Ok, so its not New Years yet, but I procrastinate, so I better get these out here now.
Normally, I don't do NY resolutions. Why? I'm honest. I don't really have any intention on following through most years.... Ok, stop, here's the truth. If I don't make resolutions, I can't not keep them. I get 100% followthrough then. You can't quit what you don't start. Well, even though that's the story of my life, I should've live like that.
Lose weight. This ties in a bunch of things. Eat healthier, exercise, take my vitamins/supplements regularly. Here's what it entails: Go to the gym 3 times a week minimum. Take my lunch to work minimum 4 days a week. Watch the soda intake and the beer intake. (Funny thing is, I can easily sit and have a single beer and be happy. But, I can down can of soda after can of soda and crave more. Ah, high fructose corn syrup how I hate you and love you.)
Practice my guitar. 3 times a week for 30 minutes. At least. This is bare minimum stuff folks, I want to do more, but I need to set atainable goals.
Read more. For those of you who know me well you might be scratching your heads. "Paul needs to read more?" Yes. I've been slacking lately, especially on good non-fiction books.
Make time for God. Yeah, these are in no particular order. This is something I must do. Time for prayer, for devotions, for focusing on Him and how He wants me to live.
Procrastinate less. I'll always be a procrastinator. But I need to get better about it.
We'll see how this all goes.
Monday, December 29, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
Family
Its the Christmas season and its been crazy. My brother and his wife are way out in Portland Oregon (and stuck there due to snow) and I miss them. They've had a rough Christmas due to inclement weather and just the annoyances of life.
My wife and I have had to deal with a furnace going out ($305), a drain backing up and flooding our basement floor ($190 and counting), getting the house in order and a myraid of home repairs I'd been putting off. Those NEVER go as planned.
Then you have Christmas Eve where we rushed out to Tremont to go with my parents to see my Grandpa Schurter. Had lunch there, rushed back to Tremont to go with my Grandpa Stuber to pick up the seafood platter and then back to Pekin to wrap gifts to take to Tremont to exchange with my mom's side of the family.
Also my sister-in-law Andrea and her boyfriend Mike are staying with us and are wonderful houseguests, but its still a bit crazy having extra bodies around.
So Christmas with the Stubers, then back home to relax and watch a movie. Then Christmas day with Katrina's family and all the excitement that entails.
It was a crazy 2 days of Christmas. But you know what? It was great getting to spend it with family.
The love and joy at family members seeing each other who hadn't for awhile. At my young cousins who both have battled a life-threatening genetic disorder and the joy at them making it through another year and staying healthy. It was wonderful.
Christ brought hope to a lost world when He was born. The joy brought about celebrating his birth should remind us all of Him, and lead us to give thanks.
My wife and I have had to deal with a furnace going out ($305), a drain backing up and flooding our basement floor ($190 and counting), getting the house in order and a myraid of home repairs I'd been putting off. Those NEVER go as planned.
Then you have Christmas Eve where we rushed out to Tremont to go with my parents to see my Grandpa Schurter. Had lunch there, rushed back to Tremont to go with my Grandpa Stuber to pick up the seafood platter and then back to Pekin to wrap gifts to take to Tremont to exchange with my mom's side of the family.
Also my sister-in-law Andrea and her boyfriend Mike are staying with us and are wonderful houseguests, but its still a bit crazy having extra bodies around.
So Christmas with the Stubers, then back home to relax and watch a movie. Then Christmas day with Katrina's family and all the excitement that entails.
It was a crazy 2 days of Christmas. But you know what? It was great getting to spend it with family.
The love and joy at family members seeing each other who hadn't for awhile. At my young cousins who both have battled a life-threatening genetic disorder and the joy at them making it through another year and staying healthy. It was wonderful.
Christ brought hope to a lost world when He was born. The joy brought about celebrating his birth should remind us all of Him, and lead us to give thanks.
"Facts"
Facts are an interesting thing. Especially when presented in entertainment form. Yes, I'm talking about the news again. Specifically the 24 hour news networks.
Even though there are easily 24 hours of news to cover around the world, that's expensive. It is far cheaper to focus on a few stories, and then have hours of programming of commentary disguised as hard reporting.
The problem then becomes, all your "facts" are mashed in with commentary. Which, especially when key other facts are ommitted, completely changes the interpretation.
An example. In a discussion on the No Child Left Behind act it was stated that it was because of the Democrats. While it is a "fact" that Ted Kennedy was one of the original sponors of the bill, it was a bi-partisan initiative brought about at Bush's behest. He wanted this bill. He didn't sign it grudgingly, he made a special trip out to a school to sign it because he was so excited about it.
As recently as last year a Washington Post article quoted a Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra saying, "President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently. The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control."
See, the "fact" that Democrats helped sponsor the bill was made to obscure the fact it was Bush's idea from the start.
This is the danger of news channels spending too much time in studio "analyzing" and not enough time out actually gathering information. Its far, far cheaper to stay in studio then it is to pay teams of reporters to travel all over getting the hard facts. This is only going to contribute to the polarization and dividing of our country. And it does no one a service.
Even though there are easily 24 hours of news to cover around the world, that's expensive. It is far cheaper to focus on a few stories, and then have hours of programming of commentary disguised as hard reporting.
The problem then becomes, all your "facts" are mashed in with commentary. Which, especially when key other facts are ommitted, completely changes the interpretation.
An example. In a discussion on the No Child Left Behind act it was stated that it was because of the Democrats. While it is a "fact" that Ted Kennedy was one of the original sponors of the bill, it was a bi-partisan initiative brought about at Bush's behest. He wanted this bill. He didn't sign it grudgingly, he made a special trip out to a school to sign it because he was so excited about it.
As recently as last year a Washington Post article quoted a Republican Rep. Peter Hoekstra saying, "President Bush and I just see education fundamentally differently. The president believes in empowering bureaucrats in Washington, and I believe in local and parental control."
See, the "fact" that Democrats helped sponsor the bill was made to obscure the fact it was Bush's idea from the start.
This is the danger of news channels spending too much time in studio "analyzing" and not enough time out actually gathering information. Its far, far cheaper to stay in studio then it is to pay teams of reporters to travel all over getting the hard facts. This is only going to contribute to the polarization and dividing of our country. And it does no one a service.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Transformers
"A needle in the eye." Yes, that is a bad play on their slogan. It is also what would be more pleasant than watching this movie.
Well, to be fair, I didn't actually see the whole movie because a little after an hour into it, and nothing of real importance to the plot happening, my wife and I gave up. Whoever signed off on this poorly written, poorly directed hunk of crap should be beaten with a stick.
I'll start with the big problem that my wife summed up best. The movie and its makers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a young adult/adult movie at PG-13 or a kids movie. So, they wrote a script for a kids movie and peppered it with swearing. The writing was awful. Painful even. And the poor actors, I just couldn't care about them. It wasn't their fault, there was nothing likeable about any of them. I just wanted them to die. Really. It would have been better had the evil cop car robot had killed the main kid and the movie ended.
They needed to make the movie PG. Clean up the swearing, drop the little bit of blood and make it a kids movie.
I don't remember the cartoon much. I remember enjoying it, but I don't want to go back and watch them and have childhood memories destroyed. But, they were after the kid because his great-grandfather's glasses still held the image or something? WHAT!?!? I mean, I wanted to watch this movie for fun, not because it was a good movie, but because it would be fun. And it wasn't fun. It was bad and dumb.
Lets get to the CGI right. Ok, the Transformers looked pretty. But, the action sequences were so fast, that I couldn't see what was going on. Maybe I'm getting old. I don't know, but I wanted big epic robot fighting (maybe it came later) not blazing fast ninja robot action.
And a final BLEAH on this movie. Why did the evil transformers transform? I mean, 1 of them took out a military base. So....if you're an evil powerful robot, why hide? Why not just blow the crap out of everything in sight? Details I suppose.
Sorry, but I hated this movie. Hated it. And am sad I rented it.
Well, to be fair, I didn't actually see the whole movie because a little after an hour into it, and nothing of real importance to the plot happening, my wife and I gave up. Whoever signed off on this poorly written, poorly directed hunk of crap should be beaten with a stick.
I'll start with the big problem that my wife summed up best. The movie and its makers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a young adult/adult movie at PG-13 or a kids movie. So, they wrote a script for a kids movie and peppered it with swearing. The writing was awful. Painful even. And the poor actors, I just couldn't care about them. It wasn't their fault, there was nothing likeable about any of them. I just wanted them to die. Really. It would have been better had the evil cop car robot had killed the main kid and the movie ended.
They needed to make the movie PG. Clean up the swearing, drop the little bit of blood and make it a kids movie.
I don't remember the cartoon much. I remember enjoying it, but I don't want to go back and watch them and have childhood memories destroyed. But, they were after the kid because his great-grandfather's glasses still held the image or something? WHAT!?!? I mean, I wanted to watch this movie for fun, not because it was a good movie, but because it would be fun. And it wasn't fun. It was bad and dumb.
Lets get to the CGI right. Ok, the Transformers looked pretty. But, the action sequences were so fast, that I couldn't see what was going on. Maybe I'm getting old. I don't know, but I wanted big epic robot fighting (maybe it came later) not blazing fast ninja robot action.
And a final BLEAH on this movie. Why did the evil transformers transform? I mean, 1 of them took out a military base. So....if you're an evil powerful robot, why hide? Why not just blow the crap out of everything in sight? Details I suppose.
Sorry, but I hated this movie. Hated it. And am sad I rented it.
Saturday, December 20, 2008
The Party of Executive Greed?
The antipathy of certain southern Republican's to any sort of aid/bailout/help to the US auto industry is a bit bizarre to me. They seem to have no grasp on reality or simple economics.
Let me lay this out. The car companies have made stupid choices over the years. GM is still too big, has too many lines, and too many dealerships. Chrysler is still struggling from numerous poor decisions made during the time they were owned by Daimler and having too many dealerships.
Yes, labor costs, and most importantly ex-employee benefits/health care cost them tons of money each year.
However, the southern Republican's appear, and I can only say appear, because I don't understand their stance, to think that all the problems with the companies are because of the unions and that they don't have enough fuel efficient vehicles in their lineup.
GM has the most cars that get 30+ mpgs of any manufacturer. Granted, it could be the same car in 2 or 3 different lines but they still have options. Chrysler is in a stickier position due mostly to questionable decisions made during the Daimler tenure, however they have a multitude of hybrid/plugin electrics coming down the line for 2010.
Two things seem to be lacking from the view of those opposing this loan. First, consumers are idiots. They whine about the gas mileage they get, but as soon as gas prices dropped the vehicles that showed the biggest gain were all medium to full size SUVs. There is also the difficulty of turning a profit on small cars compared to trucks and SUVs. Forcing companies to produce more vehicles consumers do not want yet (raise the gas tax another $1 a gallon) and that they can't turn a profit on is not a path to profitability.
Second, yes, union labor costs more. So does executive pay. For a $5 million bonus to one executive (which they seem to get no matter how the company is doing) you could pay a whole heck of a lot of workers a living wage. I'm not saying workers need to be getting $35/hour to put widget A on widget B plus benefits. But I am saying that making $15-20/hour plus benefits and the big guys up top getting bonuses of $250k to $500k sounds fair to me.
The Republicans might wonder why they are losing votes like crazy. Things like this are why. The average person is a worker, not an executive. So when all the laws you make, decisions you push, seem to benefit the top 1% the other 99% aren't going to be thrilled with you.
Let me lay this out. The car companies have made stupid choices over the years. GM is still too big, has too many lines, and too many dealerships. Chrysler is still struggling from numerous poor decisions made during the time they were owned by Daimler and having too many dealerships.
Yes, labor costs, and most importantly ex-employee benefits/health care cost them tons of money each year.
However, the southern Republican's appear, and I can only say appear, because I don't understand their stance, to think that all the problems with the companies are because of the unions and that they don't have enough fuel efficient vehicles in their lineup.
GM has the most cars that get 30+ mpgs of any manufacturer. Granted, it could be the same car in 2 or 3 different lines but they still have options. Chrysler is in a stickier position due mostly to questionable decisions made during the Daimler tenure, however they have a multitude of hybrid/plugin electrics coming down the line for 2010.
Two things seem to be lacking from the view of those opposing this loan. First, consumers are idiots. They whine about the gas mileage they get, but as soon as gas prices dropped the vehicles that showed the biggest gain were all medium to full size SUVs. There is also the difficulty of turning a profit on small cars compared to trucks and SUVs. Forcing companies to produce more vehicles consumers do not want yet (raise the gas tax another $1 a gallon) and that they can't turn a profit on is not a path to profitability.
Second, yes, union labor costs more. So does executive pay. For a $5 million bonus to one executive (which they seem to get no matter how the company is doing) you could pay a whole heck of a lot of workers a living wage. I'm not saying workers need to be getting $35/hour to put widget A on widget B plus benefits. But I am saying that making $15-20/hour plus benefits and the big guys up top getting bonuses of $250k to $500k sounds fair to me.
The Republicans might wonder why they are losing votes like crazy. Things like this are why. The average person is a worker, not an executive. So when all the laws you make, decisions you push, seem to benefit the top 1% the other 99% aren't going to be thrilled with you.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
The Future of Unions
Watching the attempted bailout of the US automakers and the responses of the Union, and the apparent desire of some Republicans to pretty much kill the unions, I'll throw my two cents out there.
The unions must change if they want to survive. The old way of doing business doesn't work in the new age of multi-national corporations, dramatically shifting markets, and ever-changing technology. The current 800lb gorilla method of unions isn't effective anymore and needs to be rethought.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union. It isn't the union's fault that the car companies are in such dire straights, though the constant demands of more more more didn't help things. Unions have done much good, and are necessary to protect workers. But they need to go back to being truly local.
I think a network of truly local unions would be healthier and better for workers and employers then the current model of "local" unions where everything of importance is handled by people brought in by the national headquarters. It would allow unions to tailor contracts to their environment better. Workers in Chicago should make more than workers in Alabama, it costs more to live there.
A case in point. I live near the Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. Workers there have taken cut after cut as Mitsubishi attempts to survive in the US. Workers have taken over the past few years $1200/month wages concessions, assuming they kept their jobs. That is terrible, but they had $1200 in wages to give away. I'm sorry, I am all for people making a decent wage, but that is simply insane.
You've given up $14,400 in yearly wages because the unions kept demanding ever greater pay and benefits. (Yes, those lovely health-care benefits have also done much to shoot the cost of health-care up.) Am I saying that workers should get screwed when their companies make boneheaded decisions? No.
I am saying that getting paid $30/hour plus benefits to put widget A on widget B (without any real technical training) isn't a successful business model anymore. Add to this the protections of getting paid when their is no work (guarenteed 40 hours) and more, the unions have not done real favors when times get tough.
More negotiation needs to be done to tie both exectutive pay, and employee compensation to how the company is doing. Especially at the top levels. When executives can helm a company that is crashing into the ground and walk away with millions in golden parachutes, the employees must be protected as well.
This is disjointed, probably makes no sense, and got lost from the initial point. Though, I suppose that sums up the business climate pretty damn well.
The unions must change if they want to survive. The old way of doing business doesn't work in the new age of multi-national corporations, dramatically shifting markets, and ever-changing technology. The current 800lb gorilla method of unions isn't effective anymore and needs to be rethought.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-union. It isn't the union's fault that the car companies are in such dire straights, though the constant demands of more more more didn't help things. Unions have done much good, and are necessary to protect workers. But they need to go back to being truly local.
I think a network of truly local unions would be healthier and better for workers and employers then the current model of "local" unions where everything of importance is handled by people brought in by the national headquarters. It would allow unions to tailor contracts to their environment better. Workers in Chicago should make more than workers in Alabama, it costs more to live there.
A case in point. I live near the Mitsubishi plant in Normal, Illinois. Workers there have taken cut after cut as Mitsubishi attempts to survive in the US. Workers have taken over the past few years $1200/month wages concessions, assuming they kept their jobs. That is terrible, but they had $1200 in wages to give away. I'm sorry, I am all for people making a decent wage, but that is simply insane.
You've given up $14,400 in yearly wages because the unions kept demanding ever greater pay and benefits. (Yes, those lovely health-care benefits have also done much to shoot the cost of health-care up.) Am I saying that workers should get screwed when their companies make boneheaded decisions? No.
I am saying that getting paid $30/hour plus benefits to put widget A on widget B (without any real technical training) isn't a successful business model anymore. Add to this the protections of getting paid when their is no work (guarenteed 40 hours) and more, the unions have not done real favors when times get tough.
More negotiation needs to be done to tie both exectutive pay, and employee compensation to how the company is doing. Especially at the top levels. When executives can helm a company that is crashing into the ground and walk away with millions in golden parachutes, the employees must be protected as well.
This is disjointed, probably makes no sense, and got lost from the initial point. Though, I suppose that sums up the business climate pretty damn well.
Friday, December 12, 2008
Microsoft OS
Ok, I'm not a techie geek anymore. I was only ever a borderline one and even that title went out years ago. So, keep that in mind.
Microsoft and their ever-present "Mojave" commercials (i could get lots out of Vista too with a killer machine being used by someone who knows all the ins and outs) with-standing, Vista isn't really something people are raving about. Especially in the corporate world.
Why? Well, most people don't need an uber-powerful operating system. Vista apparently can do amazing things, if you care enough to do them. What I, and most users, notice, is that it sucks up tons of system resources just being on my computer. (I'm discounting the early Vista basic editions which were broken for all intents and purposes.)
