There was this little editorial blurb in the Arizona Republic today about poor David Petraeus. There are several things about this that annoy me. First, when you play politics you don't get to be immune from criticism. Petraeus' political support for the Bush policy in Iraq opens him to criticism. Bush's people put him out there because they want to score political points. I am sure General Petraeus is tough enough to survive and if he is not then he should find a different line of work.
Questioning the motives of his actions is within the bounds. The Republicans need to stop using the military to hide behind.
I don't remember any Republican outrage when Max Cleland and John Kerry's military service was very unfairly questioned. SO, please save the outrage and sermonizing for someone who cares... Does the phrase tempest in a teapot mean anything to you?
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Product safety, please regulate me...
You know it is bad when industry is asking for regulation. Here is an article about how many industries are suffering because of a lack of regulation. It is not altruistic of industry to demand regulation. It is a combination of trying to game the system, prevent worse regulation, avoid the liability of bad products and competitive pressure from imports that have little or no regulation.
It just goes to show that ensuring the safety of products is good for business. Sure it is a pain for companies at times and the government gets it wrong sometimes. The simple fact is that as people lose faith in the safety of the products they buy, they will buy less and scrutinize more. Part of the government's job, in my opinion, is to employ experts that know which ingredients and chemicals are dangerous and keep them out of our products. I like the idea of having a group of people that just think about the dangers of various products and help us avoid them. To me, that is a good use of tax dollars.
I have been talking about helmet laws a lot lately, here is the thing, I always wear a helmet, but I want to be able to trust that the helmet was manufactured properly. I cannot do it alone, it requires regulation.
It just goes to show that ensuring the safety of products is good for business. Sure it is a pain for companies at times and the government gets it wrong sometimes. The simple fact is that as people lose faith in the safety of the products they buy, they will buy less and scrutinize more. Part of the government's job, in my opinion, is to employ experts that know which ingredients and chemicals are dangerous and keep them out of our products. I like the idea of having a group of people that just think about the dangers of various products and help us avoid them. To me, that is a good use of tax dollars.
I have been talking about helmet laws a lot lately, here is the thing, I always wear a helmet, but I want to be able to trust that the helmet was manufactured properly. I cannot do it alone, it requires regulation.
We don't want you here (Unless you want to fight in Iraq)
This article from the Arizona Republic is fascinating. Most people do not know that you can serve in the military without being a citizen. The irony here is that the same people who seem to hate the immigrants coming here from Mexico are the same people who are supporting Bush's war and surge. I wonder how they will reconcile this one? Are they against citizenship for immigrants that took their place in Iraq and fought for the policy that they support?
Who I am kidding, of course they will not have a problem reconciling that, they still think Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Who I am kidding, of course they will not have a problem reconciling that, they still think Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.
Even legislators are not above the law this time
I wrote about the DUI arrest of state Rep. Trish Groe previously. This article from the Arizona Republic shows that the system does work (at least sometimes). In my last post on this topic, it looked as though she was going to get special treatment from the Republican prosecuting her. Luckily, they appointed another proscecutor who is seeking the penality outlined in the law... Good to see.
The DUI laws in AZ are tough and the legislators who passed them should be subject to them the same as everyone else.
The DUI laws in AZ are tough and the legislators who passed them should be subject to them the same as everyone else.
No helmet laws part 2
Here is an earlier post about the helmet law discussion. In the discussion details, I pointed out the problems with compelling helmets for motorcycle riders. In my experience the argument always turns to the societal cost of accident victims. My point was and is that exempting people from medical care is a slippery slope and other things would follow. Here is a letter from the Arizona Republic illustrating my point.
Cutting off health care because of a lifestyle choice is myopic, cruel, bad public policy, judgemental, holier than thou and just plain stupid. America listen up, quit trying to protect me from my own life choices. I don't want your help on this one. It will cost my insurance company if I get in an accident, but it is none of your business. I am annoyed by people that are obese. I am annoyed every time one my friends complains about their weight while carrying a half-gallon of soda in a giant cup from the local convenient store.
The difference here is that I don't think they should be required to sign a waver exempting them from medical care when they experience health problems. Anyone that suggests this path has clearly never had a relative or friend dying in the hospital. A little more compassion and understanding of your fellow citizens is a powerful thing.
Save your preaching for someone who doesn't think you are ignorant and short-sighted...
