sharing agreements amongst citizens must include access to meat and that vegan organizations must provide it for free. This new edict not only raises the costs of your food sharing agreement but also limits the selection of vegan food in order to pay for this ‘free’ meat. You don’t eat meat, so from your standpoint you only see increased costs for less food. Some of your co-workers who were not part of the stricter organization ate meat before the edict and it was readily available outside of the vegan food co-op. Your vegan organization’s leadership is distraught because they are morally opposed to meat consumption but now their subsidiary is, by coercion of law, forced into it. How would this scenario be reported within the context of today’s political sensibilities? Would the vegan organization and its supporters be slandered as wanting to ban meat eating? What justification would be given for forcing vegans to pay for the meat of others? What if the government presented a ‘compromise’ where instead of forcing vegan organizations to provide food co-op plans including meat they required the co-op’s food providers to include it to vegans for ‘free’? How would that be received? Perhaps figurative vegans should consider it.

Journal Assumes Current Holder’s Ownership of Elected Legislation Position

In the city of Albuquerque, the city council is made up of citizen legislators duly elected by their peers for part time fixed terms. Those glancing today’s Albuquerque Journal may find themselves misinformed if they did not already understand this fact. The top of the fold headline in this morning’s Journal reads:

“Council OKs Map, Cutting Benton’s Seat”

What an atrocious wording. As the population density of Albuquerque has shifted towards the west side of the city it became necessary for the city council to consider re-districting without increasing the number of councilors. The council seat appropriated to the west side under the most current redistricting plan is not the property of Mr. Benson; it is an elected position of limited governance granted by the citizens of our city. Mr. Benson may move to the area of the city where the council seat he currently holds has been moved and run for that seat. He may run for the seat now representing his current home. Difficult decisions based on population density had to be considered in order to complete redistricting; it was not done by coin flip. It is sheer ignorance for the Journal to imply ownership of a city council position by a so-called elected citizen legislator.

Super Bowl Randomness

In honor of what is unfortunately the last football game for what will seem like forever, but good because that forever allows Tim Tebow to get better (and he will), some random stories from this morning.

Yesterday, the Patriots cut one of their wide receivers. The player took it well and since he played less than Chad Ochocinco, this probably wasn’t that surprising, other than it coming on the eve of the Super Bowl. The posting anticipated the thoughts of many who clicked through informing them that if the Patriots win today, the player will likely receive a ring.

On CBSSports.com, Gregg Doyel asks “It's the Super Bowl -- so why are we talking about Irsay and Peyton?” The column is critical of what the author describes as the owner and current, but maybe soon to be ex, quarterback of the Indianapolis Colts sucking coverage from the vacuum of Super Bowl week. What isn’t clear is if the Colts story bothers Doyel so much, why is he writing about other’s writing about it and not writing about the only story that really matters according to him? Columns about over coverage of one topic lamenting typeface wasted on supposedly irrelevant topics are double irrelevant. There is no lack of room for every silly story out there any time and it’s not certain that the actual teams playing the game actually mind, irrelevant coverage, not about them, allows them to concentrate. How about Peyton Manning owning the conversation on his recovery, forcing Colts owner Irsay into reactionary mode? That dude knows PR and whatnot.

Deadspin, the sports gossip website, re-printed Drew Magary’s Super Bowl chili recipe. There was a Facebook post the other day from someone looking for a chili recipe, there seems to be several ingredients core to a chili recipe with the rest comprised of whatever kitchen scraps happen to be available. Drew is a fantastic writer and the only one worth reading at Deadspin.

Joe Posnaski at Sports Illustrated writes that this year’s Super Bowl is unusual, unlike any other. Greg Garber at ESPN writes that there’s an undercurrent of revenge from the game four years ago when these same teams last met in the Super Bowl. Who knows? We’ll all know in about eleven hours.