What Microsoft isn't realizing, or maybe will with Windows 7, is that the average computer user just wants a stable machine. They want it to load fast, run fast, run the programs they buy, have drivers for the hardware they use, and just plain work. Yes, I realize this is a lot to ask, and there will always be glitches, bugs and hiccups. That's ok.
Don't give us a super-powerful, new, amazing, confusing and unecessary massive hunk of software. Really, most of us don't need it.
Make it two tiered: A home edition which is all the NECESSARY basics to just run your computer. A Pro edition which is all that PLUS a bunch of web-integrated stuff or whatever.
I run an old Pentium 4 that has Ubuntu on it. I barely know how to use linux. But it works. Every time, it works. I can get on the web, I can do word processing, photo editing, etc. Oh, I'm not proselytizing Linux, its not for everyone, but what I am saying is that it works for me. That's all I need. It doesn't suck up all my system resources, it only has a gig of ram. But it works.
Like I said, this isn't a big concern of mine, but Microsoft never seems to learn that upgrading and completely changing don't have to go hand in hand.
Microsoft and their ever-present "Mojave" commercials (i could get lots out of Vista too with a killer machine being used by someone who knows all the ins and outs) with-standing, Vista isn't really something people are raving about. Especially in the corporate world.
Why? Well, most people don't need an uber-powerful operating system. Vista apparently can do amazing things, if you care enough to do them. What I, and most users, notice, is that it sucks up tons of system resources just being on my computer. (I'm discounting the early Vista basic editions which were broken for all intents and purposes.)
What Microsoft isn't realizing, or maybe will with Windows 7, is that the average computer user just wants a stable machine. They want it to load fast, run fast, run the programs they buy, have drivers for the hardware they use, and just plain work. Yes, I realize this is a lot to ask, and there will always be glitches, bugs and hiccups. That's ok.
Don't give us a super-powerful, new, amazing, confusing and unecessary massive hunk of software. Really, most of us don't need it.
Make it two tiered: A home edition which is all the NECESSARY basics to just run your computer. A Pro edition which is all that PLUS a bunch of web-integrated stuff or whatever.
I run an old Pentium 4 that has Ubuntu on it. I barely know how to use linux. But it works. Every time, it works. I can get on the web, I can do word processing, photo editing, etc. Oh, I'm not proselytizing Linux, its not for everyone, but what I am saying is that it works for me. That's all I need. It doesn't suck up all my system resources, it only has a gig of ram. But it works.
Like I said, this isn't a big concern of mine, but Microsoft never seems to learn that upgrading and completely changing don't have to go hand in hand.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Got Him
The FBI arrested our wonderful governor today. Rod Blagojevich was arrested on corruption charges linked with attempting to sell the Senate seat recently vacated by President-elect Obama. He also is linked to numerous other shady deals including threatening the Tribune company (which owns the Cubs) that unless they fired certain editors state money could be withheld from renovating Wrigley Field.
I have yet do decide if the man is stupid, arrogant or just a firm dose of both.
His administration has been a train wreck from day one, and shame on the people of Illinois for voting him in twice. (Double shame on the Republicans for being such a sad pathetic group of cronies that they couldn't beat him last time.)
I've been saying all along he'd be in jail before his term was up. We'll see how long he can drag this trial out!
Go special prosecutor Fitzgerald!! If you nailed Ryan, you should be able to nail this slimeball easily!
I have yet do decide if the man is stupid, arrogant or just a firm dose of both.
His administration has been a train wreck from day one, and shame on the people of Illinois for voting him in twice. (Double shame on the Republicans for being such a sad pathetic group of cronies that they couldn't beat him last time.)
I've been saying all along he'd be in jail before his term was up. We'll see how long he can drag this trial out!
Go special prosecutor Fitzgerald!! If you nailed Ryan, you should be able to nail this slimeball easily!
Monday, December 8, 2008
Tricky Business
The US automakers are in Washington with hat in hand asking for loans. This is not a good thing. I don't claim to have all the answers on what needs to be done, but here are some of the issues lawmakers (and taxpayers/consumers) need to know about and take into account.
Did the car companies do this to themselves?
Yes, by and large.
GM, has been poorly run for years. They are too big, have too many lines with similar products and too many dealers competing to sell essentially the same products. Couple this with legacy expenses from pensions and healthcare they are hampered in adjusting to changes in the market and economy.
Ford, is coming around. They have some sharp products, made some wise financial moves (selling off Land Rover and Jaguar) and are positioning themselves well to emerge from the brink of disaster. They also have too many dealers (all the Big Three do) and need to get rid of Mercury or rebrand it somehow. Merely selling Ford's with the Mercury label and a few different shiny parts isnt' exactly cost effective.
Chrysler, needs help. Daimler took a company that was struggling and helped to drive it into the ground. Sure, they gave the company some great powertrains, and a few sharp looking lines, but many many stupid decisions on interior trim, new models, and some of the recent redesigns of vehicles hurt Chrysler greatly. Couple this with legacy costs, too many dealers, too many similar models and odd for being owned by a European company for so long, no small high mileage (35mpg+) models continue to make Chrysler plod along losing market share by the year.
Chrysler is pretty much hoping to be bought by another company to reengergize the company and give them a springboard to succeed. Chrysler has many positives for it, it merely needs time.
Here's where things get tricky: Everybody says they want more fuel efficent cars. However, the market doesn't show that. Last month when gas dropped significantly the biggest sales spikes were all full-size SUVS, the Toyota Sequoia, Honda Pilot, BMW X5. Sales of small fuel efficient cars dropped even further. Gas will go back up, people will complain again, and the cycle will continue. The government should slap an additional $1 a gallon tax on gas, THEN lets see the market adjust.
Another problem. Small cars don't make any money for automakers. Seriously, the profit margin on small cars in miniscule compared to trucks and SUVs. That's not even counting hybrids which if a company can break even on is a happy day. Its not simply "build smaller cars and you will make more money" because you won't. You'll have to sell LOTS more cars just to make the same amount of money you are making now. As market shares grow ever smaller, this is not a way to profitability as things stand.
A final problem that needs to be tackled is the enviromental issues. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all against gas-guzzling vehicles, but you must consider that alternatives have their own problems. Hybrid batteries are horrendously expensive, and disposal of them poses a big enviromental challenge. Manufacturing them is also not an overly green process. Does this mean they are bad? No, it merely means that just they are not 100% perfect either.
So, to sum it up, here are the main problems facing Detroit, and all car makers to a certain extent: Car sales are down. Its tough to make money with small cars. Consumers have not shown they will stay away from large SUVs if gas is cheap enough. Alternative fuel vehicles have plenty of their own enviromental issues as well.
A radical change needs to occur in this industry, but I just don't see it happening. I don't know how it can. It is such an entrenched part of our economy and such a vast retooling and downsizing would need to occur it would make things much worse before they got better.
One thing is certain though, until GM decides that it is still 2 to 3 lines heavy, I see no realistic hope of them turning things around.
Did the car companies do this to themselves?
Yes, by and large.
GM, has been poorly run for years. They are too big, have too many lines with similar products and too many dealers competing to sell essentially the same products. Couple this with legacy expenses from pensions and healthcare they are hampered in adjusting to changes in the market and economy.
Ford, is coming around. They have some sharp products, made some wise financial moves (selling off Land Rover and Jaguar) and are positioning themselves well to emerge from the brink of disaster. They also have too many dealers (all the Big Three do) and need to get rid of Mercury or rebrand it somehow. Merely selling Ford's with the Mercury label and a few different shiny parts isnt' exactly cost effective.
Chrysler, needs help. Daimler took a company that was struggling and helped to drive it into the ground. Sure, they gave the company some great powertrains, and a few sharp looking lines, but many many stupid decisions on interior trim, new models, and some of the recent redesigns of vehicles hurt Chrysler greatly. Couple this with legacy costs, too many dealers, too many similar models and odd for being owned by a European company for so long, no small high mileage (35mpg+) models continue to make Chrysler plod along losing market share by the year.
Chrysler is pretty much hoping to be bought by another company to reengergize the company and give them a springboard to succeed. Chrysler has many positives for it, it merely needs time.
Here's where things get tricky: Everybody says they want more fuel efficent cars. However, the market doesn't show that. Last month when gas dropped significantly the biggest sales spikes were all full-size SUVS, the Toyota Sequoia, Honda Pilot, BMW X5. Sales of small fuel efficient cars dropped even further. Gas will go back up, people will complain again, and the cycle will continue. The government should slap an additional $1 a gallon tax on gas, THEN lets see the market adjust.
Another problem. Small cars don't make any money for automakers. Seriously, the profit margin on small cars in miniscule compared to trucks and SUVs. That's not even counting hybrids which if a company can break even on is a happy day. Its not simply "build smaller cars and you will make more money" because you won't. You'll have to sell LOTS more cars just to make the same amount of money you are making now. As market shares grow ever smaller, this is not a way to profitability as things stand.
A final problem that needs to be tackled is the enviromental issues. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all against gas-guzzling vehicles, but you must consider that alternatives have their own problems. Hybrid batteries are horrendously expensive, and disposal of them poses a big enviromental challenge. Manufacturing them is also not an overly green process. Does this mean they are bad? No, it merely means that just they are not 100% perfect either.
So, to sum it up, here are the main problems facing Detroit, and all car makers to a certain extent: Car sales are down. Its tough to make money with small cars. Consumers have not shown they will stay away from large SUVs if gas is cheap enough. Alternative fuel vehicles have plenty of their own enviromental issues as well.
A radical change needs to occur in this industry, but I just don't see it happening. I don't know how it can. It is such an entrenched part of our economy and such a vast retooling and downsizing would need to occur it would make things much worse before they got better.
One thing is certain though, until GM decides that it is still 2 to 3 lines heavy, I see no realistic hope of them turning things around.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Bears Rant
Ok, if you aren't a sports fan, skip this. Or read it, and be reminded of why you don't care about sports.
The Bears got humiliated by the Packers yesterday 37-3. It was ugly. Absolutely ugly. I don't even know where to start? Trotting out a QB with one leg because your back-up is so useless that you don't want to risk him in the game? (Until there is about 3 minutes left.....why then? Did you really think you were going to overcome the deficiet and come back?)
Or a defense that, not only can it not pressure the quarterback or defend against the pass, it cannot stop the run without committing 8 guys into the "box." 145 yards rushing by a guy who'd been having a crappy year! The front four didn't even get close to touching Rogers (or anybody else this year.) Backup linemen on good teams have more sacks then the entire Bears line COMBINED. COMBINED!!!!! Awful, just awful.
Our corners have apparently forgotten how to cover. Vasher is useless. Yes, he was hurt, but supposedly he's not hurt now, he just can't cover. Tillman would make a great safety, except he's needed as a corner. Mike Brown is a good strong safety, but not so good on coverage, just like Payne...hmm...think that's a problem? Briggs is decent, Urlacher actually showed up a bit which was nice.
The team is a mess. We don't have a number 1 wide reciever. Heck, on good teams we wouldn't even have a number 2 reciever. We didn't dress, DRESS EVEN our #2 running back even though Green Bay is weak against the run and we were going to run a lot against them. (Supposedly.)
Even special teams continued to suck.
Bears fan, get used to this. This is a team in disarray. We have no recievers, no defensive secondary, a defensive line that can't get to the QB, and things aren't looking good for the future. If you think its bad this year, wait til next year. Unless there are some amazing moves in the off-season, or some guys really step it up, well, we could be looking at a dismal future. Dismal.
The Bears got humiliated by the Packers yesterday 37-3. It was ugly. Absolutely ugly. I don't even know where to start? Trotting out a QB with one leg because your back-up is so useless that you don't want to risk him in the game? (Until there is about 3 minutes left.....why then? Did you really think you were going to overcome the deficiet and come back?)
Or a defense that, not only can it not pressure the quarterback or defend against the pass, it cannot stop the run without committing 8 guys into the "box." 145 yards rushing by a guy who'd been having a crappy year! The front four didn't even get close to touching Rogers (or anybody else this year.) Backup linemen on good teams have more sacks then the entire Bears line COMBINED. COMBINED!!!!! Awful, just awful.
Our corners have apparently forgotten how to cover. Vasher is useless. Yes, he was hurt, but supposedly he's not hurt now, he just can't cover. Tillman would make a great safety, except he's needed as a corner. Mike Brown is a good strong safety, but not so good on coverage, just like Payne...hmm...think that's a problem? Briggs is decent, Urlacher actually showed up a bit which was nice.
The team is a mess. We don't have a number 1 wide reciever. Heck, on good teams we wouldn't even have a number 2 reciever. We didn't dress, DRESS EVEN our #2 running back even though Green Bay is weak against the run and we were going to run a lot against them. (Supposedly.)
Even special teams continued to suck.
Bears fan, get used to this. This is a team in disarray. We have no recievers, no defensive secondary, a defensive line that can't get to the QB, and things aren't looking good for the future. If you think its bad this year, wait til next year. Unless there are some amazing moves in the off-season, or some guys really step it up, well, we could be looking at a dismal future. Dismal.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Thank You
Thanks to all those who have served our country, whether in wartime or peacetime. You have helped keep this country free, and helped to make it what it is today. Never think that because I might have disagreed with what our government has asked you to do at times that I do not support you or thank you for your service.
Everything I could possibly say seems, trite or contrived, but thank you.
Everything I could possibly say seems, trite or contrived, but thank you.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Good Luck President Elect Obama
We did it. We elected an African-American president. Wow. Our country still has a ways to go, but this is showing we're at least partway there. Now the hard work begins.
Mr. Obama, you have a nasty, hard job ahead of you. You're inheriting a country that is in many many messes. We're in two wars. Our economy is in the tank. Health care is messed up. Companies are bleeding red. The housing sector is a disaster. Oh, and don't even get started about our foreign policy messes.
Now, do I expect you to fix all this in a year? No. Here is what I do expect:
1). I expect you to work with Congress. Not to be a rubber-stamp like Bush was for much of his Presidency, but to work with them. Force them to make difficult choices, to write pointed legislation, to reign in earmarks. Help the Democrats to learn how to lead, not just try and force through their agenda.
2). Listen to opposing points of view. REALLY listen. Be open to the fact that the way you view something may not be correct. Our current President did not do this. It has harmed this country greatly.
3). Remember we are part of a global economy and a global community. Just because we're rich and powerful does not make us right. It doesn't make us wrong either. But throwing our weight around and ignoring the opinions of other sovereign countries has done us no favors.
4). Make the tough call. Whether this is in foreign policy, domestic choices, whereever. You will be asked to make hard decisions that may be unpopular. Make them. And answer for them. Our country needs a man who can make the difficult calls.
5). Don't stonewall the media. I know there will be spin. There always is. But please, don't lie to us. We've had enough of that. Transparency, as much as possible, is a good thing.
6). Go against your party. They aren't always right. Don't merely become a party hack. I don't think you will, but if you do, I will be sorely disappointed.
I helped to elect you and I will give you plenty of leeway. We have a long ways to go as a nation. But I will be sorely disappointed if things get bogged down halfway through your term because of lack of leadership.
We've had too many years of weak leaders. Both Bush and Clinton were not strong leaders. We need someone to LEAD this nation back to preeminence in the world, both economically and morally.
Mr. Obama, you have a nasty, hard job ahead of you. You're inheriting a country that is in many many messes. We're in two wars. Our economy is in the tank. Health care is messed up. Companies are bleeding red. The housing sector is a disaster. Oh, and don't even get started about our foreign policy messes.
Now, do I expect you to fix all this in a year? No. Here is what I do expect:
1). I expect you to work with Congress. Not to be a rubber-stamp like Bush was for much of his Presidency, but to work with them. Force them to make difficult choices, to write pointed legislation, to reign in earmarks. Help the Democrats to learn how to lead, not just try and force through their agenda.
2). Listen to opposing points of view. REALLY listen. Be open to the fact that the way you view something may not be correct. Our current President did not do this. It has harmed this country greatly.
3). Remember we are part of a global economy and a global community. Just because we're rich and powerful does not make us right. It doesn't make us wrong either. But throwing our weight around and ignoring the opinions of other sovereign countries has done us no favors.
4). Make the tough call. Whether this is in foreign policy, domestic choices, whereever. You will be asked to make hard decisions that may be unpopular. Make them. And answer for them. Our country needs a man who can make the difficult calls.
5). Don't stonewall the media. I know there will be spin. There always is. But please, don't lie to us. We've had enough of that. Transparency, as much as possible, is a good thing.
6). Go against your party. They aren't always right. Don't merely become a party hack. I don't think you will, but if you do, I will be sorely disappointed.
I helped to elect you and I will give you plenty of leeway. We have a long ways to go as a nation. But I will be sorely disappointed if things get bogged down halfway through your term because of lack of leadership.
We've had too many years of weak leaders. Both Bush and Clinton were not strong leaders. We need someone to LEAD this nation back to preeminence in the world, both economically and morally.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
History is made...
Wow, it happened. We have our first African-American president. Pretty amazing how far we've come. Still have a long ways to go, but Dr MLK could only dream about this day. Barack Obama, with the support of millions of Americans of all races, made the dream come true.
President Elect Obama, please prayerfully consider how to move forward. This country needs strong, smart leadership.
(an observation to all FoxNews watchers: FoxNews is part of the mainstream media. Sorry to burst your bubble.)
