I recently got into an impassioned Facebook discussion with a good FB buddy on the "blame game" being played by those in power for our country's economic woes. She was in the "It's the GOP and the Tea Partier" camp while I was in the "Nah, it's all politicians and beltway insiders, not just those on the other team" camp. As I began to try to illuminate why I felt this way, it became apparent to me that it was time to visit the Blog again. The topic was too huge to be covered in Facebook. So here goes.
I begin by outlining what I believe to be the main reasons for our current economic condition. The problem most people have who talk about this issue is that they are looking for a single throat to choke. One person, or group, or action that they can blame for all our problems. Thing is, our economy is VERY complex, as are its problems. As such, so too will be the solutions. But before looking forward, let's take a moment to look back. Not in the interest of playing the blame game, but in the interest of analyzing REASONS for what we have experienced. Here, in no particular order, are what I consider to be the main reasons for our current economic woes.
1) The subprime mortgage mess - The relaxing of lending standards was one of the major players in how we ended up where we are. Lending hundreds of thousands of dollars to people who hadn't a prayer of being able to pay it back was a recipe for disaster from the start. Congress talked about it and talked about for years but only acted to curtail it long after the damage was done. This practice allowed too many Americans to emulate the federal government and live light years beyond our means. Eventually, the bills come due. Years of explosive real estate growth caused too many to believe that day would never come, including the banks, who resisted these loans at first but eventually acquiesced after the Feds threatened them for not writing them AND offered to back them up with federal dollars. Once the housing boom subsided and all those equity loans based on unrealistic valuations of homes and incomes came due, a major crash was inevitable.
2) The Dot.Com boom - and the subsequent, inevitable bust. When I worked for Sun Microsystems, one of our "mottos" was "We're the DOT in DOT.COM." Cute, catchy and stupid. I became aware that Sun was issuing multi-million dollar lines of credit to startups who had no product and no prospect of having a product for 5-6 years. Sun was not alone in this practice of course. What this betting on "vaporware," which is what we in the computer business call products that don't exist, did is made paper millionaires of a lot of people. Many of those people went out and traded on that wealth and bought multi-million dollar mansions, expensive cars and all in all lived "The life" until the boom went bust and all that came tumbling down. What was left was a lot of people with massive tax bills from trading monstrous amounts of stock options, against stock that had great value at one time, but became worthless almost overnight. They also had now a mortgage that was three income brackets beyond where they could afford to be. Yeah, that was good for America.
3) 9-11-2001 - Not only did nearly 4000 American lose their lives this day but America lost her innocence with respect to terrorism. The years that have followed have exacted a cost which could easily be put above a trillion dollars domestically and double or triple that worldwide. Think about all the air travel not taken over the next several years. Our airline industry has never truly recovered from that. Then factor in the impact this new uncertainty in the Middle East has had on the oil industry and gas prices worldwide which of course impact the price of virtually everything else in every economy in the world. Except of course the middle east. People like to cite the amount of money we have spent on "Bush's Wars" as the reason for this mess. I say bullsh*t. I don't know what the numbers are on the military cost. I remember it being about $75 billion a year during the peak and I assume somewhere in the $40 - $50 billion a year in the draw down years. I won't be mad if someone has different numbers but the point is, it's a fraction of the total cost of what Al Quaida did to us that day.
4) Lack of Wall Street Oversight - From insider trading, to the energy speculation issues with ENRON, to the rampant gambling with other people's money in the banking industry, particularly in the buying and selling of mortgages, right up to the flat out criminal misrepresentation of some hedge funds, Wall Street has been in rare form the past decade. But I don't blame Wall Street. Wall Street millionaires are greedy. They are driven by greed.. They are the proverbial lion who if you put your head in its mouth you cannot be mad at if he bites down. This is why we have oversight of Wall Street built into our system. The problem is, recently there has been far too much movement of personnel back and forth between Wall Street and Capitol Hill for that oversight to have any teeth. Head of Merrill Lynch one week, a cabinet position the next. Too many of the people who are supposed to be monitoring Wall Street ARE Wall Street so to speak. The result has been rampant abuses and trillions of dollars.. lost forever.
5) Big Government - Yes I am a conservative so you could have predicted I would come here. But one of the first things you learn in Economics 10 (or Economics 101 for other schools) is "The law of diminishing marginal return." This principle simply states that in any endeavor, there is a point of growth where the return on having "more" benefits you less and less until at some point the benefits go negative. As in you have too much of a good thing and it starts to get worse for you if you have more of it. I think our government crossed that boundary years ago. We have a Nuclear Regulatory Commission, a Department of Energy and an "Energy CZAR." Or is it TSAR? In any case, there are examples of overlap and redundancy all over our government. Simply put, our government can hardly get out of its own way and I don't think giving them MORE money to waste is any way shape or form a solution for anything. Every one of us knows areas where our government is wasting tons and tons of our money. Even you liberals have to admit that. If you don't then I will outright accuse you of being intellectually dishonest. I would never call you stupid.. I don't have stupid friends. :-)
So those are my top five reasons why were are where we are. Notice I don't point the finger at any one person, or party or program. Next chance I get, after I've had some time to think about it.. I will consider some solutions. The fact of the matter is life is hard.. solving these problems will be hard.. and there are no magic pills. Any politician in any party representing that there is, should be booed off the podium.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Bonds, Juries and , Steroids oh my!