President Mortgage Counselor

I wasn’t yet thirty years old when I bought my house, entering into a loan that would more than double my age if by some miracle of not wanting to ever move I were to pay it off. The paperwork required to apply for and then close on the loan was voluminous. It’s wasn’t easy and although the title company representative wanted to go home for the day and encouraged me to skip it, I read the entirety of the documentation. What do I want, a cookie? Of course not, I did what I was supposed to. Indubitably there was a lot of paperwork; it was for a contract with a shelf life of thirty years, 38.46% of the average life expectancy in this country. The most difficult part was the number of pages and the redundancy. There was a lot of legalese but even though I am not a lawyer, there was enough material there to make sense to a layman.

Today, for the umpteenth time during his term, the President offered up a personal story because, apparently, he can personally relate to anything that ever happens to anyone and is an expert on how everyone should do everything. The subject du jour was the difficulty of mortgage contracts and the introduction of a new boondoggle, the so-called “Homeowners Bill of Rights”. At one point during this introduhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifction:

“The president recalled his and First Lady Michelle Obama's experience buying their first home together - a process he described, humorously, as so complicated that the two of them would end up looking through the forms and asking "what does this phrase mean?" … "And that's, you know, for two trained lawyers," he laughed.”

So funny. As if the only reason there are foreclosures is because mortgage forms are too difficult and not at all to do with some people buying things that they can’t afford. As if the President and First Lady were mortgage lawyers in their previous careers. I don’t recall reading that in their qualifications. There are so many legal subjects and there aren’t any lawyers that specialize in everything. Because the profession relies on reading comprehension and because there is sooooooo much law, thanks to politicians simpatico with the President, it’s impossible for a lawyer to understand every subject. But, the thing is, it’s not that hard. There’s just a lot of reading in the mortgage process. Blaming the process is lazy and protects the irresponsible who didn’t even bother to read and comprehend it before signing.

2012 being an election year, the purported “Homeowners Bill of Rights” is nothing but a redistribution scheme vote buying device under the ruse of “caring”. Contract law is complicated and the reason why mortgage contracts are so long is because of that complexity, because of the law, of which the President happens to be in charge of the Executive Branch of. And introducing feel-good legislation that will only end up costing homeowners who pay their bills because they bought something they can afford because they won’t be eligible for the program. Yes there are unfortunate circumstances and exceptions but those cases make up a negligible percentage of who will take advantage of their neighbors by this program. You’re welcome. Of course, the President will take credit, and it will only cost more billions this country doesn’t have. Whatever, as long as he retains power for another four years.

President Jobs Counselor

At an online forum hosted by Google this week (no, I will not type Google/YouTube. They are the same company. I would not write hosted by Chevrolet/Buick either. They are GM) the President was questioned by a woman who wondered why the country was issuing work visas for highly skilled foreigners while her husband, an engineer with a decade of experience, has been out of work for three years. The President, as he is wont to do, hemmed and hawed and eventually spurted out the following:

"If you send me your husband's resume, I'd be interested in finding out exactly what's happening right there, because the word we're getting is, is that somebody in that kind of high-tech field, that kind of engineer, should be able to find something right away."

This brand of gibberish feeds the oversimplified notion that some oppose the President’s policies and actions because it’s assumed that they think that he’s overwhelmed. The President has done this before, allowing a sympathetic audience member to hijack an appearance in order to vent on and demand an explanation for their personal misfortunes, and then he asks for that person’s contact information so he could look into it. There are more than 300 million people in this country and it’s folly to presume and egocentric for the President to believe that he can solve the problems of those 300 million people one by one.

While the stories the President hears may be sympathetic it’s not fair to focus resources on those who force themselves into the spotlight. We just don’t know the whole story of this unemployed engineer. What was he working on when he was laid off? Was it one of those laid off in lieu of firing things? Has he been on any interviews over the past three years? Is he willing to try other things? Has he tried other things? And, in what world is the President qualified to examine and assess the resume of an engineer? Perhaps to some the President looks good by feigning concern but it just seems preposterous on face and welcomes one to ask the President if he’s comfortable representing the competing interests of a country as populous as ours or if he thinks that he can be a micro-managing President to one person at a time, this week the jobs counselor for an engineer in Texas?