President Elect Obama, please prayerfully consider how to move forward. This country needs strong, smart leadership.
(an observation to all FoxNews watchers: FoxNews is part of the mainstream media. Sorry to burst your bubble.)
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Fear is What Keeps Us Here
Besides being the title of Zao's latest (and final?) album, I think this applies to far too many Americans of the "Religious Right" stripe. Now, I tend to shy away from labels like that because they are too broad and inaccurately portray a large group of people as single-minded in purpose.
However, you know the person I'm talking about. They are currently terrified of Obama being elected. He's a: terrorist, Socialist, Muslim, who is going to: let Israel get destroyed, the tax rate will go up to 50% to support the jobless, Christians will lose their religious freedoms.
I'll be as polite as I can be. SNAP OUT OF IT! Are you a Christian first or an American first? Think carefully before you answer because that answer will affect how you view the situation.
There is such an immense amount of fear surrounding this election, and its sinful. Simply sinful. Do you trust in God? Honestly, truly trust in God? Because if you do, don't you think He can work in any situation? Don't you think that even if the most horrible things imaginable happen, God will still be God and still be sovereign?
Because the sheer amount of fear out there among certain groups of religious voters doesn't lead me to believe this is what's being taught. The wedding of too many Christian organizations to the Republican party has led us to this point. Its no longer "Trust in God." Its "We need a conservative Supreme Court because if we don't the bad evil liberals will steal away all our freedoms." WHAT?
God works in the world no matter who is in charge. Yes, He does.
If you are someone struggling with fear about Obama getting elected, please, pray about it. Lots. This doesn't mean that you can't disagree with his ideas! That's fine! Good even! I don't care if you want to vote for him or not.
I do care that you stop living in fear. God does not desire His children to fear anything but Him.
However, you know the person I'm talking about. They are currently terrified of Obama being elected. He's a: terrorist, Socialist, Muslim, who is going to: let Israel get destroyed, the tax rate will go up to 50% to support the jobless, Christians will lose their religious freedoms.
I'll be as polite as I can be. SNAP OUT OF IT! Are you a Christian first or an American first? Think carefully before you answer because that answer will affect how you view the situation.
There is such an immense amount of fear surrounding this election, and its sinful. Simply sinful. Do you trust in God? Honestly, truly trust in God? Because if you do, don't you think He can work in any situation? Don't you think that even if the most horrible things imaginable happen, God will still be God and still be sovereign?
Because the sheer amount of fear out there among certain groups of religious voters doesn't lead me to believe this is what's being taught. The wedding of too many Christian organizations to the Republican party has led us to this point. Its no longer "Trust in God." Its "We need a conservative Supreme Court because if we don't the bad evil liberals will steal away all our freedoms." WHAT?
God works in the world no matter who is in charge. Yes, He does.
If you are someone struggling with fear about Obama getting elected, please, pray about it. Lots. This doesn't mean that you can't disagree with his ideas! That's fine! Good even! I don't care if you want to vote for him or not.
I do care that you stop living in fear. God does not desire His children to fear anything but Him.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
GM & Chrysler
As merger talks occur (but no comment from the companies of course!) I thought I'd let everyone know what this deal is really about.
NPR was talking with an editor at Edmunds and she said it was pretty much so GM can get Chrysler's cash reserves now, and have more leverage with the Feds to get money from them later. This is a high risk/reward situation. If it works GM gets lots of Fed dollars and stays afloat hemorrhaging money for a few more years. If it doesn't....well, I guess I don't need to worry about coming into work.
Talking to our Chrysler rep the other day he had a good analogy for the situation. Here's how it had been explained to him.
"You own a house and are totally upside down in a bad mortgage. Your neighbor has a bigger house, but is in the same situation. Your neighbor goes to the bank to get a mortgage to buy your house, and then proceeds to burn it down for insurance purposes."
That is, in a bit of an oversimplified nutshell, what GM wants to do. GM wants Chrysler's 10-11 billion in cash reserves. But GM also believes that if they acquire Chrysler (which would involve completely gutting Chrysler and probably all but dissolving the company) they would be more likely to get more loans from the Feds.
Talk about a risky move!
The fortunate thing is that GM's investors may not go for the deal. Cerburus is just looking to get their money so I don't think they care what happens to Chrysler if they get their money back.
Chrysler needs to hook up with a company that can benefit them now and for the future. Teaming up with Nissan or Hyundai would seem to benefit Chrysler and both of their companies by giving them a larger dealer base for pretty much free. Even Renault would be a good thing it seems for the same reason.
I just really hope the GM/Chrysler deal never happens because it is merely a ploy to try and weasel money from the government.
NPR was talking with an editor at Edmunds and she said it was pretty much so GM can get Chrysler's cash reserves now, and have more leverage with the Feds to get money from them later. This is a high risk/reward situation. If it works GM gets lots of Fed dollars and stays afloat hemorrhaging money for a few more years. If it doesn't....well, I guess I don't need to worry about coming into work.
Talking to our Chrysler rep the other day he had a good analogy for the situation. Here's how it had been explained to him.
"You own a house and are totally upside down in a bad mortgage. Your neighbor has a bigger house, but is in the same situation. Your neighbor goes to the bank to get a mortgage to buy your house, and then proceeds to burn it down for insurance purposes."
That is, in a bit of an oversimplified nutshell, what GM wants to do. GM wants Chrysler's 10-11 billion in cash reserves. But GM also believes that if they acquire Chrysler (which would involve completely gutting Chrysler and probably all but dissolving the company) they would be more likely to get more loans from the Feds.
Talk about a risky move!
The fortunate thing is that GM's investors may not go for the deal. Cerburus is just looking to get their money so I don't think they care what happens to Chrysler if they get their money back.
Chrysler needs to hook up with a company that can benefit them now and for the future. Teaming up with Nissan or Hyundai would seem to benefit Chrysler and both of their companies by giving them a larger dealer base for pretty much free. Even Renault would be a good thing it seems for the same reason.
I just really hope the GM/Chrysler deal never happens because it is merely a ploy to try and weasel money from the government.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Reese is a prophet
I've been listing to FIF again lately. That's Five Iron Frenzy for those of you not in the know. And you should be in the know. You should be listening to them. Or at least reading their lyrics for some potent social commentary, and plenty of silliness.
American Kryptonite - off "The End is Near" album
Here's my favorite part...
"it was like the manifest destiny all over again, except, instead of taking and consuming everything in their paths for god, they did so with the same fervor and sense of entitlement for their new god...themselves.
American Kryptonite - off "The End is Near" album
Here's my favorite part...
"it was like the manifest destiny all over again, except, instead of taking and consuming everything in their paths for god, they did so with the same fervor and sense of entitlement for their new god...themselves.
Socialism Deux
"schmichael said...
I think you just argued for Obama's tax plan (since we can't exactly mandate what people get paid, all we can do is tax the rich jerks more). :-)While I think Obama is pretty far from being Socialist*, I'm feeling pretty Socialist myself these days. I mean if we're all going to be ruled by a bunch of greedy rich old guys, might as well get to vote on which ones they are."
This is going to be a continuation, musing on, my previous topic and my brother's comment on it.
I agree with Michael's feelings. At heart, I'm a libertarian. I feel that minimal laws and minimal government interference are good things. Unfortunately, I'm also a realist who doesn't believe people are "naturally good." (Note, this does NOT mean I believe we are totally naturally evil, but look where our inclinations head.) I think the current financial crisis should be indication that a "hands off" approach of letting companies police themselves, doesn't work well.
I'm also, because of the current crisis, feeling a bit Socialist. There is apparently zero accountability at the top. You help run a company into the ground, you get bought out and have fun with your millions. You help drive the world economy into the tank, well, since you didn't technically break any laws, you take your money and run.
Now, the problem is, the government is notoriously inefficient at doing things as well. So, I'm not a socialist. I do think we need to find a more middle ground. I don't have a problem with people making lots of money. Especially people like doctors, engineers, etc. Even the financial guys to a certain extent. But, as the market bounces like a yo-yo run by a meth-freak I've pretty much decided they don't know much more than I do in practical terms. (Practical, not theoretical.)
I guess, I'm still in my multi-party mode. We need a couple of Socialists in Congress. We need some libertarians. We need some old school liberals. We need some old-school fiscal conservatives. BADLY!!! We need term limits. BADLY!!!
I suppose what I'm saying in all this is, while I don't think anything is drastically going to change, I don't see how giving the rich more money has helped us out much. I'd be willing to see a little more of the burden get shouldered onto them.
I think you just argued for Obama's tax plan (since we can't exactly mandate what people get paid, all we can do is tax the rich jerks more). :-)While I think Obama is pretty far from being Socialist*, I'm feeling pretty Socialist myself these days. I mean if we're all going to be ruled by a bunch of greedy rich old guys, might as well get to vote on which ones they are."
This is going to be a continuation, musing on, my previous topic and my brother's comment on it.
I agree with Michael's feelings. At heart, I'm a libertarian. I feel that minimal laws and minimal government interference are good things. Unfortunately, I'm also a realist who doesn't believe people are "naturally good." (Note, this does NOT mean I believe we are totally naturally evil, but look where our inclinations head.) I think the current financial crisis should be indication that a "hands off" approach of letting companies police themselves, doesn't work well.
I'm also, because of the current crisis, feeling a bit Socialist. There is apparently zero accountability at the top. You help run a company into the ground, you get bought out and have fun with your millions. You help drive the world economy into the tank, well, since you didn't technically break any laws, you take your money and run.
Now, the problem is, the government is notoriously inefficient at doing things as well. So, I'm not a socialist. I do think we need to find a more middle ground. I don't have a problem with people making lots of money. Especially people like doctors, engineers, etc. Even the financial guys to a certain extent. But, as the market bounces like a yo-yo run by a meth-freak I've pretty much decided they don't know much more than I do in practical terms. (Practical, not theoretical.)
I guess, I'm still in my multi-party mode. We need a couple of Socialists in Congress. We need some libertarians. We need some old school liberals. We need some old-school fiscal conservatives. BADLY!!! We need term limits. BADLY!!!
I suppose what I'm saying in all this is, while I don't think anything is drastically going to change, I don't see how giving the rich more money has helped us out much. I'd be willing to see a little more of the burden get shouldered onto them.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Am I a Socialist/Communist now?
Ok, thankfully, by next Wednesday all this will be done. Well, at least the election part. With any luck 50% of the country will do themselves in after the election and those of us with a brain will still be around. (Note, I hope this no matter who wins. Really, we could use about 50% less idiots right now.)
This rant is in response to the Florida anchorman who asked Joe Biden if Barack Obama was basically Karl Marx. I might be wrong, but wouldn't a little bit of redistribution be a good thing?
I mean, I'm not saying Communism here. But people, the bosses at AIG were standing to get 10s of millions in bonuses after running the company into the ground. Yes AFTER the bailout. Now, the government says, no, they can't have that money, but would those 10s of millions not be better spent investing in jobs for the average American?
They say its too expensive to make stuff here anymore. We can do it cheaper overseas. Well, how many Americans could we employ for $10 million dollars at a living wage? Lets see.
We'll make this simple math and therefore highly inaccurate, but just an idea. Thirty thousand. Multiply by two to county the costs of health insurance, taxes, etc. So, 60,000.
Ten million would be able to pay for 166 people's jobs at $30,000 a year. Before you go all nuts, I understand, that's just salary, but remember, that was just one guy's bonus too.
It is a problem when the top 1% controls 90%+ of the wealth. I'm all for redistributing some of that. Executive pay MUST start being tied to actual company production. Golden parachute plans need to be banned. Things need to start changing at the top.
I'm not saying we need to produce everything here. That would be silly. But we need to have jobs that produce a product. We must. And they need to pay a living wage. I'm not saying $30 an hour to put widget A on widget B. But $15-20/hour, plus health insurance? Yes, I think that could happen.
I don't know. Maybe we'll go Socialist if Obama gets elected. But after the way things have been run, I'm almost welcome to trying something completely different. The system is broken, and if anyone honestly believes the current people we are sending to Washington are going to change things, you're living in a pipe dream.
Until we have actual choice, more than just 2 canidates to chose from, things are not going to change. We need to break the 2 party system and the laws that make dissenting voices impossible to be heard at the polls. It really might be our only hope to stay a leading voice in the world.
This rant is in response to the Florida anchorman who asked Joe Biden if Barack Obama was basically Karl Marx. I might be wrong, but wouldn't a little bit of redistribution be a good thing?
I mean, I'm not saying Communism here. But people, the bosses at AIG were standing to get 10s of millions in bonuses after running the company into the ground. Yes AFTER the bailout. Now, the government says, no, they can't have that money, but would those 10s of millions not be better spent investing in jobs for the average American?
They say its too expensive to make stuff here anymore. We can do it cheaper overseas. Well, how many Americans could we employ for $10 million dollars at a living wage? Lets see.
We'll make this simple math and therefore highly inaccurate, but just an idea. Thirty thousand. Multiply by two to county the costs of health insurance, taxes, etc. So, 60,000.
Ten million would be able to pay for 166 people's jobs at $30,000 a year. Before you go all nuts, I understand, that's just salary, but remember, that was just one guy's bonus too.
It is a problem when the top 1% controls 90%+ of the wealth. I'm all for redistributing some of that. Executive pay MUST start being tied to actual company production. Golden parachute plans need to be banned. Things need to start changing at the top.
I'm not saying we need to produce everything here. That would be silly. But we need to have jobs that produce a product. We must. And they need to pay a living wage. I'm not saying $30 an hour to put widget A on widget B. But $15-20/hour, plus health insurance? Yes, I think that could happen.
I don't know. Maybe we'll go Socialist if Obama gets elected. But after the way things have been run, I'm almost welcome to trying something completely different. The system is broken, and if anyone honestly believes the current people we are sending to Washington are going to change things, you're living in a pipe dream.
Until we have actual choice, more than just 2 canidates to chose from, things are not going to change. We need to break the 2 party system and the laws that make dissenting voices impossible to be heard at the polls. It really might be our only hope to stay a leading voice in the world.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Home Makeovers...
So, the Extreme Homemakeover (or whatever the show is called) is redoing a house just down the street from me. About 4 or 5 blocks away they've demolished the house and have started on the basement.
Its been a bit crazy. I live on one of the main roads in my town, and having it cut off is a bit annoying. But I can live with it for a week.
My parents love the show. My wife does too. I enjoy it, though I don't watch it that often.
The show really strikes my dad, who if he had the time and money would do stuff like that all the time. He and my mom look forward to retirement so when help is needed somewhere they can head out and put the work in. I have cool parents.
Tonight, we're gonna walk down and check it out. Should be pretty interesting.
Its been a bit crazy. I live on one of the main roads in my town, and having it cut off is a bit annoying. But I can live with it for a week.
My parents love the show. My wife does too. I enjoy it, though I don't watch it that often.
The show really strikes my dad, who if he had the time and money would do stuff like that all the time. He and my mom look forward to retirement so when help is needed somewhere they can head out and put the work in. I have cool parents.
Tonight, we're gonna walk down and check it out. Should be pretty interesting.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Palin's & Prada
Well, ok, more than just pants. Pantsuits, makeup, hairdressers, all the stuff necessary to look good during a campaign.
I'm referring to the 150K that the RNC shelled out to clothe Palin (and her family it appears) since she became the VP candidate.
While it appears this is legal, and 150K is a drop in the bucket of campaign financing anymore, it does raise other issues.
Palin is supposed to be "a woman of the people." Someone every American can relate too. While not every American isn't running for office, and that is expensive, I'm not sure how many average Americans can dream of dropping 10k on clothes in 2 months much less 150k.
Granted, that the RNC says it owns the clothes and will donate them to charity after the election. Also, I'm not expecting Palin to go shopping at Wal-mart.
But, when the economy is crunching, the average American scrambling to keep finances above water, and the economy playing a giant role in the race, this is something that doesn't look good.
Is it serious? Not really. But does it look bad? Oh, yeah. And I hate to tell people perception matters as much as substance does.
Is this Palin's fault? Not necessarily. But does it show her inexperience? I think it does. A more savvy political veteran would probably have questioned the need for spending that much (or more likely already had it because of "connections" that goes for both parties) which again leads me to question the RNC's leadership in a "what the heck were they thinking?" scenario. I mean, the RNC has been the kings of this sort of attacking...so they don't think it might happen back?
Oh well, the election is coming soon!
I'm referring to the 150K that the RNC shelled out to clothe Palin (and her family it appears) since she became the VP candidate.
While it appears this is legal, and 150K is a drop in the bucket of campaign financing anymore, it does raise other issues.
Palin is supposed to be "a woman of the people." Someone every American can relate too. While not every American isn't running for office, and that is expensive, I'm not sure how many average Americans can dream of dropping 10k on clothes in 2 months much less 150k.
Granted, that the RNC says it owns the clothes and will donate them to charity after the election. Also, I'm not expecting Palin to go shopping at Wal-mart.
But, when the economy is crunching, the average American scrambling to keep finances above water, and the economy playing a giant role in the race, this is something that doesn't look good.
Is it serious? Not really. But does it look bad? Oh, yeah. And I hate to tell people perception matters as much as substance does.
Is this Palin's fault? Not necessarily. But does it show her inexperience? I think it does. A more savvy political veteran would probably have questioned the need for spending that much (or more likely already had it because of "connections" that goes for both parties) which again leads me to question the RNC's leadership in a "what the heck were they thinking?" scenario. I mean, the RNC has been the kings of this sort of attacking...so they don't think it might happen back?