Cutting off health care because of a lifestyle choice is myopic, cruel, bad public policy, judgemental, holier than thou and just plain stupid. America listen up, quit trying to protect me from my own life choices. I don't want your help on this one. It will cost my insurance company if I get in an accident, but it is none of your business. I am annoyed by people that are obese. I am annoyed every time one my friends complains about their weight while carrying a half-gallon of soda in a giant cup from the local convenient store.
The difference here is that I don't think they should be required to sign a waver exempting them from medical care when they experience health problems. Anyone that suggests this path has clearly never had a relative or friend dying in the hospital. A little more compassion and understanding of your fellow citizens is a powerful thing.
Save your preaching for someone who doesn't think you are ignorant and short-sighted...
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Women's soccer, Woo Hoo
Yes, I know it is stereotypical for a liberal to like soccer, but I do. The womens US World Cup Soccer team has advanced to the quart finals. http://msn.foxsports.com/soccer/story/7239432
Monday, September 17, 2007
The stupidest law in Arizona strikes again
The East Valley Tribune clearly has an anti-tax slant and displays it here. Here is a quote:
They make it sound like the schools have a $300 a day drug habit. Perhaps the reason that overrides are needed is because of this:Despite increased state funding for education in recent years, school districts remain dependent on having budget overrides — and asking voters to pay for the costly habit.
Could it be that they need extra funding because we are in the bottom four in spending. I am sorry, but anytime Alabama beats you it is time to rethink your strategy.Expenditures per Student: The U.S. average per student expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools in 2003–04 fall enrollment was $8,248. States with the highest per student expenditures: New York ($12,325), Connecticut ($11,774), New Jersey ($11,390), Massachusetts ($10,772), and Vermont ($10,763). Utah ($5,091), Arizona ($5,347), Oklahoma ($5,976), Arkansas ($6,005), and Mississippi ($6,137) had the lowest per student expenditures (H-11). (From NEA 05 Educational Rankings report)
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Thomas Roach (the guy against bailing out mortgages) fires back...
Posted without comment:
Thomas Roach
to me
show details
Sep 14 (16 hours ago)
I love the title of your post, no really. It tells alot about you.
You just don't get it. A government bailout will make the situation worse. Yes, the FED is guilty. Why? Because they kept rates low for far too long. It caused housing prices to jump to enormous heights. It was mostly the rich who benefitted. A bailout sets such a bad precedent that the government is there to bail you out. Yes, there are people who got put into homes they should not have. many knew what they were doing and many did not. Instead of the government and tax payer taking on the burden, why doesn't Countrywide put them in a loan at 6%? Why? Oh, because it might cut into their profits? They made a ton of money the last few years and THEY CAN afford to help these people out.
So if you are saying that the FED created this environment, then how is lowering rates going to fix it? Since it was low rates that caused it? Have you seen dollar prices lately? It's at a 15 year low versus the Euro. Have you seen the price of gas or the cost of food? If you believe in helping people in need then you will understand that sacrificing the dollar to keep some people in homes they can't afford anyways is a bad idea. Yes, I feel bad that these people lost their homes and the companies who put them in those loans should try to help not the government. People need to take responsibility. Yes, many will lose their homes. It will be sad, but unfortunately that is a better solution than sacrificing us all.
Does that make sense?
I'm all ears Mr. Aptly named Adem Lament.
BTW, I don't have any kids but thanks for makig some assumptions! I also sold in 2005 when I saw some idiot was willing to pay 3x more for my place than I paid 4 years prior. I knew things were ridiculous then. When I mentioned to people that we were in a bubble they called me crazy and told me how savvy of an investor they were, how real estate is a cant lose investment, and how much money they were going to make. Many were my friends. They own many homes they are now upside down on. Do I think they should be bailed out? No, they need to learn a valuable lesson. The lesson is there is risk out there. All these people made homes unaffordable for many people. The same people you claim to be sticking up for, but I guess it is ok to sacrifice them all to try and save a few. A few that probably can't be saved anyways.
If they could barely afford 1% interest rates, then how can the government help? The only ones they help by shifting the loans to Freddie and Fannie is Wall Street since they can recover their money why you , the taxpayer, has to bail out Freddie and Fannie because they are GSEs or backed by the government. Such a bad bad precedent. When does it stop?
Thomas Roach
to me
show details
Sep 14 (16 hours ago)
I love the title of your post, no really. It tells alot about you.