Here in the San Francisco Bay Area, we, along with the rest of the world got the news that Barry Bonds was found guilty of "obstructing justice" today. For the most part this to me is a non-story. BFD, some millionaire got a slap on the wrist for helping to damage the integrity of his sport by cheating then lying in court about it. BFD. But the ensuing discussion got me to thinking yet again, about what to do about Bonds and other athletic greats who will eventually come knocking on the door of the hall of fame. I've noodled this through before, but never taken the time to put pen to paper about it so to speak. So here it is, my theory on how Hall of Fame voters should handle this issue when it comes up. Because I was not a baseball player at a high level, I have to go to sports that I AM very familiar with for guidance on this. The most obvious being track and field. Perhaps the easiest example to dissect would be Ben Johnson. For those too young to remember Ben Johnson, he was the 1987 World Champion at 100 meters and the 1988 Olympic Champion at the same distance who was later shown to have been on a veritable cocktail of steroid during that time span. Prior to getting on "The Juice" Johnson's best time in the 100 meters was a respectable 10.14. This is an excellent time and would have earned him a good deal of money and his share of wins on the international circuit. However Johnson apparently became frustrated with losing repeatedly to Carl Lewis and that frustration led to obsession which turned into cheating in the form of doping. So Ben went to the juice. The result was that within a very short span of time he improved from 10.14 to 9.79 in the 100 meter final in the 1988 Olympics, shattering the then world record of 9.93 previously held by Calvin Smith. Johnson had actually broken the record in the 1987 World Championships in Rome with a 9.83.
But enough of the history lesson. This is about trying to quantifying the impact of these drugs on performance. The Ben Johnson example gives us an easy starting point for the calculations. We can see here that steroids allowed Johnson to trim .35 seconds off his time in the 100 meters. Or roughly a 3.4 % improvement. Now this is a ridiculously short race and the degree of improvement would actually increase over greater distances. But I don't know anything about greater distances.. But I do know a thing or two about the 100 meters, having run it a few dozen times in college and having been a track and field junkie since birth. So if I apply the "3.4% rule" to baseball, it turns an 90 mph fastball into a 93 mph fastball. Or a 95 mph fastball into 98.3 mph fastball. Applied to a hitter, I have to account for both the fast twitch muscle to get around on a 90 mph fastball and added power from the boost in brute strength. So I double the improvement rate for hitters to 7.8%. So the power to drive the ball 390 into a warning track fly ball to straightaway center suddenly travels 420 feet and leaves the yard in many venues. Or at the very least bounces off the wall. Get ahold of one that would travel 400 feet without steroids and you've added 31 feet to its flight with the juice. Now since we know hitting a baseball isn't only about speed and power but it is also about quickness of reflexes and hand to eye coordination. So we have to assume that all other things being equal, steroids do not aid in those areas. However if you are a baseball player, we have to assume you already have some of that stuff. What it does help with though is recovery time, as in ability to play at a high level day after day after day as well as to recover from injuries more quickly. This was especially important for Mark McGuire, who played less than 150 games each year between 1992 and 1996. McGuire's body was quite simply giving out as he entered his 30's. McGuire played in an average of 87.4 games between '92 and '96.. but magically got healthy in his mid 30's and played in exactly 151 games in '97, '98 and '99. Go figure. Clearly without the juice, McGuire probably retires in '96 and surrenders to his breaking down body long before desecrating the home run record books. But McGuire was a great slugger before steroids, as was Bonds, though neither at the post-steroid levels. Still in the interest of science, I will stick to the 7.8% rule. So I will subtract 7.8% of McGuire and Bonds' hits from their post-steroid numbers. So I yank 22 of the 306 home runs McGuire hit between 1996 and 2001 , 52 of his RBIs and 63 of his 809 hits. So McGuire finishes his career getting credit for 520 dingers and 1563 hits, with1362 RBIs. Hall of Fame worthy? Perhaps.. but he's gonna have to wait. Doing the same math with Bonds. Assuming he started juicing in 2000 Bonds hit 317 homers, 697 RBIs and 925 hits between 2000 and 2007. Lopping off 7.8% from those numbers and we get 292 homers, 643 RBIs and 853 hits, leaving his career totals at 737 HRs, 1942 RBIs and 2863 hits. Even stronger Hall of Fame numbers. One can assume that either would likely have either suffered a severe dropoff in production in his late 30's based on declining skills or injuries but that's a matter for another discussion.