Oh well, the election is coming soon!
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
GM & Chrysler
Ok, I'm not a business guru, but I don't think you need to be to wonder about the merger talks between Chrysler and GM. Now, nobody knows how far along the merger talks are, and it was mentioned today that they have "slowed" because of "investor skepticism," but there still are talks of sorts.
My question is...why? Now, the simple answer is GM needs cash, Chrysler has cash. Ok, so I understand that.
Beyond the cash, what do the companies have to offer? Both have far too much production capacity. They both have line-ups that are bloated with trucks and SUVs and are trying to rapidly change that. Both have far too many dealerships. Both have too many cross-brand vehicles. (That's a matter of opinion, but I think they do.)
They are two companies with the same problems. Both are coming out with more hybrid vehicles. I for one am excited by our 5.7Hemi hybrid, which (in theory) gets our Durango/Aspens up to around mid 20MPGs. Both are slashing production as much as they can. Both would be happy to see about 1/3 of their dealerships consolidate or go under. (Rough estimate. Probably varies around the country, but I would think that 1/4 to 1/3 could go and make the parent companies happy.)
I don't know about GM, but for Chrysler I would think merging or partnering with a Nissan or Hyundai would make FAR more sense. Or even Renault. I don't know as much about Renault. Both Hyundai and Nissan would benefit from increased exposure, and Chrysler would gain from smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.
Again, I don't claim tons of business knowledge, but at least on the surface, a merger between two struggling companies with many of the same problems seems silly.
My question is...why? Now, the simple answer is GM needs cash, Chrysler has cash. Ok, so I understand that.
Beyond the cash, what do the companies have to offer? Both have far too much production capacity. They both have line-ups that are bloated with trucks and SUVs and are trying to rapidly change that. Both have far too many dealerships. Both have too many cross-brand vehicles. (That's a matter of opinion, but I think they do.)
They are two companies with the same problems. Both are coming out with more hybrid vehicles. I for one am excited by our 5.7Hemi hybrid, which (in theory) gets our Durango/Aspens up to around mid 20MPGs. Both are slashing production as much as they can. Both would be happy to see about 1/3 of their dealerships consolidate or go under. (Rough estimate. Probably varies around the country, but I would think that 1/4 to 1/3 could go and make the parent companies happy.)
I don't know about GM, but for Chrysler I would think merging or partnering with a Nissan or Hyundai would make FAR more sense. Or even Renault. I don't know as much about Renault. Both Hyundai and Nissan would benefit from increased exposure, and Chrysler would gain from smaller more fuel efficient vehicles.
Again, I don't claim tons of business knowledge, but at least on the surface, a merger between two struggling companies with many of the same problems seems silly.
Juggling Nukes with My Pants on Fire
Tatsuya Ishida has a direct line to God I think. Sorta like the Pope. Trust me on this.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Bully for Colin Powell
Powell coming out for Obama was big this weekend. I don't know if it will matter in the race much, but his comments on how disgusted he is with the Republican party leadership were great. Especially about the fear-mongering concerning Muslims.
Regardless of what apologists try and say, Islam is not a religion of peace, only. Mohammed himself led an army, and Islam has been spread with the sword, and it isn't a huge stretch to see how the Koran supports that.
This isn't to say Christianity hasn't done the same thing, but Christ, then central figure of Christianity, was pretty adamant in his views on violence. So, while the faiths share many stories, beliefs, and show similarities, they have that one large difference.
This does NOT mean that all Muslims are jihadists in the modern sense of the word. They don't all want us (non-Muslims) to die in holy war and they aren't all sleepers for terrorist organizations. If you believe they are, you're crazy, and I feel bad because living that sort of fear can't be healthy.
It also doesn't mean that there aren't Muslims around the world that want to kill us. There are. They are the extreme of their religion, but they do exist, and they give all Muslims a bad name.
Islam is designed to be a political religion. Christianity isn't. Massive differences between the two, but we can live in peace and not fear each other.
I suppose what I'm saying with all this, Christians, stop fearing Muslims just because they are Muslim. Trust in the Lord and show his love. Isn't that really all that's required?
Regardless of what apologists try and say, Islam is not a religion of peace, only. Mohammed himself led an army, and Islam has been spread with the sword, and it isn't a huge stretch to see how the Koran supports that.
This isn't to say Christianity hasn't done the same thing, but Christ, then central figure of Christianity, was pretty adamant in his views on violence. So, while the faiths share many stories, beliefs, and show similarities, they have that one large difference.
This does NOT mean that all Muslims are jihadists in the modern sense of the word. They don't all want us (non-Muslims) to die in holy war and they aren't all sleepers for terrorist organizations. If you believe they are, you're crazy, and I feel bad because living that sort of fear can't be healthy.
It also doesn't mean that there aren't Muslims around the world that want to kill us. There are. They are the extreme of their religion, but they do exist, and they give all Muslims a bad name.
Islam is designed to be a political religion. Christianity isn't. Massive differences between the two, but we can live in peace and not fear each other.
I suppose what I'm saying with all this, Christians, stop fearing Muslims just because they are Muslim. Trust in the Lord and show his love. Isn't that really all that's required?
Its spreading...
Least I'm not the only one who sees parallels....
here & here I loves me some Sinfest...
Also, I got the RAM installed in my Linux box. I've sorta figured out how to use it. I mean, the basic programs I can use fine. But I still haven't figured out how to use the packages that don't create their own little icons on my menu tree.
I'll work on it. I don't know if I have to install them again...or compile them, or what. Oh well, FreeCiv works and I've been wasting FAR too much time on that right now. Ahh, I love me Civ games.
here & here I loves me some Sinfest...
Also, I got the RAM installed in my Linux box. I've sorta figured out how to use it. I mean, the basic programs I can use fine. But I still haven't figured out how to use the packages that don't create their own little icons on my menu tree.
I'll work on it. I don't know if I have to install them again...or compile them, or what. Oh well, FreeCiv works and I've been wasting FAR too much time on that right now. Ahh, I love me Civ games.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
New Levels of Geekiness
Well, I've expanded my geekiness further. As if video games, RPGs, fantasy/sci fi books and movies weren't enough, I loaded Linux on a computer last night.
Now, granted, it only ups my geek quotient a little because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING!
But I did it.
I acquired an older P4 Dell. Its a single core 2ghz with, currently 256meg of RAM. (1 gig is on its way from Tiger Direct)
I tried loading the Ubuntu my brother gave me. The lastest version didn't even load, so I tried the 6.06 release he gave me a few years back. 45 minutes into the installation I was on step 2 "select your time zone." Apparently it required a bit more RAM than I have.
So asking some of my Star Pirates buddies one of them, a sys admin, suggested I try Vector, a Linux distro that is aimed at older machines. It only took 2 times to install, and I think the first time it installed fine, but I selected the wrong viewing mode because I couldn't see anything on the screen.
So I got it installed, and working, and I have realized, I don't know how to use Linux at all. I'd fiddled with Ubuntu a little, tiny bit before. But Ubuntu is Linux for idiots (or everyone) apparently because it's REALLY simple to use. Vector is easy too, but I don't know any Linux commands, so I've installed a couple programs (at least I THINK I have) but I don't know how to execute them yet.
Thankfully I've found a nice little Linux/Unix tutorial online, and am reading up on it. Maybe I'll at least be able to get some programs installed and working. We'll see. If nothing else its fun to fiddle around with a computer again. WindowsXP is a nice OS, Vista works. (I hate it because it sucks up SO much system resource, especially graphics, that if you don't have a decent graphics card, forget playing any game made within the last few years.) But, MS products are also not all that much fun to use. I mean, they work, but I dunno. I sort of am looking forward to working with an OS that I actually have to learn how to use. And who knows, my brother keeps saying Python is the greatest thing since Perl, so maybe I'll program too! (I only sort of know what those things are...but xkcd talks about them sometimes....
Now, granted, it only ups my geek quotient a little because I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M DOING!
But I did it.
I acquired an older P4 Dell. Its a single core 2ghz with, currently 256meg of RAM. (1 gig is on its way from Tiger Direct)
I tried loading the Ubuntu my brother gave me. The lastest version didn't even load, so I tried the 6.06 release he gave me a few years back. 45 minutes into the installation I was on step 2 "select your time zone." Apparently it required a bit more RAM than I have.
So asking some of my Star Pirates buddies one of them, a sys admin, suggested I try Vector, a Linux distro that is aimed at older machines. It only took 2 times to install, and I think the first time it installed fine, but I selected the wrong viewing mode because I couldn't see anything on the screen.
So I got it installed, and working, and I have realized, I don't know how to use Linux at all. I'd fiddled with Ubuntu a little, tiny bit before. But Ubuntu is Linux for idiots (or everyone) apparently because it's REALLY simple to use. Vector is easy too, but I don't know any Linux commands, so I've installed a couple programs (at least I THINK I have) but I don't know how to execute them yet.
Thankfully I've found a nice little Linux/Unix tutorial online, and am reading up on it. Maybe I'll at least be able to get some programs installed and working. We'll see. If nothing else its fun to fiddle around with a computer again. WindowsXP is a nice OS, Vista works. (I hate it because it sucks up SO much system resource, especially graphics, that if you don't have a decent graphics card, forget playing any game made within the last few years.) But, MS products are also not all that much fun to use. I mean, they work, but I dunno. I sort of am looking forward to working with an OS that I actually have to learn how to use. And who knows, my brother keeps saying Python is the greatest thing since Perl, so maybe I'll program too! (I only sort of know what those things are...but xkcd talks about them sometimes....
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Cats
I love cats. I suppose there are million more important things to think on than cats right now, but well, I love cats! I'm reading a webcomic right now, Megatokyo, and a cat has been in it lately and it got me thinking about my crazy kitty.
My wifey and I have a wonderful, if insane, cat named Reesie (she looks like Reese's Pieces). She's sweet, lovable, smart and crazy.
This morning, starting at 4:55, it was time for sprints throughout the house.
Reesie is not a large cat, maybe 12-13 lbs at the most, but she can THUNDER through the house. And of course, insane running through the house would not be complete without crashing into things to make MORE noise. This is followed by loud, furious, scratching on her scratch board, and off for another round of sprints.
She's crazy, but cuddly and lovable. She's a sweet kitty and I wouldn't trade her for any other kitty out there!
My wifey and I have a wonderful, if insane, cat named Reesie (she looks like Reese's Pieces). She's sweet, lovable, smart and crazy.
This morning, starting at 4:55, it was time for sprints throughout the house.
Reesie is not a large cat, maybe 12-13 lbs at the most, but she can THUNDER through the house. And of course, insane running through the house would not be complete without crashing into things to make MORE noise. This is followed by loud, furious, scratching on her scratch board, and off for another round of sprints.
She's crazy, but cuddly and lovable. She's a sweet kitty and I wouldn't trade her for any other kitty out there!
Monday, October 13, 2008
Saturday, October 11, 2008
More Great Links
What can I say about the "culture of hate" being promoted by the Republicans right now that this doesn't already say?
Or here?
Thanks to Brian McLaren for these links. It shows the McCain is still a decent human being and that he is slowly realizing what the road he chose to take is leading him towards.
If McCain 2000 was running, I'd vote for him in a second. He's still in there, but he sold his sold his soul to the current Republican party and their politics of fear and hatred. This is NOT Christian and not something Christians should support.
Oh, and in that 2nd article, Congressman Ray Lahood got it RIGHT-
'Veteran Republican Congressman Ray LaHood criticized Sarah Palin in particular, saying her rhetoric did not "befit the office she's running for."'
Thanks Ray! Wanted to point out something you got right!
Or here?
Thanks to Brian McLaren for these links. It shows the McCain is still a decent human being and that he is slowly realizing what the road he chose to take is leading him towards.
If McCain 2000 was running, I'd vote for him in a second. He's still in there, but he sold his sold his soul to the current Republican party and their politics of fear and hatred. This is NOT Christian and not something Christians should support.
Oh, and in that 2nd article, Congressman Ray Lahood got it RIGHT-
'Veteran Republican Congressman Ray LaHood criticized Sarah Palin in particular, saying her rhetoric did not "befit the office she's running for."'
Thanks Ray! Wanted to point out something you got right!
Friday, October 10, 2008
LaHood is wrong.
Reading yesterday's paper, and our local congressman, Ray Lahood, was speaking to Jr. High students at a local Catholic school a couple days back. Mr. Lahood, at one time a civics teacher, was saying how the electoral college is outdated and should be done away with in favor of a popular vote.
His reasoning is that right now, some people's votes effectively "don't count."
I agree. I agree the current system is not working. But I don't think merely going to a straight popular vote is right either. The electoral college is fine, just get rid of the "winner take all" aspect of it. Break it down to percentages.
This would also allow 3rd parties a chance to at least get a showing in national elections.
If 60% of Illinoisians who vote vote for Obama he gets 60% of our electoral votes. And on down the line. This will help keep in check ballot stuffing, which I'm sorry, would inevitably occur if it were a straight popular vote.
The electoral college isn't broken, the distribution of those votes is.
His reasoning is that right now, some people's votes effectively "don't count."
I agree. I agree the current system is not working. But I don't think merely going to a straight popular vote is right either. The electoral college is fine, just get rid of the "winner take all" aspect of it. Break it down to percentages.
This would also allow 3rd parties a chance to at least get a showing in national elections.
If 60% of Illinoisians who vote vote for Obama he gets 60% of our electoral votes. And on down the line. This will help keep in check ballot stuffing, which I'm sorry, would inevitably occur if it were a straight popular vote.
The electoral college isn't broken, the distribution of those votes is.
A couple quick things
Short post today. Taking certification posts for work. Got these links from Brian McLaren's blog.
Pro-life and Obama? It can be!
Again, do I think Obama is the nation's savior? No. He still may not get my vote. I do know McCain/Palin will NOT be getting my vote.
Evangelical Christians desperately need to look past simplistic voting on issues such as abortion and gay marriage to the whole picture. Please. You might still come to the conclusion that the Republican platform is right. (I agree with them on some things.) I even more sincerely hope you come to the conclusion that the current system is broken and want to work to change it.
Pro-life and Obama? It can be!
Again, do I think Obama is the nation's savior? No. He still may not get my vote. I do know McCain/Palin will NOT be getting my vote.
Evangelical Christians desperately need to look past simplistic voting on issues such as abortion and gay marriage to the whole picture. Please. You might still come to the conclusion that the Republican platform is right. (I agree with them on some things.) I even more sincerely hope you come to the conclusion that the current system is broken and want to work to change it.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
So Fragile
The father of one of my friend's died. I didn't know him. He'd had cancer I guess and this wasn't exactly "unexpected." But I don't see how that really makes it much better for my friend.
I can't imagine losing my father. My heart goes out to Tom and his family. They are in my thoughts and prayers.
Life is such a fleeting thing, I really need to appreciate more the time I have and the people God has surrounded me with more.
I can't imagine losing my father. My heart goes out to Tom and his family. They are in my thoughts and prayers.
Life is such a fleeting thing, I really need to appreciate more the time I have and the people God has surrounded me with more.
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
"Debate" "winner"
Yes, I put both words in quotes because there really wasn't a debate and how you pick a "winner" in those I'm not sure. However, throwing my hat in the ring, here it goes.
I didn't watch the debate. Oh, it was on in the background and I was listening some, but I wasn't following closely hanging on every word.
That said, I would agree that Obama "won." Why? Well, he didn't tell as many lies, untruths, distortions, call them what you will. Does that mean he didn't distort any of McCain's positions or put out numbers that aren't accurate? No. But he sure didn't do it as often as McCain.
It is sad. McCain's whole strategy seems to have become "Let's hope people never look at www.factcheck.org and get scared about Obama!" Really, that seemed to be it. The bald lie he said about how Obama was going to "fine" small businesses for not giving their employees health insurance was amazing! And, I give credit to Brokaw for not being partisan by not really letting Obama respond, since that was how the stupid rules were set up. (How you can debate without responding to your opponent's positions, especially when they have incorrectly characterized your's I'm not sure.)
So, in my world Obama was the winner. McCain came across, to me, as pandering, petty, and generally not a happy person (did you see him in the background sometimes?) while Obama was composed and poised and did pretty well for himself.
I don't see how anyone after a year and a half of this schlock can still be "undecided" and if they are I don't see how this debate would change things. But it went well for Obama, only a month to go!
I didn't watch the debate. Oh, it was on in the background and I was listening some, but I wasn't following closely hanging on every word.
That said, I would agree that Obama "won." Why? Well, he didn't tell as many lies, untruths, distortions, call them what you will. Does that mean he didn't distort any of McCain's positions or put out numbers that aren't accurate? No. But he sure didn't do it as often as McCain.
It is sad. McCain's whole strategy seems to have become "Let's hope people never look at www.factcheck.org and get scared about Obama!" Really, that seemed to be it. The bald lie he said about how Obama was going to "fine" small businesses for not giving their employees health insurance was amazing! And, I give credit to Brokaw for not being partisan by not really letting Obama respond, since that was how the stupid rules were set up. (How you can debate without responding to your opponent's positions, especially when they have incorrectly characterized your's I'm not sure.)
So, in my world Obama was the winner. McCain came across, to me, as pandering, petty, and generally not a happy person (did you see him in the background sometimes?) while Obama was composed and poised and did pretty well for himself.