You just don't get it. A government bailout will make the situation worse. Yes, the FED is guilty. Why? Because they kept rates low for far too long. It caused housing prices to jump to enormous heights. It was mostly the rich who benefitted. A bailout sets such a bad precedent that the government is there to bail you out. Yes, there are people who got put into homes they should not have. many knew what they were doing and many did not. Instead of the government and tax payer taking on the burden, why doesn't Countrywide put them in a loan at 6%? Why? Oh, because it might cut into their profits? They made a ton of money the last few years and THEY CAN afford to help these people out.
So if you are saying that the FED created this environment, then how is lowering rates going to fix it? Since it was low rates that caused it? Have you seen dollar prices lately? It's at a 15 year low versus the Euro. Have you seen the price of gas or the cost of food? If you believe in helping people in need then you will understand that sacrificing the dollar to keep some people in homes they can't afford anyways is a bad idea. Yes, I feel bad that these people lost their homes and the companies who put them in those loans should try to help not the government. People need to take responsibility. Yes, many will lose their homes. It will be sad, but unfortunately that is a better solution than sacrificing us all.
Does that make sense?
I'm all ears Mr. Aptly named Adem Lament.
BTW, I don't have any kids but thanks for makig some assumptions! I also sold in 2005 when I saw some idiot was willing to pay 3x more for my place than I paid 4 years prior. I knew things were ridiculous then. When I mentioned to people that we were in a bubble they called me crazy and told me how savvy of an investor they were, how real estate is a cant lose investment, and how much money they were going to make. Many were my friends. They own many homes they are now upside down on. Do I think they should be bailed out? No, they need to learn a valuable lesson. The lesson is there is risk out there. All these people made homes unaffordable for many people. The same people you claim to be sticking up for, but I guess it is ok to sacrifice them all to try and save a few. A few that probably can't be saved anyways.
If they could barely afford 1% interest rates, then how can the government help? The only ones they help by shifting the loans to Freddie and Fannie is Wall Street since they can recover their money why you , the taxpayer, has to bail out Freddie and Fannie because they are GSEs or backed by the government. Such a bad bad precedent. When does it stop?
Friday, September 14, 2007
Helmet Laws, I say no...
There was this editorial in the Arizona Republic about the supposed need of a helmet law for motorcycles in Arizona. Let me say just say as a preface to this that I ride motorcycles and I always wear protective gear, including a helmet. I have also been hit by a car while riding. Having said that, I don't think the state should step in and force people to wear helmets. Do people get hurt while riding? Yes. Is it dumb when people ride without helmets? Without question.
Here is the problem I see, freedom to live a certain way is not always going to be cost neutral. Freedom, for lack of a better way to put it, is not free. I think there is a very slippery slope around the idea that if behavior costs society money, it should be prohibited. What will be next? There are many perfectly enjoyable activities that are not good for us. Furthermore, if forced to wear helmets many riders will choose a brain bucket that is essentially the same as wearing nothing.
The dividing line for me is if you are not endangering the health or life of another person then I am not sure society should intervene. I should have the right to decide my own level of risk.
Here is the problem I see, freedom to live a certain way is not always going to be cost neutral. Freedom, for lack of a better way to put it, is not free. I think there is a very slippery slope around the idea that if behavior costs society money, it should be prohibited. What will be next? There are many perfectly enjoyable activities that are not good for us. Furthermore, if forced to wear helmets many riders will choose a brain bucket that is essentially the same as wearing nothing.
The dividing line for me is if you are not endangering the health or life of another person then I am not sure society should intervene. I should have the right to decide my own level of risk.
Thursday, September 13, 2007
I hate people like this...
This article from the Arizona Republic discusses the proposed bailout in the mortgage crisis that is afoot. Mainly, it talks about aptly named Thomas Roach, who opposes any government help for the people affected.
If the government was proposing paying off debt or doing a huge bailout of the finance industry, I think I would agree with him, but the proposal is modest. It basically gives people a path to refinance at a better rate. I guess I don't understand the problem. Mr. Roach is the kind of guy that opposes everything until it directly affects him and then changes his tune (Like if he bought a house with an ARM). You know the type, hates government subsides for the poor or health care, etc, but when you point out that taxe payers are subsidising his mortgage through the interest deduction or his child through the child-tax-credit then things are different.
