Yes, John McCain said it. And thanks to YouTube, he won't be able to take it back.
"The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
I think he mistook the economy's fundamentals for his last fart. Silent. Deadly.
When something crumbles as quickly and completely as the United States economy, its fundamentals are many smelly things. Strong is not one of them. Fundamentally strong economies withstand bad gas, bad decisions, bad weather and bad wars. They rebound with limited government intervention.
We are in the midst of a great depression, not because our economy is fundamentally strong, but because our economy, under the unwatchful eye of Pres. George W. Bush's administration, is fundamentally weak.
Call me unpatriotic, but I call it like I see it. And I will call the duck a duck when it quacks. Especially when the duck is as lame as a Republican economist, or worse, a Republican running for President.
Deregulation of our markets is contingent on corporate decisionmakers making purely economic decisions. The goals of pure economics is to increase overall societal welfare. In a deregulated economy, a corporation becomes a microcosm of a country and therefore must make decisions that increase overall "societal welfare" in their company.
We are currently engulfed in a derugulated economy where decision making benefits a privledged few. I agree with Senator McCain. Our corporate culture is filled with nepotism and individual greed. Deregulated economies are economies contingent upon the best decisionsmakers making the best decisions in the company's best interest. Nepotism usually eliminates the idea of the "best decisionmaker." Individual greed eliminates the idea of the "company's best interest." And thus we are left with Today's deregulated economy, which is as far away from the best as you can get!
Today, September 19, 2008, the American middle class is at a point of collapse. If it the collapse continues, the American social order will become more feudal in nature and more prone to internal violence and revolution. Social unrest always gives way to social upheaval.
The lower middle class in America live paycheck to paycheck. Advancement opportunities are dim. Budgets are tight. And there is no room for emergencies, because today's emergency is tomorrow's mortgage foreclosure.
And tomorrow's mortgage foreclosure was Thursday's Great Depression.
"Quack," said John McCain. "The fundamentals of our economy are strong."
Peeeee...uuuuuuuew!
19 September 2008
10 September 2008
Smile! You're on the Red Light Camera
I want to be clear. I support implementation of the red light camera. While they probably save fewer lives than they receive credit for from their admirers in local government, they do prevent many accidents and injuries.
However, the implementation of these cameras should put the burden of proof on the law enforcement agency. Procedural breakdowns should always favor the recipient of the ticket, especially in cases with little effect on traffic safety. Cases like mine.
My brush with the little digital nark happened last February on my way home from working the grave shift at Jerry's Deli. I take the same route almost every night. The calm left by the halt of traffic is refreshing at 3:00 AM. I don't pay as much attention to traffic at 3:00 AM on empty streets as I do at 3:00 PM during rush hour. Who would?
On this particular night, I was obviously not paying even less attention, and got my picture taken. I deserved a ticket because I ran a red light. And I've seen 2001 enough to know not to mess with HAL 2000. And so for two weeks I checked my mail nervously expecting a ticket. To my delight, they let me off. I stupidly reasoned that someone was paying attention and realized that this incident didn't exactly violate anyone's safety.
Boy was I wrong. You might imagine my surprise six months later a collection notice in excess of $600 (for no reason apparent on the notice). It took me more than a week to research the notice and track down the office and deputy responsible for my red light ticket. I discovered that my check had been sent to to the wrong street number: 4128 instead of 4728.
I finally got my ticket in the mail a day after my first traffic court date and six months after
my red light flub. At this point, my life was an apple to the orange that might life was six months prior when a $370 ticket was an annoyance. That $370 now is part of a past due car payment.
But that's my problem, not LA's and not that little camera's.
But even if I take the human element out of the equation it's at least not acceptable to receive notification that the ticket exists from a collection notice sent six months after the accident. But the perfectly named Officer Porsche assured me it happens all the time. He reFew. That lowered my total due from $600 to $370. But since my bank account lingered around $0 it hardly made a difference.
Turns out CA state law requires that a red light camera citation must be delivered within 15 days of the alleged violation date. Of course, the commissioner of traffic court who delivered her 30 minute opening remarks with the cynical bravado of Judge Judy dismissed my request to dismiss as "rigamarole." She said that these windows didn't apply to red light tickets. I didn't want to further anger Her Honor by asking exactly why the law exists since red light tickets are like the only tickets you can receive by mail. But who has time for rationale when there city cash flows are in question.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if someone would just review my case for 2 minutes. I'm not asking for them to do anything except their job. But ignorance is bliss, I guess, and their incentives program is likely not to give some smart ass kid a legally justified break. Besides I appear to have many advantages that the guy who just got out of prison in front of me does not. In short, its only $370, right?