I don't see how anyone after a year and a half of this schlock can still be "undecided" and if they are I don't see how this debate would change things. But it went well for Obama, only a month to go!
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Russia for President!
In light of the heaviness, I thought that I'd give an outside the box idea on the financial crisis and what we can do to solve it this election year.
Everybody vote Russian! Russian you say? Yes, Russian. Putin and his little lapdog Medvedev for ruler of the USA! A bad idea? Think about it.
What did Putin do to the billionaire owner of the (now) Russian oil company? Hit him with trumped up charges, sent him to jail and nationalized the company! Think that guy got a golden parachute? Not likely!
Upset with the fat cats that have destroyed your retirement fund? Vote Russian! Its assured that Putin and Medvedev would come in and take care of the problem. Sure, it might not be so good for the guys at the top, but I say screw them! Since when did they care about us? I mean really, for the average American right now we're pretty politically handicapped anyway, why not give it over to a totalitarian "democracy?" Can it be any worse?
Vote Russian this November and revel in the glory of ages past! No more do we have to hide in shame our disgraceful actions in Souteast Asia or South America! It was all part of a glorious battle for supremecy, won by our new leaders!
Vote Russian and enjoy all the benefits of a dictatorship, while still being able to have some choices in your life. Like, do you want Stoli or Smirnoff?
Putin and Medvedev! They will fix this mess, or at least shoot some of those responsible. I mean, reeducate. Yeah, reeducate with a 7.62mm to the skull.....
Everybody vote Russian! Russian you say? Yes, Russian. Putin and his little lapdog Medvedev for ruler of the USA! A bad idea? Think about it.
What did Putin do to the billionaire owner of the (now) Russian oil company? Hit him with trumped up charges, sent him to jail and nationalized the company! Think that guy got a golden parachute? Not likely!
Upset with the fat cats that have destroyed your retirement fund? Vote Russian! Its assured that Putin and Medvedev would come in and take care of the problem. Sure, it might not be so good for the guys at the top, but I say screw them! Since when did they care about us? I mean really, for the average American right now we're pretty politically handicapped anyway, why not give it over to a totalitarian "democracy?" Can it be any worse?
Vote Russian this November and revel in the glory of ages past! No more do we have to hide in shame our disgraceful actions in Souteast Asia or South America! It was all part of a glorious battle for supremecy, won by our new leaders!
Vote Russian and enjoy all the benefits of a dictatorship, while still being able to have some choices in your life. Like, do you want Stoli or Smirnoff?
Putin and Medvedev! They will fix this mess, or at least shoot some of those responsible. I mean, reeducate. Yeah, reeducate with a 7.62mm to the skull.....
Monday, October 6, 2008
It'll get worse before it gets better...
Yes folks, this campaign and economy are going to get much worse before it gets any better. Thank God the campaign only has a month left. The economy we're going to be stuck with for much much longer.
John McCain has given up in Michigan, citing the bad economy and his campaign's dwindling funds as reasons. He can now focus more heavily on other "must win" states such as Ohio.
Good luck with that John. If you're conceding Michigan because the spiraling economic climate is turning voters against you there, I don't think you'll have much more luck in Ohio. I might be wrong, but I don't see that changing. These economic woes have been building for years, but for 6 of the last 8 of those years the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches. Oh, and remember that under Clinton (who carries some culpability as well) the Republicans had plenty of legislative power as well.
So, if you're McCain, you have to be concerned at this point. Who besides the party faithful are going to vote for you? What would lead anyone to think that the party you represent, the ideals you stand for, are good for the country? This is not because I think Obama and the Democrats have all the answers, I don't think they do. But it is obvious the Republicans have no answers at all.
Remember the quote "It's the economy, stupid?" Well, that's true again! And the stupid government with their stupid bailout have assured us that the American people will be paying and paying for years.
Does this mean I think a "bailout" wasn't necessary? No, I think something did need to be done to shore up the banks. Having one bank after another fail would be bad. Giving billions to people who already screwed up once, that's bad too.
At this point, I really don't know what the American people are to do. I suppose I could hope they will realize the 2 party system is failing this country. But they won't. I suppose I could hope they could realize that we desparately need term limits on our Congresspersons and a ban on working as a lobbyist for 10 years after leaving office. But they won't.
Why won't they? Because the parties won't let those discussions arise. They will put politics over the people and the people aren't smart enough to realize this. Where is the public outcry about the lack of true choice in our political system? Where are the news stories digging into how both the Republican and Democratic parties work together to insure that legitimate contending parties don't arise? You think it doesn't happen?
It takes far more petition signatures to get "independant" or "new party" canidates on the ballot. Don't believe me? Check out this, which breaks down the numbers necessary to get a candidate on the ballot. Now, I realize, we can't have 30 parties running for one seat. But it would be hard for lots of the little parties to get the 600 signatures anyway. What's wrong with have 5 people running? Is that going to break us? No. It wouldn't.
How does all this, McCain, the economy, third party ranting tie together? Its simple. The current system is broken. It is broken by the people we have entrusted to work within it. Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. If you love your country you should want it's political system to work. It isn't working now. It is breaking our economy, our freedom, and many of the ideals America was founded on.
It's only going to happen if the people stand up and cry out. Vote for your party, that's fine. But let's get some real choice out there. Please?
John McCain has given up in Michigan, citing the bad economy and his campaign's dwindling funds as reasons. He can now focus more heavily on other "must win" states such as Ohio.
Good luck with that John. If you're conceding Michigan because the spiraling economic climate is turning voters against you there, I don't think you'll have much more luck in Ohio. I might be wrong, but I don't see that changing. These economic woes have been building for years, but for 6 of the last 8 of those years the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches. Oh, and remember that under Clinton (who carries some culpability as well) the Republicans had plenty of legislative power as well.
So, if you're McCain, you have to be concerned at this point. Who besides the party faithful are going to vote for you? What would lead anyone to think that the party you represent, the ideals you stand for, are good for the country? This is not because I think Obama and the Democrats have all the answers, I don't think they do. But it is obvious the Republicans have no answers at all.
Remember the quote "It's the economy, stupid?" Well, that's true again! And the stupid government with their stupid bailout have assured us that the American people will be paying and paying for years.
Does this mean I think a "bailout" wasn't necessary? No, I think something did need to be done to shore up the banks. Having one bank after another fail would be bad. Giving billions to people who already screwed up once, that's bad too.
At this point, I really don't know what the American people are to do. I suppose I could hope they will realize the 2 party system is failing this country. But they won't. I suppose I could hope they could realize that we desparately need term limits on our Congresspersons and a ban on working as a lobbyist for 10 years after leaving office. But they won't.
Why won't they? Because the parties won't let those discussions arise. They will put politics over the people and the people aren't smart enough to realize this. Where is the public outcry about the lack of true choice in our political system? Where are the news stories digging into how both the Republican and Democratic parties work together to insure that legitimate contending parties don't arise? You think it doesn't happen?
It takes far more petition signatures to get "independant" or "new party" canidates on the ballot. Don't believe me? Check out this, which breaks down the numbers necessary to get a candidate on the ballot. Now, I realize, we can't have 30 parties running for one seat. But it would be hard for lots of the little parties to get the 600 signatures anyway. What's wrong with have 5 people running? Is that going to break us? No. It wouldn't.
How does all this, McCain, the economy, third party ranting tie together? Its simple. The current system is broken. It is broken by the people we have entrusted to work within it. Republican or Democrat, it shouldn't matter. If you love your country you should want it's political system to work. It isn't working now. It is breaking our economy, our freedom, and many of the ideals America was founded on.
It's only going to happen if the people stand up and cry out. Vote for your party, that's fine. But let's get some real choice out there. Please?
Friday, October 3, 2008
Communism doesn't work....
Continuing the greed theme, I just want to preface this with, I am not a communist nor a socialist. I don't know how you classify me politically, but I don't hold to any single political ideology.
As the financial sector continues to crumble back to normality, because lets face it, it grew so much do to bad loans, this is a good time for Christians to evaluate how they use their money. So much of this is coming out of the housing sector's bubble bursting its not even funny.
Making money and having money is not inherently evil. Dallas Willard in his "Spirt of the Disciplines" discusses this at length and shows how Christians should use their faith to manage money not just personally, but commercially as well.
So here's a proposition. What if Christian business owners really, I mean REALLY, thought about what fair wages were. If you own a business, and make, your salary, 100k a year, and your employees make 20k a year, is that right? Now I'm not saying you and your employees should all make the same amount. But I am saying, is this fair?
There can be lots of factors involved, so no sweeping pronouncements should be made. But we need to start thinking in this country about how we use and distribute our money. Does a 4 person family need a 3000+ square foot house? Really?
Do owners need to make 5 and 6 times what their employees do? Or CEOs 300-500 times? This is not a condemnation of wealth. But far too often, people only think of themselves, not their workers.
Who is going to provide affordable healthcare for workers who don't make much money? I understand its very expensive, but so is national healthcare.
My mind is racing too much to post clearly right now, but I suppose the inconsistencies just frustrate me. It is time to start looking at equitable compensation. Equitable does not mean equal, but it does mean fair. And I believe it can be done if we Christians start to adopt a Christ-like model of wealth distribution. It doesn't mean we all have to be poor. It does mean we need to look for ways to actively help the poor that aren't just handouts.
As the financial sector continues to crumble back to normality, because lets face it, it grew so much do to bad loans, this is a good time for Christians to evaluate how they use their money. So much of this is coming out of the housing sector's bubble bursting its not even funny.
Making money and having money is not inherently evil. Dallas Willard in his "Spirt of the Disciplines" discusses this at length and shows how Christians should use their faith to manage money not just personally, but commercially as well.
So here's a proposition. What if Christian business owners really, I mean REALLY, thought about what fair wages were. If you own a business, and make, your salary, 100k a year, and your employees make 20k a year, is that right? Now I'm not saying you and your employees should all make the same amount. But I am saying, is this fair?
There can be lots of factors involved, so no sweeping pronouncements should be made. But we need to start thinking in this country about how we use and distribute our money. Does a 4 person family need a 3000+ square foot house? Really?
Do owners need to make 5 and 6 times what their employees do? Or CEOs 300-500 times? This is not a condemnation of wealth. But far too often, people only think of themselves, not their workers.
Who is going to provide affordable healthcare for workers who don't make much money? I understand its very expensive, but so is national healthcare.
My mind is racing too much to post clearly right now, but I suppose the inconsistencies just frustrate me. It is time to start looking at equitable compensation. Equitable does not mean equal, but it does mean fair. And I believe it can be done if we Christians start to adopt a Christ-like model of wealth distribution. It doesn't mean we all have to be poor. It does mean we need to look for ways to actively help the poor that aren't just handouts.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Good old greed.
Jim Wallis has it right. This current crisis, like all financial crises before, comes from greed. People getting caught with dollar signs in their eyes not caring about ethics or morality, but doing whatever it takes to make a buck. Gambling with other people's money basically.
The crisis is complex. There are no simple solutions, though if some people aren't barred from working in the financial sector then we have an issue.
But my current problem isn't with the government, or even the bankers and traders who helped to precipitate this crisis, its with the church. What does the church have to do with it? Well, when was the last time you heard a sermon preached on greed? Honestly. Especially in many "evangelical" churches.
When talking to conservative christians about sins and politics, how many list greed? Not just as the top issue, but list it at all? Lots will say abortion (which is tragic), gay marriage (which while sinful is...who is this hurting again? Besides those already involved?), but greed, which is America's biggest sin usually won't get mentioned? Why not?
Well, greed is something that most people struggle with. We have a mindset in America that we are supposed be able to have what we want. A big house, a nice car, vacations, etc, etc. Are any of those things bad? Well, a big house maybe, depends on the number of kids, but really, our priorities are so "me"centric, so materialistic, that we miss out on how our collective greed as a nation is fueling these crises.
If Christians really thought about how to use their money, if greed was an issue that was hammered on about as much as others, our nation would be in a very different place. We wouldn't be so far in debt and falling farther and farther behind. We wouldn't be bailing out Wall Street (which I think needs to be done, but not in the way its going to be) and we wouldn't be wringing our hands about the economy and gas prices.
I have a question for conservative voters. Why are you so worried about tax cuts for the wealthy? Or even yourselves? What about using some of that money to help out the less fortunate, to create opportunity, to not sink our country farther in debt?
I have a question for Democratic voters. Would the Democrats be able to not just create new ways to spend income but actually revamp programs in existence to work more efficiently. We don't have enough money as it is, just spending more will not solve anything.
I don't see a lot of hope in either of the parties right now. As Wallis outlined in "God's Politics" we need a change to sweep through the people of America, THEN, and ONLY then will the politicians see fit to change their ways.
The crisis is complex. There are no simple solutions, though if some people aren't barred from working in the financial sector then we have an issue.
But my current problem isn't with the government, or even the bankers and traders who helped to precipitate this crisis, its with the church. What does the church have to do with it? Well, when was the last time you heard a sermon preached on greed? Honestly. Especially in many "evangelical" churches.
When talking to conservative christians about sins and politics, how many list greed? Not just as the top issue, but list it at all? Lots will say abortion (which is tragic), gay marriage (which while sinful is...who is this hurting again? Besides those already involved?), but greed, which is America's biggest sin usually won't get mentioned? Why not?
Well, greed is something that most people struggle with. We have a mindset in America that we are supposed be able to have what we want. A big house, a nice car, vacations, etc, etc. Are any of those things bad? Well, a big house maybe, depends on the number of kids, but really, our priorities are so "me"centric, so materialistic, that we miss out on how our collective greed as a nation is fueling these crises.
If Christians really thought about how to use their money, if greed was an issue that was hammered on about as much as others, our nation would be in a very different place. We wouldn't be so far in debt and falling farther and farther behind. We wouldn't be bailing out Wall Street (which I think needs to be done, but not in the way its going to be) and we wouldn't be wringing our hands about the economy and gas prices.
I have a question for conservative voters. Why are you so worried about tax cuts for the wealthy? Or even yourselves? What about using some of that money to help out the less fortunate, to create opportunity, to not sink our country farther in debt?
I have a question for Democratic voters. Would the Democrats be able to not just create new ways to spend income but actually revamp programs in existence to work more efficiently. We don't have enough money as it is, just spending more will not solve anything.
I don't see a lot of hope in either of the parties right now. As Wallis outlined in "God's Politics" we need a change to sweep through the people of America, THEN, and ONLY then will the politicians see fit to change their ways.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Getting it right, getting it wrong
I'm not the biggest fan of the job the FDA has been doing, so when I see them catch a problem, I'm going to applaud them for it. Ranbaxy, a generic drug manufacturer, has 2 of its plants in India that were not documenting their processes well enough. Mainly in sterility and cleaning of parts. Sort of important you would think. There is now a ban in place by the FDA on their imports.
The FDA did a good thing here. Now, it also brings up other issues. Generic drugs are by and large safe. They are the same formulation as the namebrand and having been part of different drug studies on the time release of generics (brain fungus free here!) know they are required to test them rigorously. Then its off to our overseas facility to make them! Yay!
It still seems odd to me we can't buy drugs from Canada, which has its own FDA style agency, because the FDA isn't overseeing it, when there are thousands of plants around the world the FDA can't police. One would think that buying drugs from Canada would actually make the FDA's job easier as then some of the workload would be taken off of them. Oh well, good work FDA on picking up this problem and stopping it.
Now for a bit of government gone wrong. Is there anyone still out there that thinks total deregulation is a good idea anymore? Things are ugly in the financial sector. While that doesn't directly effect all of us yet, it will. Just do the math on how long it will take to earn back what your 401K has lost lately. Just remember, if it goes down 15% in a year, you'd need to make back about 20-22% the next year just to be where you would be. Depressing huh? But that's what you have to do to a certain extent, just ride it out.
So are we through with business policing themselves please? I know the government is incompetent, so here's what I propose. Do this for all industry. Have each one pay a fee (tax, but fee sounds better) to a semi-private watchdog agency that reports to whatever government agency oversees the sector, financial, energy, food, etc. The money comes direct from the companies, but from ALL the companies without any option. No lobbying would be allowed as its semi-private, but neither would "informational calls" from companies. These agencies would exist solely to watch what is being done.
They would be run as either a non-profit or as a service company. They would NOT be federally funded, the money would go directly to their budgets. I guess I'm thinking of something like a GAO for business. We have so many little agencies that cannot do their jobs without massive political interference its effecting our country greatly. Ah well, I can dream right?
The FDA did a good thing here. Now, it also brings up other issues. Generic drugs are by and large safe. They are the same formulation as the namebrand and having been part of different drug studies on the time release of generics (brain fungus free here!) know they are required to test them rigorously. Then its off to our overseas facility to make them! Yay!
It still seems odd to me we can't buy drugs from Canada, which has its own FDA style agency, because the FDA isn't overseeing it, when there are thousands of plants around the world the FDA can't police. One would think that buying drugs from Canada would actually make the FDA's job easier as then some of the workload would be taken off of them. Oh well, good work FDA on picking up this problem and stopping it.
Now for a bit of government gone wrong. Is there anyone still out there that thinks total deregulation is a good idea anymore? Things are ugly in the financial sector. While that doesn't directly effect all of us yet, it will. Just do the math on how long it will take to earn back what your 401K has lost lately. Just remember, if it goes down 15% in a year, you'd need to make back about 20-22% the next year just to be where you would be. Depressing huh? But that's what you have to do to a certain extent, just ride it out.