At the end of the day, this is a real crisis that has the potential to negatively affect the overall economy. We should let the market correct itself, but a soft landing is preferable to a hard one.
If the government was proposing paying off debt or doing a huge bailout of the finance industry, I think I would agree with him, but the proposal is modest. It basically gives people a path to refinance at a better rate. I guess I don't understand the problem. Mr. Roach is the kind of guy that opposes everything until it directly affects him and then changes his tune (Like if he bought a house with an ARM). You know the type, hates government subsides for the poor or health care, etc, but when you point out that taxe payers are subsidising his mortgage through the interest deduction or his child through the child-tax-credit then things are different.
At the end of the day, this is a real crisis that has the potential to negatively affect the overall economy. We should let the market correct itself, but a soft landing is preferable to a hard one.
Russell Pierce's Worst Nightmare
This article from the Arizona Republic addresses the large number of Latinos that are applying for citizenship. It just goes to show that if you oppress and demonize people they will reach a point where they begin to aggressively act in the own self-interest.
BTW -- Mesa's Latino population has exploded. They want you Russell. Maybe this helps to explain his run for Congress.
BTW -- Mesa's Latino population has exploded. They want you Russell. Maybe this helps to explain his run for Congress.
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Endorsements does anyone really care?
I was reading this blog entry from Rum, Romanism and Rebellion about how all the local muckity mucks are lining up in the presidential race. It got me to thinking about endorsements in general and how little they actually mean. I don't even care which candidate Ken Cheveraunt likes and he is my state senator.
I have tremendous respect for Raul Grijalva, but it does not make me more likely to vote for John Edwards. As far as I can tell, only two endorsement have the potential to produce votes in Arizona, Janet Napolitano or Raul Grijalva.
They are the only two Democrats in the state with the political talent and operations necessary to produce votes. It is not enough for either of them to put their names on letterhead. They would have to lend staff, supporters, lists and expertise. Beyond that, I cannot think how endorsements mean anything.
I have tremendous respect for Raul Grijalva, but it does not make me more likely to vote for John Edwards. As far as I can tell, only two endorsement have the potential to produce votes in Arizona, Janet Napolitano or Raul Grijalva.
They are the only two Democrats in the state with the political talent and operations necessary to produce votes. It is not enough for either of them to put their names on letterhead. They would have to lend staff, supporters, lists and expertise. Beyond that, I cannot think how endorsements mean anything.
District 7 will be interesting
The Phoenix District 7 runoff will be interesting. Here are the results:
Just a few fact: It was the lowest turnout race by % turnout. It was the lowest number of votes for a contested district. District 5 was the only race with fewer voters and it was uncontested.
Ruth Ann Marston and Art Harding received a significant number of votes. They are both out of the runoff, so where will the 27%+ of the vote go. If voters are viewing Pastor as a de facto incumbent then Nowakowski will likely benefit, but that is far from certain. Did Pastor come out on top because of a superior organization or because of name recognition? Pastor had a lot more money than Nowakowski, so his performance was pretty good, but will he have the resources needed for the runoff? I feel certain that Pastor will have the money she needs. We will see...
Just a few fact: It was the lowest turnout race by % turnout. It was the lowest number of votes for a contested district. District 5 was the only race with fewer voters and it was uncontested.
Ruth Ann Marston and Art Harding received a significant number of votes. They are both out of the runoff, so where will the 27%+ of the vote go. If voters are viewing Pastor as a de facto incumbent then Nowakowski will likely benefit, but that is far from certain. Did Pastor come out on top because of a superior organization or because of name recognition? Pastor had a lot more money than Nowakowski, so his performance was pretty good, but will he have the resources needed for the runoff? I feel certain that Pastor will have the money she needs. We will see...
Phoenix City Election Roundup
Here is the Phoenix city election in brief: Mayor wins big, runoff in district 3 (BAIER/Altmann), runoff in district 7 (Pastor/Nowakowski), Public safety tax wins big, Increasing Mayor and Council salaries is narrowly defeated, Home Rule wins big (in your face Robert Robb) and all three charter amendment pass (mostly related to collecting signatures and elections).
Congratulations to the Mayor and other winners. To Baier/Altmann and Pastor/Nowakowski, good luck (if you thought no one cared before wait until the runoff). To the losers, public office is a headache, you didn't really want the hassle anyway.