Applying the math to a pitcher is slightly more complex. On the surface I would assume that strength and speed gained from steroids would be at least as big a boon for pitchers as hitters. But figuring out how much is tricky. In the case of pitching, number of innings pitched are probably the best way to gauge. We assume that as a pitcher ages, his ability to go deep into games wanes. Taking the case of Roger Clemens, in 1993-1995, the three seasons prior to his "rebirth" he pitched 191, 170 and 140 innings. Miraculously, the next three seasons he pitched 242, 264 and 234. So we can see a huge boost to his stamina after the juice-provided assistance. The strikeout numbers were equally pronounced. After 160, 168 and 132 he jumps to 257, 292 and 271. In light of these numbers lopping off 7.8% of Clemens' numbers seems to be not quite enough. In fact it leads me to want to re-examine the hitter numbers as well. Perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing the impact of being able to stay on the field all those games well into one's late 30's. I will have to noodle on this more later.
But enough of the history lesson. This is about trying to quantifying the impact of these drugs on performance. The Ben Johnson example gives us an easy starting point for the calculations. We can see here that steroids allowed Johnson to trim .35 seconds off his time in the 100 meters. Or roughly a 3.4 % improvement. Now this is a ridiculously short race and the degree of improvement would actually increase over greater distances. But I don't know anything about greater distances.. But I do know a thing or two about the 100 meters, having run it a few dozen times in college and having been a track and field junkie since birth. So if I apply the "3.4% rule" to baseball, it turns an 90 mph fastball into a 93 mph fastball. Or a 95 mph fastball into 98.3 mph fastball. Applied to a hitter, I have to account for both the fast twitch muscle to get around on a 90 mph fastball and added power from the boost in brute strength. So I double the improvement rate for hitters to 7.8%. So the power to drive the ball 390 into a warning track fly ball to straightaway center suddenly travels 420 feet and leaves the yard in many venues. Or at the very least bounces off the wall. Get ahold of one that would travel 400 feet without steroids and you've added 31 feet to its flight with the juice. Now since we know hitting a baseball isn't only about speed and power but it is also about quickness of reflexes and hand to eye coordination. So we have to assume that all other things being equal, steroids do not aid in those areas. However if you are a baseball player, we have to assume you already have some of that stuff. What it does help with though is recovery time, as in ability to play at a high level day after day after day as well as to recover from injuries more quickly. This was especially important for Mark McGuire, who played less than 150 games each year between 1992 and 1996. McGuire's body was quite simply giving out as he entered his 30's. McGuire played in an average of 87.4 games between '92 and '96.. but magically got healthy in his mid 30's and played in exactly 151 games in '97, '98 and '99. Go figure. Clearly without the juice, McGuire probably retires in '96 and surrenders to his breaking down body long before desecrating the home run record books. But McGuire was a great slugger before steroids, as was Bonds, though neither at the post-steroid levels. Still in the interest of science, I will stick to the 7.8% rule. So I will subtract 7.8% of McGuire and Bonds' hits from their post-steroid numbers. So I yank 22 of the 306 home runs McGuire hit between 1996 and 2001 , 52 of his RBIs and 63 of his 809 hits. So McGuire finishes his career getting credit for 520 dingers and 1563 hits, with1362 RBIs. Hall of Fame worthy? Perhaps.. but he's gonna have to wait. Doing the same math with Bonds. Assuming he started juicing in 2000 Bonds hit 317 homers, 697 RBIs and 925 hits between 2000 and 2007. Lopping off 7.8% from those numbers and we get 292 homers, 643 RBIs and 853 hits, leaving his career totals at 737 HRs, 1942 RBIs and 2863 hits. Even stronger Hall of Fame numbers. One can assume that either would likely have either suffered a severe dropoff in production in his late 30's based on declining skills or injuries but that's a matter for another discussion.
Applying the math to a pitcher is slightly more complex. On the surface I would assume that strength and speed gained from steroids would be at least as big a boon for pitchers as hitters. But figuring out how much is tricky. In the case of pitching, number of innings pitched are probably the best way to gauge. We assume that as a pitcher ages, his ability to go deep into games wanes. Taking the case of Roger Clemens, in 1993-1995, the three seasons prior to his "rebirth" he pitched 191, 170 and 140 innings. Miraculously, the next three seasons he pitched 242, 264 and 234. So we can see a huge boost to his stamina after the juice-provided assistance. The strikeout numbers were equally pronounced. After 160, 168 and 132 he jumps to 257, 292 and 271. In light of these numbers lopping off 7.8% of Clemens' numbers seems to be not quite enough. In fact it leads me to want to re-examine the hitter numbers as well. Perhaps I was too hasty in dismissing the impact of being able to stay on the field all those games well into one's late 30's. I will have to noodle on this more later.
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Islam.. try being a neighbor willya?
With all the latest furor over all things Islam, I am compelled to weigh in on some of them in a longer rant than I can get on Facebook. It occurs to me as these things unfold that the problem with some of our Islamic brothers and sisters is that they have not learned how to be good neighbors. I have not read all of the Koran, but I have read some and in it I found no mention of that biblical precept of "Love they neighbor as thyself." Maybe it's there.. perhaps some D-School scholar will correct me on this.