So are we through with business policing themselves please? I know the government is incompetent, so here's what I propose. Do this for all industry. Have each one pay a fee (tax, but fee sounds better) to a semi-private watchdog agency that reports to whatever government agency oversees the sector, financial, energy, food, etc. The money comes direct from the companies, but from ALL the companies without any option. No lobbying would be allowed as its semi-private, but neither would "informational calls" from companies. These agencies would exist solely to watch what is being done.
They would be run as either a non-profit or as a service company. They would NOT be federally funded, the money would go directly to their budgets. I guess I'm thinking of something like a GAO for business. We have so many little agencies that cannot do their jobs without massive political interference its effecting our country greatly. Ah well, I can dream right?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
I've been avoiding this.
I don't care. Honestly, I don't. Its sad but true. I have given up caring about this election! Don't believe me? Well, you're right. I do still care, but not in the traditional "I'm backing my guy" sort of way.
This political season has been frustrating me more than most. Last election (rich white guy vs. other rich white guy) was bad enough, this cycle is sinking to lows not seen since probably the 19th century when fact checking was non-existant.
Our country is in a mess and I don't see either party saying what actually needs to be done to fix it. We are spending ourselves to oblivion. We cannot keep it up. You know how if you run your credit cards up and eventually its all you can do to make the minimum payments? Yeah, we're nearing that point as a nation daily. But does either candidate say the hard truths? Nope. They have some nice ideas and such, but most of which will actually cost MORE money.
Oh, and Republicans, please don't delude yourselves this is the Democrats fault. You've had the White House for 8 years, a majority in Congress for 6 of 8 years, and you've successfully passed two of the biggest entitlement/spending programs ever, the Medicare pill plan, and No Child Left Behind. Oh, and got the country into a war that has cost about 2 trillion dollars so far, give or take a couple billion.
I'm not a Democrat. I might vote for Obama, I might not. Living in Illinois means I don't have to worry about it much. But McCain's choice of Palin frustrates me on a number of levels.
First, it was an obvious desperation move (which just might work). Up until a few days before the Palin choice McCain was still considering Joe Lieberman, an independant Democrat but the party hacks convinced him that would sink him. So he gives up on his principles for the party, like he as so much this campaign season. (Obama has too, but McCain has a much longer record to go against.)
Second, Palin is NOT ready to run the country should McCain die in office. Obama is new, raw and under-qualified in many areas so he picks a running mate with lots of experience to shore him up. Biden can give advice to Obama if he is the president and if Obama would die in office Biden would step in ably.
McCain has the qualifications sure, but if something happens to him we would end up with a President who knows less about foreign affairs than I do! That terrifies me! Sarah Palin is a smart capable woman who has shown herself to be a quick study. But the way she talks, and it is only talk, of going to war with Russia to defend our ally Georgia is insane! I mean, I could understand a couple of old guys at the local diner saying things like that, but a VP candidate? I realize, she's raw, she's new, and she should have time to learn. But we've had 8 years of a president learning foreign policy on the fly. And he didn't surround himself with trustworthy advisors.
This is such an important election, I'm sad that I don't care like I should. Part of it is the fatalism that comes from living in Obama's home state. My vote, should it not go to him, will not matter as there is no percentage breakdown of votes. (No people, we do NOT want a popular vote. Trust me on this.) But it is also having to suffer through another Karl Rove led Republican sleaze session, that honestly McCain is better than. Obama has attempted to take the high road, and his attacks back have been whether through design or lack of experience not quite as sleazy. I just wish we could have a campaign on the real issues and have "straight talk" about the hard work that is necessary to get this country righted again.
(Oh, just a note for any conservatives out there that are happy that Palin is staunchly pro-life. Bush is too. He's appointed one of the most conservative courts ever. Have you seen a single step forward in that area? Abortion is a tragedy of massive proportions, but it is not going to go away by electing a Republican. Karl Rove just knows how to play you for your vote. Keep that in mind. You are being used. You don't have to vote for the other guy, but don't delude yourself into thinking the pro-life side will make any real changes at all. They won't.)
This political season has been frustrating me more than most. Last election (rich white guy vs. other rich white guy) was bad enough, this cycle is sinking to lows not seen since probably the 19th century when fact checking was non-existant.
Our country is in a mess and I don't see either party saying what actually needs to be done to fix it. We are spending ourselves to oblivion. We cannot keep it up. You know how if you run your credit cards up and eventually its all you can do to make the minimum payments? Yeah, we're nearing that point as a nation daily. But does either candidate say the hard truths? Nope. They have some nice ideas and such, but most of which will actually cost MORE money.
Oh, and Republicans, please don't delude yourselves this is the Democrats fault. You've had the White House for 8 years, a majority in Congress for 6 of 8 years, and you've successfully passed two of the biggest entitlement/spending programs ever, the Medicare pill plan, and No Child Left Behind. Oh, and got the country into a war that has cost about 2 trillion dollars so far, give or take a couple billion.
I'm not a Democrat. I might vote for Obama, I might not. Living in Illinois means I don't have to worry about it much. But McCain's choice of Palin frustrates me on a number of levels.
First, it was an obvious desperation move (which just might work). Up until a few days before the Palin choice McCain was still considering Joe Lieberman, an independant Democrat but the party hacks convinced him that would sink him. So he gives up on his principles for the party, like he as so much this campaign season. (Obama has too, but McCain has a much longer record to go against.)
Second, Palin is NOT ready to run the country should McCain die in office. Obama is new, raw and under-qualified in many areas so he picks a running mate with lots of experience to shore him up. Biden can give advice to Obama if he is the president and if Obama would die in office Biden would step in ably.
McCain has the qualifications sure, but if something happens to him we would end up with a President who knows less about foreign affairs than I do! That terrifies me! Sarah Palin is a smart capable woman who has shown herself to be a quick study. But the way she talks, and it is only talk, of going to war with Russia to defend our ally Georgia is insane! I mean, I could understand a couple of old guys at the local diner saying things like that, but a VP candidate? I realize, she's raw, she's new, and she should have time to learn. But we've had 8 years of a president learning foreign policy on the fly. And he didn't surround himself with trustworthy advisors.
This is such an important election, I'm sad that I don't care like I should. Part of it is the fatalism that comes from living in Obama's home state. My vote, should it not go to him, will not matter as there is no percentage breakdown of votes. (No people, we do NOT want a popular vote. Trust me on this.) But it is also having to suffer through another Karl Rove led Republican sleaze session, that honestly McCain is better than. Obama has attempted to take the high road, and his attacks back have been whether through design or lack of experience not quite as sleazy. I just wish we could have a campaign on the real issues and have "straight talk" about the hard work that is necessary to get this country righted again.
(Oh, just a note for any conservatives out there that are happy that Palin is staunchly pro-life. Bush is too. He's appointed one of the most conservative courts ever. Have you seen a single step forward in that area? Abortion is a tragedy of massive proportions, but it is not going to go away by electing a Republican. Karl Rove just knows how to play you for your vote. Keep that in mind. You are being used. You don't have to vote for the other guy, but don't delude yourself into thinking the pro-life side will make any real changes at all. They won't.)
Monday, September 8, 2008
A win is a win...
Well, the Bears did it. They beat the Colts in convincing fashion. That's good. Always good to start off with a win against one of the top teams in the league, even if they are a bit beat up. I am NOT complaining!
I'll start with what impressed me:
Defense, our defense was good! We put pressure on Manning, and we created turnovers. We tackled! It looked like our 2006 defense making hits and taking the ball away very good.
Special Teams, always good.
Offense: The O-line was good, Forte is very good, and our TEs are good. Orton also did fine, nothing fancy, but no screw-ups. That's ok.
Now, what concerns me. Our wide recievers, or lack of them. Unless we throw to our TEs a LOT (which we should) I'm concerned we won't really have a passing game which means we soon won't have a running game.
That said, well, we won, against the Colts! Yay!! I'm looking forward to how the year turns out.
I'll start with what impressed me:
Defense, our defense was good! We put pressure on Manning, and we created turnovers. We tackled! It looked like our 2006 defense making hits and taking the ball away very good.
Special Teams, always good.
Offense: The O-line was good, Forte is very good, and our TEs are good. Orton also did fine, nothing fancy, but no screw-ups. That's ok.
Now, what concerns me. Our wide recievers, or lack of them. Unless we throw to our TEs a LOT (which we should) I'm concerned we won't really have a passing game which means we soon won't have a running game.
That said, well, we won, against the Colts! Yay!! I'm looking forward to how the year turns out.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Whaaa???
(Just so's ya know, this isn't a blog saying how evil the Republicans are and that you should vote Democrat. Its just a blog musing on the hilarity that's been going on at the Republican convention. )
The Republican's have lost it. Lost what? you might ask. Their minds apparently. Somehow, the party that has had power in this country for the last 8 years, six of those years controlling both the White House AND Congress, can position themselves as the outside reformers. Its bizarre. And, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it?
No, I'm not calling you dumb if you vote Republican. I'm calling you dumb if you vote Republican because you think they're outsiders and not part of the Washington elite. They are. The Presidential candidate? He's been in the Senate for 26 years. Sure, they picked Palin to be the VP, but admit it, that was a desperation move because who else could McCain pick that wasn't going to get SHREDDED in the media? (Not that Palin is getting a pass, but here's a note to the media, NO ONE CARES OR SHOULD CARE IF HER DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT YOU IDIOTS!) Sure Palin as a reformer is being questioned, but that is fine. Focus on her politics, NOT her family.
What's funny is watching people like Guiliani and Romney (both multi-millionaires) rail at the "Washington elite." Cause they can relate better to my life? Being rich in and of itself is not wrong, but please, don't pander to me. (Again, Obama is FAR from poor, but he also hasn't been rich NEARLY as long as these guys. And working as a community organizer keeps you a bit closer to reality than most of these other jobs.) And its also funny hearing Guiliani and Romney talk about conservative ideals, since last I checked, their conservative credentials were a wee bit lacking.
The Republicans have had the power. They still have the (very quiet) Presidency. So, people, don't be duped that the Republicans are outsiders who will come in to save the day. They are not. If you somehow think the last 8 years have been a good thing, or believe that McCain would do a better job than Bush (it would be tough to do worse) then vote your conscience, that's fine. But don't buy the hype. They've been having a chance. You can extend it if you want, that's up to you.
A brief look at the other side. I am VERY unhappy with the Democrats who have held power in Congress the past 2 years. They keep saying they don't have the numbers to override a veto, which is true. So why have they not been sending bill after bill to Bush and forcing him to veto it? Where is the paper trail of "we tried but Bush vetoed it." instead of a bunch of whining soundbites on how they can't override the veto. Who cares. Show us you're trying. Its been pathetic and if they lose, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
The Republican's have lost it. Lost what? you might ask. Their minds apparently. Somehow, the party that has had power in this country for the last 8 years, six of those years controlling both the White House AND Congress, can position themselves as the outside reformers. Its bizarre. And, are the American people dumb enough to fall for it?
No, I'm not calling you dumb if you vote Republican. I'm calling you dumb if you vote Republican because you think they're outsiders and not part of the Washington elite. They are. The Presidential candidate? He's been in the Senate for 26 years. Sure, they picked Palin to be the VP, but admit it, that was a desperation move because who else could McCain pick that wasn't going to get SHREDDED in the media? (Not that Palin is getting a pass, but here's a note to the media, NO ONE CARES OR SHOULD CARE IF HER DAUGHTER IS PREGNANT YOU IDIOTS!) Sure Palin as a reformer is being questioned, but that is fine. Focus on her politics, NOT her family.
What's funny is watching people like Guiliani and Romney (both multi-millionaires) rail at the "Washington elite." Cause they can relate better to my life? Being rich in and of itself is not wrong, but please, don't pander to me. (Again, Obama is FAR from poor, but he also hasn't been rich NEARLY as long as these guys. And working as a community organizer keeps you a bit closer to reality than most of these other jobs.) And its also funny hearing Guiliani and Romney talk about conservative ideals, since last I checked, their conservative credentials were a wee bit lacking.
The Republicans have had the power. They still have the (very quiet) Presidency. So, people, don't be duped that the Republicans are outsiders who will come in to save the day. They are not. If you somehow think the last 8 years have been a good thing, or believe that McCain would do a better job than Bush (it would be tough to do worse) then vote your conscience, that's fine. But don't buy the hype. They've been having a chance. You can extend it if you want, that's up to you.
A brief look at the other side. I am VERY unhappy with the Democrats who have held power in Congress the past 2 years. They keep saying they don't have the numbers to override a veto, which is true. So why have they not been sending bill after bill to Bush and forcing him to veto it? Where is the paper trail of "we tried but Bush vetoed it." instead of a bunch of whining soundbites on how they can't override the veto. Who cares. Show us you're trying. Its been pathetic and if they lose, they'll have no one to blame but themselves.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Arbitrary Ages
Since there is a bit of a debate going on right now about what the legal drinking age should be, I figured I'd put my thoughts on it out there. Scary, I know.
A number of university presidents are informally petitioning to have laws changed so that states could make the drinking age whatever they wanted without any penalties from the Federal government. Right now, the states are free to change it, but at a cost in Federal highway dollars.
18. You can drive, you can vote, you can join the army to get sent off ot war, you can get married, you can do many things, but you can't buy alcohol. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. However, I do think the univeristy presidents have a point. People under the age of 21 are drinking, lots, and its pretty much an issue that isn't dealt with because its "illegal."
I think this is a valid point. How can you teach someone to be responsible with something that is illegal? Sort of self-defeating there. A couple of the ideas put forth were interesting. A "drinking license" much like a driver's license is one that intrigues me. A person would have to pass an alcohol awareness course to get their license to drink.
An idea I've been kicking around is to not let anyone under 21 buy packaged liquor. This doesn't solve all issues, but it does keep high school seniors from stocking up on beer for the next kegger. Not that they won't find other ways to do it, but at least it looks like their are restraints in place.
I suppose what it comes down to for me is this: people under 21 are going to drink. I would be most had their first drink either at home sneaking a drink of their parents booze, or at a friend's house sneaking their parents booze. While I think any changes in the drinking age should be carefully thought through, if we can send an 18 year old kid to die in some foreign country, shouldn't we at least be able to buy him a beer when he gets back? I don't know. Young people are going to be irresponsible with alcohol whether or not its legal. Why not make it legal so it can be supervised more easily?
A number of university presidents are informally petitioning to have laws changed so that states could make the drinking age whatever they wanted without any penalties from the Federal government. Right now, the states are free to change it, but at a cost in Federal highway dollars.
18. You can drive, you can vote, you can join the army to get sent off ot war, you can get married, you can do many things, but you can't buy alcohol. I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing. However, I do think the univeristy presidents have a point. People under the age of 21 are drinking, lots, and its pretty much an issue that isn't dealt with because its "illegal."
I think this is a valid point. How can you teach someone to be responsible with something that is illegal? Sort of self-defeating there. A couple of the ideas put forth were interesting. A "drinking license" much like a driver's license is one that intrigues me. A person would have to pass an alcohol awareness course to get their license to drink.
An idea I've been kicking around is to not let anyone under 21 buy packaged liquor. This doesn't solve all issues, but it does keep high school seniors from stocking up on beer for the next kegger. Not that they won't find other ways to do it, but at least it looks like their are restraints in place.
I suppose what it comes down to for me is this: people under 21 are going to drink. I would be most had their first drink either at home sneaking a drink of their parents booze, or at a friend's house sneaking their parents booze. While I think any changes in the drinking age should be carefully thought through, if we can send an 18 year old kid to die in some foreign country, shouldn't we at least be able to buy him a beer when he gets back? I don't know. Young people are going to be irresponsible with alcohol whether or not its legal. Why not make it legal so it can be supervised more easily?
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
School time..
Well, its official. My wife, Katrina, has started nursing school. Yup, she's gonna be a nurse. And she's got 22 months of school to get through to do it. (With a month or two here and there off.) Oh, did I mention she works full time too? Yeah. She's amazing.
I'm continually amazed by my wonderful wife and her myraid talents. She is simply one of the hardest working people I know. I love her for that. I love her for many reasons, but her sheer will is amazing and its great, because even for all of it, she still needs me.
What? Yes. She needs me to be not just a good husband, but a great husband for her so she doesn't go insane. That's sorta scary to me. I'm really good at being mediocre. Great at it actually. But mediocre isn't gonna cut it.
In a way, this should set me up to be a WONDERFUL husband down the road, but its gonna take work to get there. I love her so much, and she does so much for me and others, I gotta do this for her. I love you Katrina.
I'm continually amazed by my wonderful wife and her myraid talents. She is simply one of the hardest working people I know. I love her for that. I love her for many reasons, but her sheer will is amazing and its great, because even for all of it, she still needs me.
What? Yes. She needs me to be not just a good husband, but a great husband for her so she doesn't go insane. That's sorta scary to me. I'm really good at being mediocre. Great at it actually. But mediocre isn't gonna cut it.
In a way, this should set me up to be a WONDERFUL husband down the road, but its gonna take work to get there. I love her so much, and she does so much for me and others, I gotta do this for her. I love you Katrina.
Monday, August 18, 2008
It's Ok, You don't have to like the Olympics.
Ahh, its that season again. The Olympics are in full swing and the lovers and the haters are out in full force. I don't get it. I really don't.