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if my $370 were an investment into the most glaring failure of Los Angeles government and transportation authorities: the lack of a cohesive and effective public transportation system. Instead it will be wasted on some freeway or major roadway expansion project that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars and hinder traffic flow for years and that barely keeps up with traffic.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if knew that the officer I saw the other day briefly and irresponsibly turn on his siren to avoid a red light had a reason other than his hopefully newfound position of authority. If he had actually hit me, which he almost did, it would have been my fault. I did fail to yield, after all.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if the fire were avoidable.
However, the implementation of these cameras should put the burden of proof on the law enforcement agency. Procedural breakdowns should always favor the recipient of the ticket, especially in cases with little effect on traffic safety. Cases like mine.
My brush with the little digital nark happened last February on my way home from working the grave shift at Jerry's Deli. I take the same route almost every night. The calm left by the halt of traffic is refreshing at 3:00 AM. I don't pay as much attention to traffic at 3:00 AM on empty streets as I do at 3:00 PM during rush hour. Who would?
On this particular night, I was obviously not paying even less attention, and got my picture taken. I deserved a ticket because I ran a red light. And I've seen 2001 enough to know not to mess with HAL 2000. And so for two weeks I checked my mail nervously expecting a ticket. To my delight, they let me off. I stupidly reasoned that someone was paying attention and realized that this incident didn't exactly violate anyone's safety.
Boy was I wrong. You might imagine my surprise six months later a collection notice in excess of $600 (for no reason apparent on the notice). It took me more than a week to research the notice and track down the office and deputy responsible for my red light ticket. I discovered that my check had been sent to to the wrong street number: 4128 instead of 4728.
I finally got my ticket in the mail a day after my first traffic court date and six months after
my red light flub. At this point, my life was an apple to the orange that might life was six months prior when a $370 ticket was an annoyance. That $370 now is part of a past due car payment.
But that's my problem, not LA's and not that little camera's.
But even if I take the human element out of the equation it's at least not acceptable to receive notification that the ticket exists from a collection notice sent six months after the accident. But the perfectly named Officer Porsche assured me it happens all the time. He reFew. That lowered my total due from $600 to $370. But since my bank account lingered around $0 it hardly made a difference.
Turns out CA state law requires that a red light camera citation must be delivered within 15 days of the alleged violation date. Of course, the commissioner of traffic court who delivered her 30 minute opening remarks with the cynical bravado of Judge Judy dismissed my request to dismiss as "rigamarole." She said that these windows didn't apply to red light tickets. I didn't want to further anger Her Honor by asking exactly why the law exists since red light tickets are like the only tickets you can receive by mail. But who has time for rationale when there city cash flows are in question.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if someone would just review my case for 2 minutes. I'm not asking for them to do anything except their job. But ignorance is bliss, I guess, and their incentives program is likely not to give some smart ass kid a legally justified break. Besides I appear to have many advantages that the guy who just got out of prison in front of me does not. In short, its only $370, right?
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if my $370 were an investment into the most glaring failure of Los Angeles government and transportation authorities: the lack of a cohesive and effective public transportation system. Instead it will be wasted on some freeway or major roadway expansion project that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars and hinder traffic flow for years and that barely keeps up with traffic.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if knew that the officer I saw the other day briefly and irresponsibly turn on his siren to avoid a red light had a reason other than his hopefully newfound position of authority. If he had actually hit me, which he almost did, it would have been my fault. I did fail to yield, after all.
I might not feel so burnt by beaurocracy in LA if the fire were avoidable.
09 September 2008
2008 Summer Olympics Opinion: The Best is the Best
At the 1976 Montreal Olympics, Nadia Comenici created an iconic image in her dismount from the uneven bars. The judges called it perfect and gave her a ten. It was the first ten awarded in gymnastics at the Olympics in the modern era. She made history that night. She was 14 years old. Bela Karolyi was her coach.
How the rules have changed! Nadia Comenici would not have made history in 2008. It’s not because the judging system has changed and the perfect 10 is no longer the standard. Instead, Comenici would not have competed because of the minimum age requirement. If by some twist of fate or fancy paperwork doctoring she made it into the competition, an eccentric and outspoken American coach named Bela Karolyi would cry fowl and call the Romanians cheaters.
Without the perfect ten standard, Comenici’s iconography might have been simply great biography. But the new judging system does one thing adequately: it manages human error/favor. The age limit is another example of human error that needs changed. It’s arbitrary, discriminatory, and hinders greatness in gymnasts that peak young.