Congratulations to the Mayor and other winners. To Baier/Altmann and Pastor/Nowakowski, good luck (if you thought no one cared before wait until the runoff). To the losers, public office is a headache, you didn't really want the hassle anyway.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Welcome to Grover Norquist’s wet dream
Sure this article about Mexican tax reform from the Arizona Republic is an interesting topic, but I just kept thinking about how much our anti-tax people would prefer the Mexican system. Corporations pay almost no taxes. Individuals pay almost no taxes. There are large cartels owned by a small group of people that control much of the country’s capital.
It is interesting that this point is not made more often, but the market utopia put forth by the anti-tax crowd is decidedly third world. It is the de facto system for most third world nations. The thing to remember is their market utopia is not really ‘market’ oriented, so much as a power grab for their friends. They don’t want lots of competition… When their friends, supporters and cronies are winning they say it is competition, but when they cannot compete they want help from the government through no bid contracts or government give aways.
They want to gather power, not create a more competitive economy. They want to suck on the public teat when it suits them and then rail against the use of public money when it decreases their power or advantage in other areas. They do not care about our country. They do not want to ready our society for the realities of global economics. They don’t want to see us stronger. They have only one purpose, increasing their own power, everyone else be damned.
It is interesting that this point is not made more often, but the market utopia put forth by the anti-tax crowd is decidedly third world. It is the de facto system for most third world nations. The thing to remember is their market utopia is not really ‘market’ oriented, so much as a power grab for their friends. They don’t want lots of competition… When their friends, supporters and cronies are winning they say it is competition, but when they cannot compete they want help from the government through no bid contracts or government give aways.
They want to gather power, not create a more competitive economy. They want to suck on the public teat when it suits them and then rail against the use of public money when it decreases their power or advantage in other areas. They do not care about our country. They do not want to ready our society for the realities of global economics. They don’t want to see us stronger. They have only one purpose, increasing their own power, everyone else be damned.
Where is the controversy? Whitewashing history...
This article is the latest statement about the 9/11 memorial in Arizona. It is amazing to me why the Republicans in Arizona oppose a balanced view of history. Most of what is on the memorial is non-controversial as far as I can tell, but it does not comport to the whitewashed view of Republican history. The memorial rightly points out some of the mistakes made by the Republican administration. It also highlights some of the violent responses to the attacks on Muslims in the US (and in the case of Phoenix attacks on Sikhs. Psssttt -- hey drunk racist rednecks Sikhs are not Muslims.)
At the end of the day, it is time for Democrats to stop playing nice and start hitting back hard on these issues. We can longer sit around and be polite as Republicans try to eviscerate our Constitutional rights and control history.
While this issue may not address a Constitutional right per se, it is certainly related to the idea that we protect the right of everyone to speak their mind and have their own ideas. Leaving only pro-war ideas and phrases on the monument (or rolling over and letting it happen) leaves the impression that the opposing ideas are offensive and wrong. While people on the right may believe that, they are wrong. The view points expressed on the monument are balanced and represent the mainstream diversity of opinion that exists in our state.
IF no one else will say it, let me be the first. Everyone that wants to change the monument and remove phrases that they personally find offensive (whether Liberal, Conservative or something else) is profoundly unamerican. Our country through its history has inhabited two contradictory realms. The first is hopeful, trusting in individual freedom, typified by the writers of the Constitution/the Bill of Rights, by the radical idea that "All men are created equal" and the idea that protecting minorities (both of opinion and other designations) and individual from tyranny is of the utmost importance. At least some of our founding fathers saw that freedom had a cost that was worth paying. This means that tolerating the ideas and actions of others can be uncomfortable, annoying, make you angry or sad, but they are worth protecting because none of us have the wisdom to regulate the ideas and writings of others.
The other historical path of our nation has been one of slavery, oppression and the high price paid for those that are different in thought or action. I don't write this as a condemnation as much as a cautionary tale. We are not immune to bad decision making, wrong thinking or sheer bullying. Protecting freedom is not easy, it requires vigilance.
To me the fight over the monument boils down to this, are we a nation that embraces each other, even our differences and finds more commonality than difference or are we now a nation constantly wedded to inane conflict and meaningless differentiation?
I believe that more freedom is better and more diversity of ideas is better. I don't fear the ideas of others even when they offend me.
At the end of the day, it is time for Democrats to stop playing nice and start hitting back hard on these issues. We can longer sit around and be polite as Republicans try to eviscerate our Constitutional rights and control history.