If you don't like the Olympics, that's fine. Lots of the "sports" in the Olympics aren't really interesting at all. Or so blindly subjective that to say you have a "winner" is a bit of a stretch. (Come on. Artistic? What the heck?)
If you do like the Olympics, that's fine too. I enjoy many of the sports because I never get to watch them any other time. Track cycling, track and field, swimming, lots of those are fun to get to watch, but again, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM THAT IS OK!!!
There are some people out there who for 2 weeks every 2 years go Olympic insane and believe if you don't follow the Olympics you hate freedom, Jesus, and kittens. I don't get them. I don't really care if you like them or not, I do. Likes and dislikes vary lots. That's life.
Then there are the backlash people. The "Why is everyone making me feel bad I don't like the Olympics?" people. I don't know why. And is it really everyone? Or is it just 1 or 2 of the people I mentioned above.
I was reading a column by one of The Sporting News writers where he was venting his dislike of the Olympics because it didn't have football. (Not just lacking football, but any sport an American might find interesting.) Well, seeing as how only a tiny percentage of the world's population plays or follows American Football, I can see why its not at the Olympics.
Baseball is though. But, apparently that didn't count for this writer. I don't care about Olympic baseball because I follow MLB so I get my fix that way.
I guess I'm just venting. You can like the Olympics. You can dislike the Olympics. You can hate NBC's coverage of the Olympics (though it is a bit better this time around). But please people, stop trying to convince each other why the Olympics are amazing or why they suck. Really. Its like trying to convince anyone except my DM that Spiderman 3 was a good movie. No one will budge on their opinion, so why not just leave it at that.
If you don't like the Olympics, that's fine. Lots of the "sports" in the Olympics aren't really interesting at all. Or so blindly subjective that to say you have a "winner" is a bit of a stretch. (Come on. Artistic? What the heck?)
If you do like the Olympics, that's fine too. I enjoy many of the sports because I never get to watch them any other time. Track cycling, track and field, swimming, lots of those are fun to get to watch, but again, IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM THAT IS OK!!!
There are some people out there who for 2 weeks every 2 years go Olympic insane and believe if you don't follow the Olympics you hate freedom, Jesus, and kittens. I don't get them. I don't really care if you like them or not, I do. Likes and dislikes vary lots. That's life.
Then there are the backlash people. The "Why is everyone making me feel bad I don't like the Olympics?" people. I don't know why. And is it really everyone? Or is it just 1 or 2 of the people I mentioned above.
I was reading a column by one of The Sporting News writers where he was venting his dislike of the Olympics because it didn't have football. (Not just lacking football, but any sport an American might find interesting.) Well, seeing as how only a tiny percentage of the world's population plays or follows American Football, I can see why its not at the Olympics.
Baseball is though. But, apparently that didn't count for this writer. I don't care about Olympic baseball because I follow MLB so I get my fix that way.
I guess I'm just venting. You can like the Olympics. You can dislike the Olympics. You can hate NBC's coverage of the Olympics (though it is a bit better this time around). But please people, stop trying to convince each other why the Olympics are amazing or why they suck. Really. Its like trying to convince anyone except my DM that Spiderman 3 was a good movie. No one will budge on their opinion, so why not just leave it at that.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Politics, Politics, too confusing...
Well, the political season is (still) in full swing, and I just started reading God's Politics so, well, you'll probably be reading all that I see wrong with the world and politics and fait a lot here.
I'm only about 10 pages into the book and I think I've highlighted 2 pages worth of goodies. One of the biggest statements Wallis so far (among many) is we MUST get over mixing nationalism with our faith. There is nothing inherently wrong with being patriotic (whatever that means anymore.) But when we start mixing our patriotism with our faith too much, then we get problems. We get the belief America is special because that's how God wants it. We ask God to "bless" America. (Read the Old Testament...are we ready for what usually happens for God's blessings to come?)
I love my country even though it frequently saddens me. But I don't think we're special because of our faith. There are many nations around the world that have Christians in them. Yet I cannot think of a single "Christian" nation out there as nations (like people) cannot begin to hold to what is required to be "Christian." But nations don't fall under the "saved by grace" part either.
Also, Bush scolding China about human rights. I agree, China needs more freedom of religion, the press, and to stop illegally imprisoning people. So do we though. So do we.
I'm only about 10 pages into the book and I think I've highlighted 2 pages worth of goodies. One of the biggest statements Wallis so far (among many) is we MUST get over mixing nationalism with our faith. There is nothing inherently wrong with being patriotic (whatever that means anymore.) But when we start mixing our patriotism with our faith too much, then we get problems. We get the belief America is special because that's how God wants it. We ask God to "bless" America. (Read the Old Testament...are we ready for what usually happens for God's blessings to come?)
I love my country even though it frequently saddens me. But I don't think we're special because of our faith. There are many nations around the world that have Christians in them. Yet I cannot think of a single "Christian" nation out there as nations (like people) cannot begin to hold to what is required to be "Christian." But nations don't fall under the "saved by grace" part either.
Also, Bush scolding China about human rights. I agree, China needs more freedom of religion, the press, and to stop illegally imprisoning people. So do we though. So do we.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Back to Blogger
Well, yeah, so nothing happened here for months. Because it was blocked at work. Now its not. So I'm back. Huh, funny how that works. The interim (for you who are REALLY bored) is over here but I like Blogger better than LJ. Sorry, I'm just not an online community type guy.
So, yeah, I'll be musing, whining, cringing, shouting and pontificating from here again. It will be fun.
Oh, first whine. Since when is a computer wallpaper or screensaver a "prize?" I signed up for the Dr. Pepper "1 in 6 wins" contest and have put the codes in. So far I've won a 22 oz soda at Burger King, 2 screensavers and a wallpaper. Ok, the soda is a prize. But wallpaper? Screensaver? Heck, most people don't even USE screensavers anymore! What sort of lame prize is this? Its worse than winning nothing! Because instead of winning nothing, you win something you don't want and they call it a prize. Sad.
Whine out.
So, yeah, I'll be musing, whining, cringing, shouting and pontificating from here again. It will be fun.
Oh, first whine. Since when is a computer wallpaper or screensaver a "prize?" I signed up for the Dr. Pepper "1 in 6 wins" contest and have put the codes in. So far I've won a 22 oz soda at Burger King, 2 screensavers and a wallpaper. Ok, the soda is a prize. But wallpaper? Screensaver? Heck, most people don't even USE screensavers anymore! What sort of lame prize is this? Its worse than winning nothing! Because instead of winning nothing, you win something you don't want and they call it a prize. Sad.
Whine out.
Monday, February 4, 2008
What a Super Bowl!
Wow. Really, what else can you say but, WOW. The Giants beat the Patriots. And not just stole the game at the last second. But beat them for pretty much the whole game no matter what the score said. What the Patriots normally did to a team that competed with them, stayed close and beat them at the end (when they weren't running away with it already) the Giants did to the Pats!
Tom Brady got pounded, just pounded by the D-Line of the Giants. And Eli and the Giants offense just worked the clock and wore down the Pats defense. And I'll just say it now. Where were the Pats linebacking core? You know, that vaunted group of experienced veterans? They got OLD fast! The Giants moved the ball well. They just were the better team on Sunday. It was impressive.
Switching gears, I hope the Bears management and coaches saw what ALL Bears fans saw. What the Bears need was on the field in the form of the Giants. The Giants play, offensively especially, but defensively a bit too, what the Bears keep saying they want to do. But here's the difference, the Giants have the talent to do it.
Eli is a much better QB than the Bears have. Now, you don't have to have a HOF QB, but if you don't, you need HOF recievers and line, which the Bears don't have. The Giants actually have running backs. They have the big bruiser and the more finesse guy. The Bears have...well, they are paying people to fill that position. I'll leave it at that. They O-Line did a good job of protecting Eli. The Bears O-Line was a sieve. The Giants wide recievers made great catches and fought through coverage. The Bears also pay people to play wide reciever. Occasionally they get open and occasionally they make great catches. Occasionally. But Muhsin Muhammad says he's a bargain at the money he's making. Sure you are Moose. Keep saying that. Free agency is going to show you differently.
Defensively the Giants front 4 DOMINATED the O-line of the Pats. I mean just pushed them all over the place. The Bears, well, Tommy Harris is great if he's 100% (hopefully he will be this year!) and Adewale Ogunleye is darn good. Mark Anderson is a great pass-rusher. But he's undersized and got punished lots because Lovie tried to use him as a starting DE. Not smart! Our secondary is a disaster, I can't even start, and we're going to lose Lance Briggs at LB. Maybe Urlacher can rest his back enough over the summer to be healthy next year. So, yeah, our defense doesn't even compare.
And the Bears think they are "Almost there" as they keep saying. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe both.
Tom Brady got pounded, just pounded by the D-Line of the Giants. And Eli and the Giants offense just worked the clock and wore down the Pats defense. And I'll just say it now. Where were the Pats linebacking core? You know, that vaunted group of experienced veterans? They got OLD fast! The Giants moved the ball well. They just were the better team on Sunday. It was impressive.
Switching gears, I hope the Bears management and coaches saw what ALL Bears fans saw. What the Bears need was on the field in the form of the Giants. The Giants play, offensively especially, but defensively a bit too, what the Bears keep saying they want to do. But here's the difference, the Giants have the talent to do it.
Eli is a much better QB than the Bears have. Now, you don't have to have a HOF QB, but if you don't, you need HOF recievers and line, which the Bears don't have. The Giants actually have running backs. They have the big bruiser and the more finesse guy. The Bears have...well, they are paying people to fill that position. I'll leave it at that. They O-Line did a good job of protecting Eli. The Bears O-Line was a sieve. The Giants wide recievers made great catches and fought through coverage. The Bears also pay people to play wide reciever. Occasionally they get open and occasionally they make great catches. Occasionally. But Muhsin Muhammad says he's a bargain at the money he's making. Sure you are Moose. Keep saying that. Free agency is going to show you differently.
Defensively the Giants front 4 DOMINATED the O-line of the Pats. I mean just pushed them all over the place. The Bears, well, Tommy Harris is great if he's 100% (hopefully he will be this year!) and Adewale Ogunleye is darn good. Mark Anderson is a great pass-rusher. But he's undersized and got punished lots because Lovie tried to use him as a starting DE. Not smart! Our secondary is a disaster, I can't even start, and we're going to lose Lance Briggs at LB. Maybe Urlacher can rest his back enough over the summer to be healthy next year. So, yeah, our defense doesn't even compare.
And the Bears think they are "Almost there" as they keep saying. I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Maybe both.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Some People Care WAY too Much about Webcomics
I was perusing my daily dose of webcomics today and at PvP Scott was talking about a blogger who devoted immense amounts of time to critiquing PVP. Scott wasn't blasting the guy, in fact, he called him a fan, because, as Scott said, only a fan could care so much. I commend Scott as someone who deals fairly well with that sort of thing. I don't have the personality (or talent, but that's beside the point) to deal with things like that.
What amazes me is how worked up people get about webcomics. I've gotten into discussions on forums about them. I've read tons of flaming posts about them. It boggles my mind because wake-up people, they are FREE!
Now, possibly I am caring too much about webcomics, but hear me out. Webcomics can be read by anyone, for free. Now, some comics do a better job of updating than others. Schlock Mercenary is pretty much the king at 7 straight years of posting on time. It's also hilarious. Dave Kellett drawing Sheldon does a great job too. Others, like PvP, are sketchier. Posting daily...usually...but who knows when. But again. Who cares. Its a comic you're reading for free. I've heard the arguments, "they have an implied contract with their reader." What? No they don't! If the readers get upset, they'll stop reading! Then ad revenue will dry up and the strip goes under. Simple economics.
For someone like Scott Kurtz, Dave Kellett, or Howard Tayler (to just name a very few) who make their living off the comic keeping your readers happy is important. The people who get so upset don't seem to understand they can just stop reading. Or the people who don't like how a strip or storyline went...that's fine, that's your opinion, but, you're not the creator. Voice your opinion, but the creator is creating, we are reading and we decide if we like it or not. Network TV is what happens when you pander to your audience. And we don't want that happening to webcomics.
What amazes me is how worked up people get about webcomics. I've gotten into discussions on forums about them. I've read tons of flaming posts about them. It boggles my mind because wake-up people, they are FREE!
Now, possibly I am caring too much about webcomics, but hear me out. Webcomics can be read by anyone, for free. Now, some comics do a better job of updating than others. Schlock Mercenary is pretty much the king at 7 straight years of posting on time. It's also hilarious. Dave Kellett drawing Sheldon does a great job too. Others, like PvP, are sketchier. Posting daily...usually...but who knows when. But again. Who cares. Its a comic you're reading for free. I've heard the arguments, "they have an implied contract with their reader." What? No they don't! If the readers get upset, they'll stop reading! Then ad revenue will dry up and the strip goes under. Simple economics.
For someone like Scott Kurtz, Dave Kellett, or Howard Tayler (to just name a very few) who make their living off the comic keeping your readers happy is important. The people who get so upset don't seem to understand they can just stop reading. Or the people who don't like how a strip or storyline went...that's fine, that's your opinion, but, you're not the creator. Voice your opinion, but the creator is creating, we are reading and we decide if we like it or not. Network TV is what happens when you pander to your audience. And we don't want that happening to webcomics.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Economics Hurt My Head
Disclaimer, I do not claim to be an economist. I'm not even all that good at math. But, I must say, that the Fed cutting the interest rate by 3/4% puzzles me. Now, I understand international markets were tanking and our's wasn't looking any better. I understand many banks have written down huge losses on bad loans and the housing market (new starts mostly) is overall WAY down. There is a "credit crunch" I've heard it called, both at the BIG level, banks, etc, and the smaller level, consumers.
So, I understand some of the reasons the Fed did this. However, didn't ultra-low interest rates help get us into this mess? Not just rates alone, plenty of bad judgement, unscrupulous lending, and consumer stupidity have helped, but the rates were low low low for years with little oversight. Now, its time to spend spend spend our way out of a crisis that frankly we got into by spending too much. I guess I don't see how the end result, getting consumers to spend themselves even deeper into debt, is the solution.
Oh, trust me, I know how basic (VERY basic) macroeconomics works. Consumers must spend for companies to make money, etc. etc. But, there must come a point when we've overspent. Right? Our country already borrows billions upon billions from foreign countries (including China, a BIG lender) because the country overspends. We consumers borrow billions upon billions on our credit cards, car payments, house payments, etc. That's fine, as long as we're making the payments. We aren't as consumers. Too many people are overextended.
Here's the problem, I have no idea what to do about this. Usually, I offer a few suggestions, but here, I don't know at all. And what scares me is, I don't think the really smart people do either. That's not a recipe for success. Hopefully I'm not coming across as alarmist or gloom and doom. I don't feel that way (completely). But I do feel our country is in deep economic trouble and that no one in charge wants to admit how big the issue really is.
So, I understand some of the reasons the Fed did this. However, didn't ultra-low interest rates help get us into this mess? Not just rates alone, plenty of bad judgement, unscrupulous lending, and consumer stupidity have helped, but the rates were low low low for years with little oversight. Now, its time to spend spend spend our way out of a crisis that frankly we got into by spending too much. I guess I don't see how the end result, getting consumers to spend themselves even deeper into debt, is the solution.
Oh, trust me, I know how basic (VERY basic) macroeconomics works. Consumers must spend for companies to make money, etc. etc. But, there must come a point when we've overspent. Right? Our country already borrows billions upon billions from foreign countries (including China, a BIG lender) because the country overspends. We consumers borrow billions upon billions on our credit cards, car payments, house payments, etc. That's fine, as long as we're making the payments. We aren't as consumers. Too many people are overextended.
Here's the problem, I have no idea what to do about this. Usually, I offer a few suggestions, but here, I don't know at all. And what scares me is, I don't think the really smart people do either. That's not a recipe for success. Hopefully I'm not coming across as alarmist or gloom and doom. I don't feel that way (completely). But I do feel our country is in deep economic trouble and that no one in charge wants to admit how big the issue really is.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
America's Place in the World
Bush is finishing up his begging, er traveling, in the Middle East today. What a sad place America is in today. Bush, while visiting the Saudis, begged (at least as far as diplomacy is concerned) with the Saudis to work with OPEC to lower oil prices. "The oil prices are crushing our economy." "We're you're biggest customer." On, and on. This is sad. After the Saudi oil minister said no, OPEC is happy with the situation, Bush went over his head to talk to King Abdullah himself and beg. Wow. What a wonderful place America is at today.
Now, I'm not going to blame all our problems on Bush or this administration. The oil crisis has been looming for years and NOONE did anything to prepare for it. Many of the lax financial policies were in place before Bush's presidency. Though, again, nothing was done to put any oversight over the financial sector. The flight of manufacturing jobs has been going on for years and remember, NAFTA was signed on Clinton's watch as was renewing China's "Most Favored Nation" status. But Bush has done nothing to solve the problems caused by these agreements and has allowed plenty that exacerbates them.
What I am angry about is that Bush and his administration has done so much to bring the US down in the world's eyes. The rest of the world has always had a love/hate relationship with America. I understand this. But starting wars, bullying allies, ignoring any advice from outside countries time and again, and now that our economy is poised on the brink of a recession, is begging for lower oil prices. Hmm, why on earth would OPEC listen?