1) The "Ground Zero Mosque." - To me, this one is a strong candidate for the "Love thy neighbor" concept. Yes you have a right to build a mosque there.. Hell you could legally build it on the ashes of the WTC if you could afford the land. But you shouldn't and here's why. Think of all the places of worship in the country that are NOT Muslim. Imagine if they all decided to put up banners saying something to the effect that "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." or "All Muslims are going to hell!" Or you pick your favorite derisive phrase. They would be perfectly within their rights to do just that. Yet they don't. You know why they don't? Because this country was built on religious freedom and respect for one's neighbors. Now one might say "well building a mosque isn't the same as putting up insulting signs." Well in the eyes of many, including the victims' families, it is.. In fact, in their minds, it's worse. Throughout this country there are Native American burial sites where it is ILLEGAL to build anything on or near. Because we have a great fear of the impending rebirth of the Cherokee or Souix nation? No.. it's because of respect for those people's beliefs and because we acknowledge their right to them . Like it or not, the guys who brought down the WTC and killed 3300 people on 9/11 were all Muslims and openly declared that they did what they did in the name of Islam. Period. So any action taken by Muslims in that vicinity will always be viewed in that light. And well it should. The citizens of New York and especially the families of the victims view the mosque as an affront to their beliefs. Frankly, that's good enough for me. Build your mosque or your "community center" somewhere else.
2) This Koran burning business - Now look.. for the record I am opposed to burning any books, especially religious texts. I am also against burning flags, churches, and ex-husbands' cars and clothes. I think that rev down in Gainesville has a point though. Muslims have been torching bibles, churches, and people pretty much since the birth of Islam. Fortunately they don't do a lot of it here in America.. Well maybe that's not so fortunate.. because I guarantee you that if Muslim students burned bibles or pissed on them like those kids in Australia did a couple of years back, no one would be offering much opposition to a guy wanting to torch a few Korans. But dammit this is America.. and both parties have equal rights to burn the other's holy books or other symbols. And none of us should care. The biggest problem I have with this story is what pussies the media has been about pointing out how regularly Muslims burn (or worse) bibles around the world. Instead they focus on one wack job pastor and his 50 person congregation as somehow symbolic of all Christians worldwide. Yet they bend over backwards every day to tell us that the idiots sawing off people's heads and blowing up children are "just a fringe group of Islamic radicals and no way indicative of all the practictioners of the religion."
What gives? I mean I get it.. Christians generally won't kidnap you and cut your head off or put a worldwide hit out on you for speaking outnegatively about them. Muslims will.. So I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on the mediots for not coming out too hard on Muslims.
Nah.. on second thought screw that.. You guys are cowards.
1) The "Ground Zero Mosque." - To me, this one is a strong candidate for the "Love thy neighbor" concept. Yes you have a right to build a mosque there.. Hell you could legally build it on the ashes of the WTC if you could afford the land. But you shouldn't and here's why. Think of all the places of worship in the country that are NOT Muslim. Imagine if they all decided to put up banners saying something to the effect that "The only good Muslim is a dead Muslim." or "All Muslims are going to hell!" Or you pick your favorite derisive phrase. They would be perfectly within their rights to do just that. Yet they don't. You know why they don't? Because this country was built on religious freedom and respect for one's neighbors. Now one might say "well building a mosque isn't the same as putting up insulting signs." Well in the eyes of many, including the victims' families, it is.. In fact, in their minds, it's worse. Throughout this country there are Native American burial sites where it is ILLEGAL to build anything on or near. Because we have a great fear of the impending rebirth of the Cherokee or Souix nation? No.. it's because of respect for those people's beliefs and because we acknowledge their right to them . Like it or not, the guys who brought down the WTC and killed 3300 people on 9/11 were all Muslims and openly declared that they did what they did in the name of Islam. Period. So any action taken by Muslims in that vicinity will always be viewed in that light. And well it should. The citizens of New York and especially the families of the victims view the mosque as an affront to their beliefs. Frankly, that's good enough for me. Build your mosque or your "community center" somewhere else.
2) This Koran burning business - Now look.. for the record I am opposed to burning any books, especially religious texts. I am also against burning flags, churches, and ex-husbands' cars and clothes. I think that rev down in Gainesville has a point though. Muslims have been torching bibles, churches, and people pretty much since the birth of Islam. Fortunately they don't do a lot of it here in America.. Well maybe that's not so fortunate.. because I guarantee you that if Muslim students burned bibles or pissed on them like those kids in Australia did a couple of years back, no one would be offering much opposition to a guy wanting to torch a few Korans. But dammit this is America.. and both parties have equal rights to burn the other's holy books or other symbols. And none of us should care. The biggest problem I have with this story is what pussies the media has been about pointing out how regularly Muslims burn (or worse) bibles around the world. Instead they focus on one wack job pastor and his 50 person congregation as somehow symbolic of all Christians worldwide. Yet they bend over backwards every day to tell us that the idiots sawing off people's heads and blowing up children are "just a fringe group of Islamic radicals and no way indicative of all the practictioners of the religion."
What gives? I mean I get it.. Christians generally won't kidnap you and cut your head off or put a worldwide hit out on you for speaking outnegatively about them. Muslims will.. So I suppose I shouldn't be so hard on the mediots for not coming out too hard on Muslims.
Nah.. on second thought screw that.. You guys are cowards.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Hey you, how about you get off the phone......
..... and handle the business at hand?