The Class Participation Trap

Class participation is quite the double edged sword. It’s annoying to be clichéd about it, but the truth fits it sometimes. Participating in a class is an excellent method to exhibit knowledge to the professor and discuss concepts with a class in order to better form understanding. It is also a way for grandstanding overbearing know-it-alls to filibuster and move the discussion to irrelevant tangents ensuring that class becomes tedious and off-point. It really requires a strong and organized professor to keep a course on track and if not, at least there’s the internet as a distraction. It gets worse if the professor has trouble avoiding tangents themselves. And double worse if they can’t even keep the material straight. A key phrase that is telling with regard to the direction the day will take is when a professor is discussing something and then casually states that they have no personal experience in the subject. The best will stick to the printed material closely to get through it. The others will muddle and veer towards more familiar territory attempting to make connections that don’t exist. That’s when it’s time to nap.

Contraceptive Costs for All! Use by Some!

There has been much warranted discussion this week with regard to the federal Department of Health and Human Services rejecting employer conscious related requests not to provide contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” within insurance offerings. Literal churches are exempt but religious affiliated institutions including hospitals, universities and agencies are not and have one year to comply. HHS’s decision is abhorrent but predictable because those who made the decision don’t understand or respect the objections and appreciate that allowing exceptions can lead to a collapse of the system that they impose in that it relies on many not using the stated benefits, while having access to them, in order to cover the costs for those who do.

And those costs are what make this dictatorial edict even more erroneous. Cloaked under the presumptively incontrovertible auspices of ‘women’s health’ it dictates that erstwhile private, employer provided health insurance in the United States of America must offer contraception, abortifacients and sterilization coverage “free” of charge and with no increase in premium. However, no matter the power of the federal government’s figurative magic wand, tangible goods are not “free”, and their costs will simply be shifted to others by virtue of lessened coverage. Those with less politically favorable conditions will be forced to pay more for their own health needs in order to pay for what the government decides should be “free”. And those who have entirely valid objections to that coverage will be coerced, by the power of the federal government, into violating their convictions in order to advance the ruse of “free” benefits to favored political constituencies.

Random Thoughts - 1/30

Taco Bell’s got a “new” breakfast menu out and by “new” they mean re-introduced from some time in the past. From a look of the menu, other than a couple new items there’s a lot in there similar to what once was. Apparently this new menu was five years in the making. Yikes. Nexus, with the best fried chicken in Albuquerque has been in existence for almost a year, doubt they were planning six years ago.

Is there some kind of definable neurosis for the apparent anxiety many drivers exhibit as they approach a freeway exit? Is it that if they don’t immediately enter the exit lane once it’s there they think they’ll miss it or something? This neurosis seems to disable the ability of some drivers to either look behind them or use their mirrors. A couple of examples in Albuquerque include the 1-25 southbound Comanche exit and the I-40 eastbound Carlisle exit. There’s plenty of road for successful merges yet some paranoid drivers ignore whatever’s coming from the freeway entrance lane to make the exit prematurely.

What to do about a co-worker with strange habits? The person in the office next to mine likes bananas, which isn’t all that strange. However, whenever he finishes one he strolls into my office to share some inanity in a few words and then discard the expired skin into my trash bin. It’s really weird. When I consume anything in my office I don’t even dump it in my own trash but walk to the kitchen area to get rid of it. I’m left wondering what would constitute proper retribution.

Every time that I pass a cyclist on any road I analyze whether or not I would ride it. There was some consternation in the city recently because of a short section of a shoulder-less single lane road populated by industrial vehicles and with no lamp coverage being closed to cyclists. This road happens to run parallel to a dedicated bicycle trail. A trail I personally take nearly every morning as part of my morning commute during warmer months. Some cyclists don’t like trails and the law does open up the road to cyclists the same as motor vehicles. Riding on a demonstrably unsafe road because of dissatisfaction with a perfectly ride-able trail, for whatever reason, just isn’t wise.

Again, with the Licenses?

It’s simply impossible to ever know what is in someone’s mind and for that reason it’s lamentable that our society seems to have embraced the impossible, good intentions. This embrace of the unknowable no matter the results is often paired with some who go past assuming to flat out stating the ill intentions of those that dare disagree with their positions.