The US has had YEARS to implement plans to start weaning ourselves off foreign oil and we've done next to nothing about it. Congress has consistently ignored the problem not passing tougher standards and not investing money is alternative fuel research until relatively recently. Sorry folks, ethanol is not the long term solution. At least not from corn. Possibly from switchgrass, but not corn.
I guess I don't like to see my country begging for a handout, which is what I feel Bush is doing. We've made our bed, we're going to have to sleep in it. I just hope and pray that the next administration will make some wiser choices than the previous 2 or 3 have. I don't expect immediate changes. It will take a number of years for smart policies to actually start to work. But first, we need some smart policies.
Now, I'm not going to blame all our problems on Bush or this administration. The oil crisis has been looming for years and NOONE did anything to prepare for it. Many of the lax financial policies were in place before Bush's presidency. Though, again, nothing was done to put any oversight over the financial sector. The flight of manufacturing jobs has been going on for years and remember, NAFTA was signed on Clinton's watch as was renewing China's "Most Favored Nation" status. But Bush has done nothing to solve the problems caused by these agreements and has allowed plenty that exacerbates them.
What I am angry about is that Bush and his administration has done so much to bring the US down in the world's eyes. The rest of the world has always had a love/hate relationship with America. I understand this. But starting wars, bullying allies, ignoring any advice from outside countries time and again, and now that our economy is poised on the brink of a recession, is begging for lower oil prices. Hmm, why on earth would OPEC listen?
The US has had YEARS to implement plans to start weaning ourselves off foreign oil and we've done next to nothing about it. Congress has consistently ignored the problem not passing tougher standards and not investing money is alternative fuel research until relatively recently. Sorry folks, ethanol is not the long term solution. At least not from corn. Possibly from switchgrass, but not corn.
I guess I don't like to see my country begging for a handout, which is what I feel Bush is doing. We've made our bed, we're going to have to sleep in it. I just hope and pray that the next administration will make some wiser choices than the previous 2 or 3 have. I don't expect immediate changes. It will take a number of years for smart policies to actually start to work. But first, we need some smart policies.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Baseball and Congress Part II
Well, I'm not claiming to be the first, because I'm sure I was nowhere near first, but at least I finally read a national story questioning what congress is doing looking into the baseball steroids issue. The story asked the question I, and I'm sure many others asked, "Doesn't Congress have more important things to do?"
Clemens is a cheater, but he's old and probably not going to pitch again. Pettite is still playing, and Knoblauch pretty much wants nothing to do with the sport anymore. The Mitchell report is focusing on a few past abuses. The key there is FEW. If more people like the trainer for the Yankee's had been caught from other teams, because, lets face it, I'm pretty certain almost every team in baseball had a guy who could "hook up" the players with steroids, HGH, or whatever other substance they needed. If all those middle-men had been caught up in a federal probe I cringe to think how many players would have been implicated.
So, this brings me back to my point. The Mitchell report and Congress are focusing on the past. You can't change the past. I'm sorry. The mid 80s to the early 2000s is tainted. Especially from about 96 on. You can't change that. And wasting taxpayer time and money on more hearings is wasteful. Baseball has done something. Its pathetic in my mind, but its something. Congress needs to get out of this now. If they want to focus on the actual trafficking of steroids and HGH, that's fine. I can understand how you would want that sort of thing regulated as it is a dangerous prescription-only substance. But give the baseball end of it a rest! Go back to running the country. Maybe look into what sort of lax banking oversight we have that helped set up these massive losses, but let baseball run itself now.
Clemens is a cheater, but he's old and probably not going to pitch again. Pettite is still playing, and Knoblauch pretty much wants nothing to do with the sport anymore. The Mitchell report is focusing on a few past abuses. The key there is FEW. If more people like the trainer for the Yankee's had been caught from other teams, because, lets face it, I'm pretty certain almost every team in baseball had a guy who could "hook up" the players with steroids, HGH, or whatever other substance they needed. If all those middle-men had been caught up in a federal probe I cringe to think how many players would have been implicated.
So, this brings me back to my point. The Mitchell report and Congress are focusing on the past. You can't change the past. I'm sorry. The mid 80s to the early 2000s is tainted. Especially from about 96 on. You can't change that. And wasting taxpayer time and money on more hearings is wasteful. Baseball has done something. Its pathetic in my mind, but its something. Congress needs to get out of this now. If they want to focus on the actual trafficking of steroids and HGH, that's fine. I can understand how you would want that sort of thing regulated as it is a dangerous prescription-only substance. But give the baseball end of it a rest! Go back to running the country. Maybe look into what sort of lax banking oversight we have that helped set up these massive losses, but let baseball run itself now.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Government Logic
Bush, on his tour of the Middle East, was speaking today in Saudi Arabia about his intention to sell JDAM laser-guided bomb kits to them, among other weapons. The Saudis already have lots of top of the line military equipment we've sold them, first to contain Saddam, now to wave a big stick at Iran, who Bush said today is "the world's leading state sponsor of terror." That is quoting from a Reuters report.
Now, I agree, to an extent, that Iran is a big sponsor of terrorism, especially in Iraq. What I find ironic is that Saudi Arabia is the biggest civilian sponsor of terrorism in the world. Remember Osama Bin Landen? He's Saudi. Most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saudis. Tons of terrorist money comes from the oil rich Saudis. (Not nearly all, but plenty.) Don't believe the lie that terrorism, at least of the Islamist variety, is because of the poor and oppressed. The rich and opulent manipulate the poor and oppressed to blow themselves up for Allah. Is this a defense of how the US and the West tends to treat poorer countries? No, look at the rest of my statements. I've just gotten tired of people attempting to use that excuse for terrorism.
Now, I just love the Bush government's logic. We invade Iraq, who had nothing at all to do with 9/11 or Islamist terrorism in general. But we're selling hi-tech weapons to the Saudis who have been VERY slow to crack down on support for terrorism from their own citizens. This is a country with some of the most repressive laws on earth. Their treatment of women and minority religious groups is atrocious. And, we're stopping terrorism by selling them weapons.
I'm sorry, but this makes me sick. It really does. If you look at the history of the 20th century American foreign policy of attempting to play countries off each other, it hasn't worked well for us. Usually, it turns around to bite us in the rear. Just remember folks, we were selling Saddam weapons in the 80s to keep Iran at bay. That worked well for us.
I'm sick of our foreign policy hypocrisy. We claim to be for democracy around the world, and then ally ourselves closely with repressive governments, who quite frankly don't like us. This is not a good thing. I understand that we need to be on speaking terms with countries. I'd prefer Iran was one of them as well (not that diplomacy would do anything, but merely to show we're the white hats). But being on speaking terms is far different from selling them billions of dollars of hi-tech weaponry. I just hope whoever is next in the White House realizes this. Oh wait, we still have an oil based economy, that's right.
Now, I agree, to an extent, that Iran is a big sponsor of terrorism, especially in Iraq. What I find ironic is that Saudi Arabia is the biggest civilian sponsor of terrorism in the world. Remember Osama Bin Landen? He's Saudi. Most of the 9/11 hijackers? Saudis. Tons of terrorist money comes from the oil rich Saudis. (Not nearly all, but plenty.) Don't believe the lie that terrorism, at least of the Islamist variety, is because of the poor and oppressed. The rich and opulent manipulate the poor and oppressed to blow themselves up for Allah. Is this a defense of how the US and the West tends to treat poorer countries? No, look at the rest of my statements. I've just gotten tired of people attempting to use that excuse for terrorism.
Now, I just love the Bush government's logic. We invade Iraq, who had nothing at all to do with 9/11 or Islamist terrorism in general. But we're selling hi-tech weapons to the Saudis who have been VERY slow to crack down on support for terrorism from their own citizens. This is a country with some of the most repressive laws on earth. Their treatment of women and minority religious groups is atrocious. And, we're stopping terrorism by selling them weapons.
I'm sorry, but this makes me sick. It really does. If you look at the history of the 20th century American foreign policy of attempting to play countries off each other, it hasn't worked well for us. Usually, it turns around to bite us in the rear. Just remember folks, we were selling Saddam weapons in the 80s to keep Iran at bay. That worked well for us.
I'm sick of our foreign policy hypocrisy. We claim to be for democracy around the world, and then ally ourselves closely with repressive governments, who quite frankly don't like us. This is not a good thing. I understand that we need to be on speaking terms with countries. I'd prefer Iran was one of them as well (not that diplomacy would do anything, but merely to show we're the white hats). But being on speaking terms is far different from selling them billions of dollars of hi-tech weaponry. I just hope whoever is next in the White House realizes this. Oh wait, we still have an oil based economy, that's right.
Friday, January 11, 2008
Spirituality
What a vast topic. I personally take a whole self look at it. Mind, body, spirit, are all connected. My starting to work out again is good for my spiritual health. (Now, some people make an idol out of the human body, but that's another topic.) I read lots, many of the books effect how I look at the world and how I treat others. All are aspects of my faith. I am constantly striving to have a Christlike worldview, which is frequently tough since I tend towards cynicism.
However, there is an area of my faith I really struggle with. Reading the Bible and meditating on it. And doing this with my wife. I'm terrible at this. Part of the problem is from intellectualizing my faith. I "know" lots of stuff about Christianity, Christian thought, the Bible, etc. and then go with that being enough. Knowledge is great, but it is a far cry from applying it to my life and growing from it. Knowledge is safe. Practice is dangerous.
The other part is just laziness. Plain and simple. I do other things instead. I could claim I don't have time, but I do have time. Plenty of time.
This part of my faith I must start doing on a more regular (or just regular) basis. Its an active part of living my faith and well, just because other's don't see that aspect of it doesn't mean its not important.
However, there is an area of my faith I really struggle with. Reading the Bible and meditating on it. And doing this with my wife. I'm terrible at this. Part of the problem is from intellectualizing my faith. I "know" lots of stuff about Christianity, Christian thought, the Bible, etc. and then go with that being enough. Knowledge is great, but it is a far cry from applying it to my life and growing from it. Knowledge is safe. Practice is dangerous.
The other part is just laziness. Plain and simple. I do other things instead. I could claim I don't have time, but I do have time. Plenty of time.
This part of my faith I must start doing on a more regular (or just regular) basis. Its an active part of living my faith and well, just because other's don't see that aspect of it doesn't mean its not important.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Presidential Legacies
Bush is starting his tour of the Middle East with a stop in Israel and Palestine before heading to other nations in the area. Hmm...a president in the last year of his term, trying to make peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Don't I remember Clinton doing something like this?
Trust me, I'd love peace in the Middle East as much as anyone, but I'm realistic. These hatreds go back THOUSANDS of years, they aren't just going to make nice overnight. Especially with the tit-for-tat of mortar attacks, rocket attacks, helicopter attacks, settlers in captured territory, going ON and ON and ON. So, please, feel free to try Mr. Bush, but don't expect too much.
I find it odd with the way the economic outlook is in the US that Bush is taking the time to do this now. Is he worried about his "legacy" as President? He shouldn't be. He'll rank up there with the best of the bad ones. That is assured. Not even peace in the Middle East will overcome that.
On Bush and the economy, I realize the President gets too much credit for good times and too much blame for the bad, but...how often does he really address where the country is headed economically? He's pretty laissez-faire when it comes to business, which has done great things for the home market. Yes, the companies screwed themselves, but that's why we need a watchdog with TEETH to say, "Hey, they make $50,000 a year and already are heavily in debt, they can't really afford a $300,000 home!"
Or the disaster he's made of the public education system with NCLB. Sure, Congress passed it (foolishly) but it's been Bush's baby since day one. In an assembly plant, where you control the product coming in, you will never, ever reach 100% quality. So why, in a school system, where you have NO control over the "product" (child) coming in, are they expected to have 100% quality (achievement) by 2014. That's so ridiculous you just have to cry!
Instead of punishing struggling schools by taking away money, why not spend more money on real school counselors? Not schedulers, but people who actually counsel students. Emotional issues (frequently brought on by home problems) are a HUGE reason why kids aren't learning. Sure, some of its the teachers, some of its the curriculum, but the best teacher on earth can't reach a kid that just doesn't care or who is so traumatized by their home situation.
Yes, I deviated from my initial point (big surprise), but not really. Bush is in the Middle East attempting to patch things up after really really making a mess of things, even by the standards of the region. But, his legacy will always be tarnished not just by the damage he has done abroad, which is plenty, but the damage done on his watch at home. Is it all his fault? Of course not. I helped vote in a Democratic Congress that has done NOTHING. I blame them too. And no, it hasn't just been because of Republican stonewalling. (How many hours were wasted nailing Alberto Gonzalez? I didn't like the guy, but come on, you have a country to run people!) I guess I would just say to Bush, enjoy your trip, come home, and maybe attempt to do some good in your last year as President.
Trust me, I'd love peace in the Middle East as much as anyone, but I'm realistic. These hatreds go back THOUSANDS of years, they aren't just going to make nice overnight. Especially with the tit-for-tat of mortar attacks, rocket attacks, helicopter attacks, settlers in captured territory, going ON and ON and ON. So, please, feel free to try Mr. Bush, but don't expect too much.
I find it odd with the way the economic outlook is in the US that Bush is taking the time to do this now. Is he worried about his "legacy" as President? He shouldn't be. He'll rank up there with the best of the bad ones. That is assured. Not even peace in the Middle East will overcome that.
On Bush and the economy, I realize the President gets too much credit for good times and too much blame for the bad, but...how often does he really address where the country is headed economically? He's pretty laissez-faire when it comes to business, which has done great things for the home market. Yes, the companies screwed themselves, but that's why we need a watchdog with TEETH to say, "Hey, they make $50,000 a year and already are heavily in debt, they can't really afford a $300,000 home!"
Or the disaster he's made of the public education system with NCLB. Sure, Congress passed it (foolishly) but it's been Bush's baby since day one. In an assembly plant, where you control the product coming in, you will never, ever reach 100% quality. So why, in a school system, where you have NO control over the "product" (child) coming in, are they expected to have 100% quality (achievement) by 2014. That's so ridiculous you just have to cry!
Instead of punishing struggling schools by taking away money, why not spend more money on real school counselors? Not schedulers, but people who actually counsel students. Emotional issues (frequently brought on by home problems) are a HUGE reason why kids aren't learning. Sure, some of its the teachers, some of its the curriculum, but the best teacher on earth can't reach a kid that just doesn't care or who is so traumatized by their home situation.
Yes, I deviated from my initial point (big surprise), but not really. Bush is in the Middle East attempting to patch things up after really really making a mess of things, even by the standards of the region. But, his legacy will always be tarnished not just by the damage he has done abroad, which is plenty, but the damage done on his watch at home. Is it all his fault? Of course not. I helped vote in a Democratic Congress that has done NOTHING. I blame them too. And no, it hasn't just been because of Republican stonewalling. (How many hours were wasted nailing Alberto Gonzalez? I didn't like the guy, but come on, you have a country to run people!) I guess I would just say to Bush, enjoy your trip, come home, and maybe attempt to do some good in your last year as President.
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Baseball and Congress
Ok, Clemens is a cheater. Lots of players were (are?). It has tainted the game. I hate it, but its a fact. And I wish more people would point the finger where it needs to be pointed. Bud Selig. Its been under his watch that laughably lax drug testing standards have been abused. Does that exonerate the cheaters? Not at all. However, if a stringent testing program such as pro cycling has, with severe first time penalties, had been implemented it would have helped.
Note I say helped, not solved. There will always be cheaters no matter what the penalties. But it would have helped and it wouldn't have tarnished the game like it has been. Oh, I'm a fan, but I look at most things with a skeptical eye now. And, I think Bud Selig is one of the worst things to happen to MLB, as a sport, not a business, in a long, long time.
All that said, what is Congress doing? I mean really, people cheated, bought drugs illegally and used them illegally. Don't they have anything better to do, say, help run the country? They are pushing back the latest hearing until February now. But, so what? Because of a he said/he said between Clemens and a poor ex-trainer? Good grief! The government is a mess and some of our representatives still have time to worry about this?
Why not just do what they did with the NFL. Tell MLB to shape up our we'll start looking at if you should have anti-trust protection or not. MLB has implemented testing. Its a joke system, but its still something. Congress needs to stop dwelling on things that happened a number of years ago now at this point and go about their business.
Hey, maybe with the freed up time they could accomplish something useful. Dealing with healthcare costs, Social (in)Security, energy issues possibly? Oh wait, that would require original thinking and the ability to not be bribed, er lobbied. Sorry....
Note I say helped, not solved. There will always be cheaters no matter what the penalties. But it would have helped and it wouldn't have tarnished the game like it has been. Oh, I'm a fan, but I look at most things with a skeptical eye now. And, I think Bud Selig is one of the worst things to happen to MLB, as a sport, not a business, in a long, long time.
All that said, what is Congress doing? I mean really, people cheated, bought drugs illegally and used them illegally. Don't they have anything better to do, say, help run the country? They are pushing back the latest hearing until February now. But, so what? Because of a he said/he said between Clemens and a poor ex-trainer? Good grief! The government is a mess and some of our representatives still have time to worry about this?
Why not just do what they did with the NFL. Tell MLB to shape up our we'll start looking at if you should have anti-trust protection or not. MLB has implemented testing. Its a joke system, but its still something. Congress needs to stop dwelling on things that happened a number of years ago now at this point and go about their business.
Hey, maybe with the freed up time they could accomplish something useful. Dealing with healthcare costs, Social (in)Security, energy issues possibly? Oh wait, that would require original thinking and the ability to not be bribed, er lobbied. Sorry....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)