I had an annoying experience this evening at a store. One that seems to be happening more and more frequently. I got caught in line behind someone talking on their cell phone at the checkout. Now there is nothing wrong with talking on the phone while you check out. I do it all the time. I have gotten the puzzled looks from the cashier when I tell her "I love you!" LOL! But I have a headset.. What's annoying is people who talk on the phone, holding it up to their ear with one hand, and try to put their groceries on the counter with the other. Then try to get their wallet out with one hand.. then try get their money/credit card out with one hand and then try to gather all their stuff up .. with one hand. Meanwhile those of us stuck in line behind them just have to wait while they fumble through these simple TWO handed tasks, which are considerably slower and clumsier when performed with just ONE hand. Maybe part of me is just jealous, because I have never been able to hold the phone up to my ear for more than a coupla minutes. These huge guns I got get heavy and I either gotta put the thing down or go to the headset pretty quick.
Look, you.. and you know who you are if you are guilty of this. I know you're cool.. and I know the person on the other end of the phone is cool too. But you know what?!?! Neither of you is so cool that I and others get to stand around for several extra minutes in line while you fumble around trying to do stuff with one hand that would take seconds to do if you just said "Dude lemme handle this and call you back." Really.. it's that simple. It's not that the rest of us are in a huge hurry. Most of us accept that when we go to the store there is a certain amount of waiting around that is built in. However when YOU turn my allotted 5 minutes of waiting in line into 10 minutes just because you can't bear to put the phone down for THIRTY FREAKIN SECONDS!!?!? Well.. you just cashed in all your cool chips and have been relegated to full fledged selfish jerk status. Your time is not any more valuable than anyone else's. Okay? So I say again, if you absolutely insist that you need to be hearing your honey's or your homeboy's voice every second of every day. Get a damn headset so you can still function. I mean they come free with most cell phones these days and I've seen even bluetooth models for under 20 bucks. So there really is no excuse to be walking around kickin it old school with the radiation emitting device right next to your ear. Then again I suppose I may be judging these people too harshly. After all, if they have been holding this little brain cancer causing agent next to their heads for some time, they may already be losing brain function and I should have more sympathy for them..
.
.
.
Nah.. I like the selfish jerks assessment better.
I had an annoying experience this evening at a store. One that seems to be happening more and more frequently. I got caught in line behind someone talking on their cell phone at the checkout. Now there is nothing wrong with talking on the phone while you check out. I do it all the time. I have gotten the puzzled looks from the cashier when I tell her "I love you!" LOL! But I have a headset.. What's annoying is people who talk on the phone, holding it up to their ear with one hand, and try to put their groceries on the counter with the other. Then try to get their wallet out with one hand.. then try get their money/credit card out with one hand and then try to gather all their stuff up .. with one hand. Meanwhile those of us stuck in line behind them just have to wait while they fumble through these simple TWO handed tasks, which are considerably slower and clumsier when performed with just ONE hand. Maybe part of me is just jealous, because I have never been able to hold the phone up to my ear for more than a coupla minutes. These huge guns I got get heavy and I either gotta put the thing down or go to the headset pretty quick.
Look, you.. and you know who you are if you are guilty of this. I know you're cool.. and I know the person on the other end of the phone is cool too. But you know what?!?! Neither of you is so cool that I and others get to stand around for several extra minutes in line while you fumble around trying to do stuff with one hand that would take seconds to do if you just said "Dude lemme handle this and call you back." Really.. it's that simple. It's not that the rest of us are in a huge hurry. Most of us accept that when we go to the store there is a certain amount of waiting around that is built in. However when YOU turn my allotted 5 minutes of waiting in line into 10 minutes just because you can't bear to put the phone down for THIRTY FREAKIN SECONDS!!?!? Well.. you just cashed in all your cool chips and have been relegated to full fledged selfish jerk status. Your time is not any more valuable than anyone else's. Okay? So I say again, if you absolutely insist that you need to be hearing your honey's or your homeboy's voice every second of every day. Get a damn headset so you can still function. I mean they come free with most cell phones these days and I've seen even bluetooth models for under 20 bucks. So there really is no excuse to be walking around kickin it old school with the radiation emitting device right next to your ear. Then again I suppose I may be judging these people too harshly. After all, if they have been holding this little brain cancer causing agent next to their heads for some time, they may already be losing brain function and I should have more sympathy for them..
.
.
.
Nah.. I like the selfish jerks assessment better.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Take heart Arizona.. justice will eventually be done.
Here we sit, a few days past the date when the controversial Arizona SB1070 went into effect and then a couple of days after some judge decided that she knew better than the Arizona assembly and voters what should be done about illegal immigration. I know the knee-jerk attack from opponents of this law is to call anyone who supports it "racist" and "anti" this or that. But that's just a very lame copout. Arizona, by virtue of enacting this law, has attempted to correct a problem, which affects its citizens every day. The judge who overturned key components of the law rightly ruled that the power and responsibility for regulating immigration rests with the Federal Government. But anyone who has been paying attention has noticed the Feds are not even remotely interested in dealing with this problem and holding up their end of the bargain. What this ruling does is essentially sent the message to states that not only is the Federal Government not going to enforce its immigration laws but they don't want anybody else doing it either.