While this issue may not address a Constitutional right per se, it is certainly related to the idea that we protect the right of everyone to speak their mind and have their own ideas. Leaving only pro-war ideas and phrases on the monument (or rolling over and letting it happen) leaves the impression that the opposing ideas are offensive and wrong. While people on the right may believe that, they are wrong. The view points expressed on the monument are balanced and represent the mainstream diversity of opinion that exists in our state.
IF no one else will say it, let me be the first. Everyone that wants to change the monument and remove phrases that they personally find offensive (whether Liberal, Conservative or something else) is profoundly unamerican. Our country through its history has inhabited two contradictory realms. The first is hopeful, trusting in individual freedom, typified by the writers of the Constitution/the Bill of Rights, by the radical idea that "All men are created equal" and the idea that protecting minorities (both of opinion and other designations) and individual from tyranny is of the utmost importance. At least some of our founding fathers saw that freedom had a cost that was worth paying. This means that tolerating the ideas and actions of others can be uncomfortable, annoying, make you angry or sad, but they are worth protecting because none of us have the wisdom to regulate the ideas and writings of others.
The other historical path of our nation has been one of slavery, oppression and the high price paid for those that are different in thought or action. I don't write this as a condemnation as much as a cautionary tale. We are not immune to bad decision making, wrong thinking or sheer bullying. Protecting freedom is not easy, it requires vigilance.
To me the fight over the monument boils down to this, are we a nation that embraces each other, even our differences and finds more commonality than difference or are we now a nation constantly wedded to inane conflict and meaningless differentiation?
I believe that more freedom is better and more diversity of ideas is better. I don't fear the ideas of others even when they offend me.
Is there anything more annoying than politicians feigning outrage?
I am SHOCKED, SHOCKED, that various Republican Congressmen and Senators from Arizona are shocked about Moveon telling the truth about Petraeus' surge. The Phoenix Business Journal had this article. I think it is funny that they site McCarthyism... Uh, he was a Republican guys and please explain how it is similar... I cannot figure it out.
To me, McCarthyism would consist things like comparing a war hero like Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because he mildly questioned your judgement. Oh, wait that was a Republican too. I am really confused.
To me, McCarthyism would consist things like comparing a war hero like Max Cleland to Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein because he mildly questioned your judgement. Oh, wait that was a Republican too. I am really confused.
District 7, who will win?
I am open to feedback on the likely outcome of the Phoenix City Council District 7 race. Does anyone have any ideas about how things look? I am going to beat the bushes and see if I can find out something, but if anyone out there knows anything shoot me and email...
Are we headed to a runoff?
Are we headed to a runoff?
Get out and Vote Phoenicians!
Time to get out there and vote my fellow Phoenicians... I voted two weeks ago, but I am all about easy.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Interestingly Stupid
This article from the Arizona Republic contains an interesting study, but their analysis (it is actually a Chicago Tribune article) is a little stupid. While I would like to believe that liberals are generally more open minded than conservatives, I am not so sure that it always true. I have had dealings with actvists that would blow peoples minds. Now, I am not saying that the study isn't true in some aspects, but anyone who has worked in politics knows that the lunatic fringe on both extremes is a little ridged and to me seems pretty much the same. The simple fact is that individual behaviour is more important than group tendencies.
As usual, the author does not give any real information about the study, except that 43 students took part. 43 is not even a small sample, it is less than nothing. At any rate, I find these discussions of Liberal and Conservative a little tired and not very useful. While we will continue to use it as short hand because it is easy, the simple fact is that most of us have more incommon than not...
As usual, the author does not give any real information about the study, except that 43 students took part. 43 is not even a small sample, it is less than nothing. At any rate, I find these discussions of Liberal and Conservative a little tired and not very useful. While we will continue to use it as short hand because it is easy, the simple fact is that most of us have more incommon than not...
Friday, September 07, 2007
I am Supporting Obama
After a long period of soul searching and examining each candidate. I am officially endorsing Obama for President. I know, I know you have been waiting with baited breath and the Obama Campaign has been on pins and needles ;). I still like almost all of the other candidates (sorry Kuchinich you still stink). I would be willing to vote for any of them if they got the nomination, but I think Obama would make the best president at this time.