This morning’s Albuquerque Journal published an opinion piece by a local resident stating that providing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants would increase safety on our road ways and unequivocally stated that those who oppose the act do so for reasons of prejudice. While it is a laudable goal to increase the safety of our roadways there is simply no way to prove that providing credentials to those in our state in contradiction to the law will do such a thing. And, it is not prejudicial to deny the rights of a citizen to a non-citizen. There are majorities of New Mexicans whom oppose the practice for any number of reasons and the federal government has passed yet to be enforced laws that render New Mexico licenses useless as a valid form of ID for federal purposes as a result of the practice.

Arguing on the side of unprovable good intentions while making judgmental statements that slander any opposing views is a definitive sign of a poor argument and the last resort of the desperate attempting to defend an illegal act. Today, a committee in the state legislature voted down a proposal along party lines to curb providing licenses to illegal immigrants. The lesson that New Mexicans can take from this, if it is indeed the desire of the populace to end this policy, is to elect legislators who will act on the will of the people and established law.

A Goalie's Blown Up Statement

Recent gossip has it that the goalie from the Boston Bruins hockey team, the one that refused to join his teammates at the White House because of his issues with the federal government, may be on his way out of a job. There have been several examples of players/staff of championship teams not visiting the White House, some state their reasons. The goalie’s was simply put and he stated that his stance wasn’t political, by which he seemingly meant that his specific objections were not aligned with a specific political party, because his reasons for not attending could be considered aligned with his own political beliefs. Opinions on his statement were all over the place, some in support and others not so much. One commentator made the point that the goalie stating his right as a free citizen to not attend was dipping into scary libertarian ideals aligned with Ron Paul. That’s a lot to read into two words. This person is a free citizen and doesn’t have to do anything he doesn’t want to. Some opined that the event at the White House is apolitical and because it’s tradition the player was somehow betraying his teammates by not going. This is silly, EVERYTHING involving the White House is political in every way and hanging out with teammates may be nice but in the end the only time in which it really matters is within real, actual team activities like you know games, practices and meetings. It seems that one’s opinion on the issue depends on their level of personal interest in the statement and reflects more on the commenter’s beliefs than this goalie’s. It’s too bad if this incident, which really doesn’t matter, leads to the player losing his current job but as the most valuable player from last season’s Stanley cup series he’s likely to find another soon enough.

Dispatch from an Alternate Universe

That was quite a stump speech by that candidate, what’s his name, last night. I feel sorry for the incumbent, it can’t be easy to be them with this dude coming at him, full of righteous indignation about all those evils and what not. And, in front of such a fancy audience in a fancy venue to boot, makes him look kinda Presidential. All this not playing by the same rules and stuff, someone should really do something about that, it’s good that there’s someone able to tell us that some people don’t follow the rules, I’m sure he could do something about that, instead of allowing lawlessness to prevail under the current administration. How horrible is it that there are so many people barely getting by nowadays, being robbed by fat cats, I can’t believe that no one has ever done anything ever for anyone in that situation. We really should consider this guy, I didn’t catch the resume or anything but I think he must be the CEO of Ford, General Motors and Chrysler based on what he said, I didn’t even realize that they all merged. Someone with that kind of success really understands the evils of bailouts for failing companies, able to build the fast growing, largest and most innovative companies in the world. Oh, and alternative energy, how brilliant! Why aren’t those companies building these solutions and why isn’t the government investing in such things? Surely if that were done then we’d be literally swimming in alternative methods of powering things and stuff. And on the economy, this country, being really young must determine an economic system of some kind like he said, you know, one that will last and be fair and stuff. Wait, what?

State of the Same Old...

In his state of the union address last night the President stated:

"We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules. What's at stake are not Democratic values or Republican values, but American values. We have to reclaim them."

The President then went on to outline democrat style government expansion proposals by which these American values could then supposedly be reclaimed. The two biggest questions to my mind are, if everyone doesn’t play by the same set of rules, whom exactly is to blame, who is it that makes these ‘rules’? And, if there is a growing disparity in the outcomes of Americans, defined as ‘really well’ or as ‘barely get by’, why haven’t increases in government spending over the last three years done anything about it?