Lest it go unnoted, Arizona hardly has a spotless record in race relations. They were famously the last state to ratify the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday and they had that asinine episode where some idiots demanded that a black face on a mural on the side of an elementary school be lightened. Clearly there are some idiots in Arizona when it comes to race. And I'm am sure some of the people supporting the law absolutely hate Mexicans. Period. But that's not the issue here. There are tons of people in all walks of life who are racist. Get over it. This isn't about a few narrow minded jerks. This is about the law. A nation without laws is not a nation at all. We have immigration laws on the books which are being flouted by our neighbors to the south. We are spending billions and billions of dollars in additional law enforcement, health care, education and other services for these folks. It also bears noting that the amnesty route, which is favored by many who lobby in favor of the immigrants, has been tried before. Some 10-12 million illegals were granted amnesty 20 years ago. Clearly all that did was empower the next generation to ignore our immigration laws.
What angers me most is that these politicians who use the issue to make political hay during the election cycle and then basically let it drop once that time has passed. We have between 12-20 million people living underground in this country illegally. I don't care which side you fall on the issue of immigration, you cannot sanely argue that this is a good thing. There is additional crime, there is additive stress on services, schools etc. Yes America is the richest country in the world, but this notion that we have trillions of dollars to keep giving away forever and ever needs to be checked. In reality, we don't. We have trillions of dollars worth of our own problems that need solving, Mexico can get in line with the rest of the other countries we give aid to. Isn't the amount of money we are wasting in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places around the world one of the rallying points from the left? Don't we hear from them that we need to get out of these other countries and let them handle their own business? Why then is it acceptable to be spending between 100 and 150 billion a year on Mexico's and Latin American's "problems?"
I know I know.. "Ronnie you are just racist against Brown people!!" right? Wrong.. I live in a hugely Mexican area, and acknowledge readily that Mexicans are the hardest working people on the planet. They are also fiercely family oriented which I love and they have a strong religious bent. And oh yeah, I have two half Mexican children from my marriage to a Mexican woman. So save the "racist" accusations. I aint.. Period. But I AM criminalist. As in thoroughly anti- criminals. Particularly criminals who cost me money. And despite all the hard working Latinos and Latinas who come here and bust their humps for a better life, the fact that damn near half of all jail inmates in my state are illegal aliens, a large percentage of murders, rapes and other violent crimes here are committed by illegal aliens tells me, no screams at me, this is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Instead of brow-beating Arizona for trying to address it, we need to be applauding them for calling out the Federal government for not doing its job. Whether people admit it or not, their laxity in this area is placing all of us in grave danger in addition to the dollars it's costing us. All I know is, if some illegal alien breaks into my house and rapes and murders my wife and child as happened recently in Oregon, I might be tempted to finish what Al Quaida tried to do on 9/11 and fly a damn plane into the Capital Building while Congress is in session.
Okay that would be extreme. But clearly our legislators need to get the message that this is serious. I think it's happening. Arizona is just the start I think. I suspect other border states are considering similar measures. Even if they won't talk about it openly. This country cannot survive if it continues down this path of open border-ism. And I think people are starting to wake up to that fact. Not everyone will agree. Some will continue to maintain that we just welcome everyone with open arms and spend as much money and effort as it takes to do so. That's a nice pollyana-ish view but it simply is not practical. My goal is to simply keep voices raised so that the politicos hear us. So all together Arizona, "Hey you guys in D.C. , how about we enforce our immigration laws!??!'
Lest it go unnoted, Arizona hardly has a spotless record in race relations. They were famously the last state to ratify the Martin Luther King Jr. Holiday and they had that asinine episode where some idiots demanded that a black face on a mural on the side of an elementary school be lightened. Clearly there are some idiots in Arizona when it comes to race. And I'm am sure some of the people supporting the law absolutely hate Mexicans. Period. But that's not the issue here. There are tons of people in all walks of life who are racist. Get over it. This isn't about a few narrow minded jerks. This is about the law. A nation without laws is not a nation at all. We have immigration laws on the books which are being flouted by our neighbors to the south. We are spending billions and billions of dollars in additional law enforcement, health care, education and other services for these folks. It also bears noting that the amnesty route, which is favored by many who lobby in favor of the immigrants, has been tried before. Some 10-12 million illegals were granted amnesty 20 years ago. Clearly all that did was empower the next generation to ignore our immigration laws.
What angers me most is that these politicians who use the issue to make political hay during the election cycle and then basically let it drop once that time has passed. We have between 12-20 million people living underground in this country illegally. I don't care which side you fall on the issue of immigration, you cannot sanely argue that this is a good thing. There is additional crime, there is additive stress on services, schools etc. Yes America is the richest country in the world, but this notion that we have trillions of dollars to keep giving away forever and ever needs to be checked. In reality, we don't. We have trillions of dollars worth of our own problems that need solving, Mexico can get in line with the rest of the other countries we give aid to. Isn't the amount of money we are wasting in Afghanistan, Iraq and other places around the world one of the rallying points from the left? Don't we hear from them that we need to get out of these other countries and let them handle their own business? Why then is it acceptable to be spending between 100 and 150 billion a year on Mexico's and Latin American's "problems?"