The one question I have been asked by friends is whether Obama has the necessary experience after one uncompleted senate term? I came to two conclusions on that front. First, the only candidates with real foreign policy experience (on both side of the race) are Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. While they are both good candidates, I just do not think Richardson is ready for prime time and I just do not care for Biden. As far as Hillary's experience (don't even get me started on Guiliani's "experience"), I would say that being First Lady does not count as experience towards the presidency nor does your husband's presidency. While she is clearly very smart and capable, I think that she is too divisive. I also do not think it is healthy for us as a nation to alternate the presidency between two families for what could be 28 years. Having said that, I think Hilary has taken preparation for the presidency seriously and while I disagree with her on some issues, I think she would make a good president.
The real choice for me was between John Edwards and Obama in the end. I am honestly still a little uneasy about not choosing Edwards. I think he is pushing a great progressive agenda and would make a great president.
The second part of the question of why I chose Obama is because in spite of the hype, I think he inspires people in a way that a presidential candidate has not in a while. While inspiration is likely to fade with any candidate, it would be nice to have a period of national unity no matter how short lived. Of course, inspiration is not enough. I think Obama is clearly smart, capable and seems to be detached from the group think that can dominate DC. I think he has the potential to clean up some of the mess left by George Bush and perhaps put our country back on track. Most of all I trust his judgement...
The one question I have been asked by friends is whether Obama has the necessary experience after one uncompleted senate term? I came to two conclusions on that front. First, the only candidates with real foreign policy experience (on both side of the race) are Bill Richardson and Joe Biden. While they are both good candidates, I just do not think Richardson is ready for prime time and I just do not care for Biden. As far as Hillary's experience (don't even get me started on Guiliani's "experience"), I would say that being First Lady does not count as experience towards the presidency nor does your husband's presidency. While she is clearly very smart and capable, I think that she is too divisive. I also do not think it is healthy for us as a nation to alternate the presidency between two families for what could be 28 years. Having said that, I think Hilary has taken preparation for the presidency seriously and while I disagree with her on some issues, I think she would make a good president.
The real choice for me was between John Edwards and Obama in the end. I am honestly still a little uneasy about not choosing Edwards. I think he is pushing a great progressive agenda and would make a great president.
The second part of the question of why I chose Obama is because in spite of the hype, I think he inspires people in a way that a presidential candidate has not in a while. While inspiration is likely to fade with any candidate, it would be nice to have a period of national unity no matter how short lived. Of course, inspiration is not enough. I think Obama is clearly smart, capable and seems to be detached from the group think that can dominate DC. I think he has the potential to clean up some of the mess left by George Bush and perhaps put our country back on track. Most of all I trust his judgement...
Oprah and Obama
This article about Oprah's support for Obamais interesting. The real question is what affect will Oprah have on the race. It should certainly help with women. My wife for one is reconsidering Obama because of the endorsement (Its weird, I know).
At any rate, this is one celebrity endorsement that could have some impact, well unless of course, it doesn't..
At any rate, this is one celebrity endorsement that could have some impact, well unless of course, it doesn't..
Nothing New in District 7 (Except this article)
I pride myself on being a good predictor of political races, but I have to say that I have no idea who will win in Phoenix district 7. In the end, I think the candidate that wins will have the best field operation and I don't know enough about either candidate to know their strengths. I would not assume that the Firefighters (supporting Nowakowski) or Ed Pastor (Laura Pastors dad) will guarantee a good ground game for either campaign. The Firefighters support if fully committed to a candidate can be significant, but sometimes an endorsement is just an endorsement. I am not sure that Ed Pastor's people have had a tough race in a while and maybe rusty...
The winner will likely come in the early vote and that is where the Mayor's support could help Pastor (although, once again depending on the level of commitment). The Mayor's people understand the importance of the early vote and from what I hear have a good turnout program. It will be interesting.
The winner will likely come in the early vote and that is where the Mayor's support could help Pastor (although, once again depending on the level of commitment). The Mayor's people understand the importance of the early vote and from what I hear have a good turnout program. It will be interesting.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
NCLB and AIMS are the Wrong Way to Educate
Here is an article from the Arizona Republic about the schools failing under AIMS and the No Child Left Behind law. I think there are lots of problems with this model of education. First, I don't think teaching students how to take a test is necessarily learning. Second, it minimizes music and arts programs. I know it is hard to believe, but not everyone wants to be an engineer. One size fits all education is a bad idea... I think students need outlets for their specific talents and the different facets of their personalities.