And it’s not just the last three years. For more than one hundred years the government has fiddled with regulations, the rules, and has introduced many programs supposedly designed to decrease disparities in economic outcome and yet the President, hardly for the first time, decries ‘rules’ and disparities and suggests what exactly? That we need more government ‘rules’ and government programs that, by not succeeding in stated aims, have failed time and again over many years.

If an observation were made without knowing the players of our country’s economic system, and the increase in government programs and rules as the input were to equal increased problems, not less, what would a reasonable conclusion be?

Weird from Baseball

Fausto Carmona has pitched in Major League Baseball since 2006. In 2012 comes the stupefying news that:

… Carmona made a tearful apology Friday as he was released following his arrest for allegedly using a false identity to play baseball in the U.S. … the athlete's real name is Roberto Hernandez Heredia and … he is 31, three years older than he had claimed. …

What in the world? Imagine the story leading to this. Imagine all of the questions that will be left on the table following that story. That any person could live for an extended length of time under an assumed identity is difficult to comprehend. That a once Cy Young award candidate playing for the Cleveland Indians could live under an assumed identity for nearly half a decade, the second half of the first decade of the 21^st century, is absolutely astonishing. There have been more than a few instances of players in several major United States sports leagues found to have falsified their age, which I don’t even consider to be much to do as MLB isn’t little league and if with age comes decreased capabilities it’ll show and that point comes at different times for everybody. I have never ever heard of an athlete in a major sport who falsified their identity, and yet ‘Carmona’ is:

… the second Dominican player arrested in recent months for using a false identity. …

Very strange. Hopefully these gentleman have non-immoral reasons for their shenanigans, I bet that whatever the story turns out to be, it would make a great movie.

A Farewell to the Broncos' Season

Following a drubbing inspiring an averted gaze, the Denver Broncos 2011 season ended. Broncos’ fans should consider the season a success after the team not just made it to the playoffs but also won a game there. Losing 45-10 in a divisional playoff game does sting but fans of a team that experienced Super Bowl losses of 19, 32 and 45(!) points before that extraordinary afternoon of the 25^th of January, 1998 don’t abandon following one bad game. On to next season!

Following the season, Broncos’ Executive Vice President of Football Operations John Elway had a press conference and named Tim Tebow starting quarterback for next season’s training camp. This news caused consternation in the division of the sporting press who seem to believe that Elway doesn’t want Tebow to be the Broncos’ quarterback, faulting the announcement for lacking support. It’s not clear exactly what Elway would have to do to demonstrate enough commitment to satisfy that crowd. Perhaps he could show up in a number 15 jersey and breathlessly declare allegiance to Tebow in poetry. Of course that wouldn’t change anything and so long as a simplistic cadre of journalists insist on finding a villain, Elway will continue in that role, in effect taking heat off the soon to be third year, 24 year old Tebow. And, since Elway has nothing to prove he’ll be just fine.

There are only three games left in the NFL season. It’s too soon. Go Broncos.

In Praise of Humdrum

I’m not necessarily decided with regard to the winnowing Republican presidential field but it’s getting close and hopefully, by the time the primary makes its way to New Mexico there will be at least a couple candidates that aren’t Ron Paul to choose from including Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum. I don’t necessarily mind Newt Gingrich but I’m just not inclined to vote for him over the others mentioned. Part of my inclination has to do with a quality that no one would accuse Gingrich of and is offered as a fault of Romney and Santorum; they’re boring. What a dumb and misguided criticism!

That’s right; I believe that it is imperative of our country to elect a boring President. President Obama was elected in part because of his ability to stir emotions based on his speaking style. And what good has the ability to deliver cheap words in copious volume served the current President and our country? My take from the President’s re-election campaign focus on an imaginary averted depression, political opponents and his predecessor to explain economic conditions illustrates that those cheap words haven’t done much.

It does no good for the country that the President can cause fainting and inspire groupies because fan boys have a terrible track record of thinking objectively because of their devotion. I prefer a President that forces voters to consider their actual records and the substance behind their words because that substance is a much better indicator of leadership than the ability to bring the shallow to tears with meaningless drivel. As a matter of fact, I prefer a President I don’t like for some reasons, so long as those reasons don’t matter or make it into legislation.