I know I know.. "Ronnie you are just racist against Brown people!!" right? Wrong.. I live in a hugely Mexican area, and acknowledge readily that Mexicans are the hardest working people on the planet. They are also fiercely family oriented which I love and they have a strong religious bent. And oh yeah, I have two half Mexican children from my marriage to a Mexican woman. So save the "racist" accusations. I aint.. Period. But I AM criminalist. As in thoroughly anti- criminals. Particularly criminals who cost me money. And despite all the hard working Latinos and Latinas who come here and bust their humps for a better life, the fact that damn near half of all jail inmates in my state are illegal aliens, a large percentage of murders, rapes and other violent crimes here are committed by illegal aliens tells me, no screams at me, this is a problem and it needs to be addressed. Instead of brow-beating Arizona for trying to address it, we need to be applauding them for calling out the Federal government for not doing its job. Whether people admit it or not, their laxity in this area is placing all of us in grave danger in addition to the dollars it's costing us. All I know is, if some illegal alien breaks into my house and rapes and murders my wife and child as happened recently in Oregon, I might be tempted to finish what Al Quaida tried to do on 9/11 and fly a damn plane into the Capital Building while Congress is in session.
Okay that would be extreme. But clearly our legislators need to get the message that this is serious. I think it's happening. Arizona is just the start I think. I suspect other border states are considering similar measures. Even if they won't talk about it openly. This country cannot survive if it continues down this path of open border-ism. And I think people are starting to wake up to that fact. Not everyone will agree. Some will continue to maintain that we just welcome everyone with open arms and spend as much money and effort as it takes to do so. That's a nice pollyana-ish view but it simply is not practical. My goal is to simply keep voices raised so that the politicos hear us. So all together Arizona, "Hey you guys in D.C. , how about we enforce our immigration laws!??!'
Monday, February 8, 2010
Gay marriage.. I'm all for it.. wait.. no I'm not.. no.. yes ..
Yeah it's like that with me .. the whole gay marriage thing. I go back and forth on it.. Some days for the most part I am indifferent as to whether my gay brothers and sisters can tie the knot. I am not deeply affected either way. Part of me thinks it would serve yall right to get this "right" so yall can suffer like the rest of us.. All the joys of marriage... including divorce, child support, alimony "half!" But that's just mean-spirited. On other days there is that part of me that believes homosexuality is indeed an abomination before God and is to be condemned and not legitimized in any way shape or form. I guess my main opposition isn't so much to the gay folk, many of whom cannot help who and what they are and only want the same things in their relationships that us straight folk take for granted.
No my opposition is to the hypocrisy of the whole deal. I mean gay folk have spent decades fighting for the "right to be different" and to not have society treat them in a negative way because of it. For the gay movement now to turn around and demand this 'sameness' with respect to marriage kind of bothers me. You wanted to accepted as different, fine.. Now you want to be different but you want it called the same thing.. Not so fine. I am similarly annoyed with the mantra that when a vote goes a certain way that agrees with your agenda then "the people have spoken." Then when those same "people" vote a way you don't agree with then "the people are idiots and we have to sue for our rights" and find a sympathetic judge to overrule the will of the people. Pure hypocrisy. It is an unavoidable fact that in a Democracy some votes are going to go your way, and others are going to go the way of the opposition.
At last count every state that has put gay marriage to a vote except one or two has resulted in a resounding "NO" from "the people." That is not to say that the majority should be empowered to rain injustice down on the minority. I fully understand that sometimes, the majority is just plain wrong. But our system has shown a remarkable ability to allow for corrections of injustices. And maybe all these lawsuits are the way a wrong gets righted with regard to gays getting married. I do not presume to have the final word on this issue. But I do wonder that if millions of Americans have expressed at the polls that they do NOT want gay unions to be considered the same thing as heterosexual marriage, mainly because it isn't, then maybe the grandstanding politcians and activist judges might want to pay attention.. since it IS supposed to be "the people" they are supposed to be representing. My gut tells me that eventually most every state will have some form of legal gay marriage on the books. And as long as that is what the majority is comfortable with then I think I will be okay with it too. But if these laws are enacted over the objections of 75-80% of the voters, then I think we will need some new politicians, because the ones currently "serving" will have bowed to special interests while ignoring the base. Yes sometimes doing just that is the right thing to do. I'm just not so sure it applies in this case. I'm sure this topic is not going anywhere anytime soon.. So I expect to revisit it some time in the future.
No my opposition is to the hypocrisy of the whole deal. I mean gay folk have spent decades fighting for the "right to be different" and to not have society treat them in a negative way because of it. For the gay movement now to turn around and demand this 'sameness' with respect to marriage kind of bothers me. You wanted to accepted as different, fine.. Now you want to be different but you want it called the same thing.. Not so fine. I am similarly annoyed with the mantra that when a vote goes a certain way that agrees with your agenda then "the people have spoken." Then when those same "people" vote a way you don't agree with then "the people are idiots and we have to sue for our rights" and find a sympathetic judge to overrule the will of the people. Pure hypocrisy. It is an unavoidable fact that in a Democracy some votes are going to go your way, and others are going to go the way of the opposition.