It is a good idea to test for basic skills, but I am not sure that only basic skills should determine whether a school is on the right or wrong track. I know people do not like to hear it, but good education is probably 1/3 science and 2/3 art. As much as I would like to see the world of education completely quantified, I know it is not possible. Some of my most valuable educational experiences had nothing to do with preparing for high stakes tests. They included things like hanging out with my gifted teacher and discussing philosophy or literature (but without a real curriculum). In that class, we studied diplomacy, world affairs, Shakespeare, opera, law, the US Constitution, logic and complex mathematics, none of which are on those tests. The class went wherever our curiosity led us. Many of the things I learned, I use daily and have significantly enriched my life.
Our goal should be to educate our citizens, not just teach them a test.
It is a good idea to test for basic skills, but I am not sure that only basic skills should determine whether a school is on the right or wrong track. I know people do not like to hear it, but good education is probably 1/3 science and 2/3 art. As much as I would like to see the world of education completely quantified, I know it is not possible. Some of my most valuable educational experiences had nothing to do with preparing for high stakes tests. They included things like hanging out with my gifted teacher and discussing philosophy or literature (but without a real curriculum). In that class, we studied diplomacy, world affairs, Shakespeare, opera, law, the US Constitution, logic and complex mathematics, none of which are on those tests. The class went wherever our curiosity led us. Many of the things I learned, I use daily and have significantly enriched my life.
Our goal should be to educate our citizens, not just teach them a test.
Tuesday, September 04, 2007
The Zero Emissions Cars that are Illegal?
I found this article yesterday tucked in the car area at MSN. There are two things about this that bug me... First, you cannot buy one of these cars because it is illegal unless you live in a few select states. This just seems typical for the Bush Administration. The fact that I cannot buy a low pollution car in a place like Phoenix where we can see our air is beyond ridiculous.
Second, the writer of this article does not think that people would be willing to kick in an extra $100 for a zero emissions vehicle. If they can market undercoating that does nothing, surely car dealers can figure out how to market a zero emissions option that costs $100.
Second, the writer of this article does not think that people would be willing to kick in an extra $100 for a zero emissions vehicle. If they can market undercoating that does nothing, surely car dealers can figure out how to market a zero emissions option that costs $100.
Jan Brewer as Governor? Scary
You all know Jan Brewer she is our 'special' Secretary of State who has been insisting that she is Governor of Arizona every time that Janet leaves the state. Does the idea of Jan Brewer as Governor (even if it is for a day) scare everyone as much as it scares me?
This is the same women who gave $14,000 and $22,000 to her political consulting firm, not to mention money to family members after the election in 2002. What is the problem with that? She received a matching fund check late in the campaign, too late to spend it. Instead of returning the money to Clean Elections, she paid her consultant and family the public money. Now why is that it was never investigated? This is not related to the first story, but i like to remind people of this whenever possible.
This is the same women who gave $14,000 and $22,000 to her political consulting firm, not to mention money to family members after the election in 2002. What is the problem with that? She received a matching fund check late in the campaign, too late to spend it. Instead of returning the money to Clean Elections, she paid her consultant and family the public money. Now why is that it was never investigated? This is not related to the first story, but i like to remind people of this whenever possible.
The Mayor Might Want to Run for Higher Office, Duh...
The fact that the Arizona Republic can write this article as though it were news is funny. Yes, we know the Mayor has higher aspirations... Good reporting guys, way to dig the big news.
This is why the Grover Norquist People are Wrong
I get it, you hate government. You're an anti-government type, who hates all taxes and everything the government does is wrong, blah blah blah. Here is the problem, the government serves a useful function in society. Much of our prosperity is attributable to good government policy. Sure the private sector is important, but it is easier for bad policy to kill the private sector than the other way around. This means that government does things it should do like educating people, building infrastructure, regulating industries so the people don't have to...
The problem is that there is a constant under current of wanting to destroy the government through killing its funding. Here is why I think that is a bad idea... It is not a bad thing for the government to be lean, but it is bad when the government does not have enough revenue for stable operation. Arizona should work to ensure consistant funding, so the state can grow...
The problem is that there is a constant under current of wanting to destroy the government through killing its funding. Here is why I think that is a bad idea... It is not a bad thing for the government to be lean, but it is bad when the government does not have enough revenue for stable operation. Arizona should work to ensure consistant funding, so the state can grow...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