At last count every state that has put gay marriage to a vote except one or two has resulted in a resounding "NO" from "the people." That is not to say that the majority should be empowered to rain injustice down on the minority. I fully understand that sometimes, the majority is just plain wrong. But our system has shown a remarkable ability to allow for corrections of injustices. And maybe all these lawsuits are the way a wrong gets righted with regard to gays getting married. I do not presume to have the final word on this issue. But I do wonder that if millions of Americans have expressed at the polls that they do NOT want gay unions to be considered the same thing as heterosexual marriage, mainly because it isn't, then maybe the grandstanding politcians and activist judges might want to pay attention.. since it IS supposed to be "the people" they are supposed to be representing. My gut tells me that eventually most every state will have some form of legal gay marriage on the books. And as long as that is what the majority is comfortable with then I think I will be okay with it too. But if these laws are enacted over the objections of 75-80% of the voters, then I think we will need some new politicians, because the ones currently "serving" will have bowed to special interests while ignoring the base. Yes sometimes doing just that is the right thing to do. I'm just not so sure it applies in this case. I'm sure this topic is not going anywhere anytime soon.. So I expect to revisit it some time in the future.
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Holiday Musings..
Like so many in this country, I work for a company that is implementing "mandatory vacation" over the holidays. Now I don't really do well with a lot of time on my hands but it does afford me a respite from a ridiculously busy time both at work and at home. It also affords time to interact with a lot more people.. out shopping.. around the neighborhood et al. Mostly I do a lot of people watching. Twice during the shopping ordeal I stood in line with people who set their bags down and then simply walked away without them when the line moved. And it wasn't like it was their turn next. The lines were long so they would move several feet away from their belongings, with the back to them and not even look back at them for minutes at a time. The obvious thought to me was that it would be very easy for some desperate soul to make off with this stuff. People need to try to keep their wits about them during the holidays. I reminded them of that fact as I called out to them to come back and get their things. During one shopping day, whilest standing in line I encountered a gentleman with what can only be described as "hideous ears." The things were huge.. at least 5 inches from top to bottom. They were not deformed or injury damaged or anything, they were just so enormous and so full of wrinkles and pits in the back that they simply looked horrid. I stared for a bit in horror at them and eventually had to turn away. Naturally this set me to thinking, "Does everyone have ugly ears from the back? DoI?" So for the next several days I found myself checking out people's ears. Yes I felt weird about it, but I couldn't help myself. What I discovered was that the guy with the hideous ears must be quite rare, as I could not find anyone with ears even close to being that ugly. Even the kids who use the big hoops to deform their ears on purpose didn't look that bad.
Earlier this night, we took our little girl to downtown San Jose to experience the "Christmas in the Park" exhibit, which is a beautiful collection of Christmas trees, animatronic displays and a little holiday festival. This festival is also another fertile ground for people watching. One thing that always gets my attention is when I see a family or a couple taking turns taking pictures with one person always being left out. I volunteered to get "one of the whole family" for a couple of families and both families seemed genuinely appreciative. It's such a simple act, just snapping a picture, but it means so much to the dad or mom with the camera, who is never in any of the pictures he or she takes. I should know, I probably have several thousand such pictures of my wife, my kids, my relatives, with me nowhere to be seen.. because I'm behind the camera. Some years back I bought a little portable tripod for just such occasions.. but it's not always practical to get everyone to stand aside from that perfect picture spot while you set up your impromptu studio.
Those little encounters inspired me to actually come back to my blog and write about it. Little random acts of kindness like taking a picture of a family at a tourist spot costs us nothing and can do so much for the recipients. I am bound to ask myself, why don't we do more of that kind of thing for one another? Our forefathers did.. even as recently as my childhood people were kinder to each other, neighbors were more neighborly, strangers on the street waved and smiled at each other. People struck up conversations in line at the grocery store and weren't even trying to sell anything. Where did that go? Strike up a conversation with a lady at the grocery store now and you're labeled as "hitting on her." Guys are a little easier, since everyone wears some article identifying their favorite teams so them you can at least talk to about how said team is doing. Sure it's idle chit-chat, but it passes the time, which you would otherwise spend staring blankly into space or trying to figure out who buys "the Star" or "the National Enquirer" and these other ridiculous rags on the shelves at the checkout. Conversation really is becoming a lost art. Everybody wants free wi-fi in their downtown areas so they can surf the web from a coffee shop.. interacting with people all over the world, while ignore those within 10 feet of them. What's wrong with this picture? When did we become so obsessed with escaping our lives that we expend so little energy interacting with those nearest to us. I love the possibilities the internet opens up for us. But, as with all good things, there has to be balance. I think part of that balance is NOT making it so easy for people to sink into some "online shell" and barely have to acknowledge other human beings sharing their same space. That's a New Year's resolution I would wish upon the whole world.. more kindness, more human interaction. Wonder if we can make it happen?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