Gymnastics is fickle; it’s a revolving door for the new and old. The physical and mental demands of the sport make injury likely and peak sustenance difficult. It’s rare that fans can follow their favorite gymnasts, like Nadia Comenici and Shannon Miller, through multiple Olympics.
Age limiting might be well intended to reduce injury (physical and mental) among young female athletes. But at the end of the day, age limiting will not do anything to reform the problems it was created to reform.
If these problems exist, blame bad coaches. Bad coaches don’t realize the limits of their gymnasts. Bad coaches push their gymnasts too hard. Bad coaches skim over fundamentals. Bad coaches don’t teach proper technique. Bad coaches don’t teach their competitors how to deal with the pressures of competition. Bad coaches create bad athletes. Bad athletes injure themselves. Bad coaches should be accountable.
And young female athletes of any age should have the opportunity to excel. Whatever her age, He Kexin’s uneven bars routine exhibited a remarkable degree of difficulty executed with ease and near-perfection. To minimize her achievement is to minimize the achievements of Olympic gold medalists of all ages who realized the upper limits of their natural potential.
The American women made no excuses for their silver medal; it simply wasn’t their night and the Chinese were better. All-around gold medalist Nastasia Liukin wouldn’t criticize the ridiculous tiebreaker that awarded her already controversial Chinese rival He Kexin the gold medal on the uneven bars; the system had already been good to her. I guess when you’re a gymnast, accountability becomes habit. As usual, leave it to the children in the arena to act like adults.
Dustin Newcombe
August 22, 2008
How the rules have changed! Nadia Comenici would not have made history in 2008. It’s not because the judging system has changed and the perfect 10 is no longer the standard. Instead, Comenici would not have competed because of the minimum age requirement. If by some twist of fate or fancy paperwork doctoring she made it into the competition, an eccentric and outspoken American coach named Bela Karolyi would cry fowl and call the Romanians cheaters.
Without the perfect ten standard, Comenici’s iconography might have been simply great biography. But the new judging system does one thing adequately: it manages human error/favor. The age limit is another example of human error that needs changed. It’s arbitrary, discriminatory, and hinders greatness in gymnasts that peak young.
Gymnastics is fickle; it’s a revolving door for the new and old. The physical and mental demands of the sport make injury likely and peak sustenance difficult. It’s rare that fans can follow their favorite gymnasts, like Nadia Comenici and Shannon Miller, through multiple Olympics.
Age limiting might be well intended to reduce injury (physical and mental) among young female athletes. But at the end of the day, age limiting will not do anything to reform the problems it was created to reform.
If these problems exist, blame bad coaches. Bad coaches don’t realize the limits of their gymnasts. Bad coaches push their gymnasts too hard. Bad coaches skim over fundamentals. Bad coaches don’t teach proper technique. Bad coaches don’t teach their competitors how to deal with the pressures of competition. Bad coaches create bad athletes. Bad athletes injure themselves. Bad coaches should be accountable.
And young female athletes of any age should have the opportunity to excel. Whatever her age, He Kexin’s uneven bars routine exhibited a remarkable degree of difficulty executed with ease and near-perfection. To minimize her achievement is to minimize the achievements of Olympic gold medalists of all ages who realized the upper limits of their natural potential.
The American women made no excuses for their silver medal; it simply wasn’t their night and the Chinese were better. All-around gold medalist Nastasia Liukin wouldn’t criticize the ridiculous tiebreaker that awarded her already controversial Chinese rival He Kexin the gold medal on the uneven bars; the system had already been good to her. I guess when you’re a gymnast, accountability becomes habit. As usual, leave it to the children in the arena to act like adults.
Dustin Newcombe
August 22, 2008
08 September 2008
Call It What It Is: Big Government
They'll tell you its necessary and they're fighting for America. They're right it is necessary. But they're lying because they're fighting to save face. And they'll never certainly never call it what it is: Big Government.
If Democrats were in charge it wouldn't have gotten here. There would be no BIG housing crises that call for BIG government intervention. Because there would have been limited government leadership all along.
Democrats aren't calling for big government. They're calling for limited government leadership. Call it limited liability government, or LLG for short.
Limited liability governments are governments that tax so they can invest wisely to increase the welfare of its country.
Big Governments, like that created by the administration of President George W. Bush, wreck economies, start wars, take on divisive social agendas, and take over the two largest insurers of mortgages, among other things.
And surely even the most staunch Republican would agree that when you have two wars going down abroad the last thing you can afford to manage is the nations two largest insurers of mortgage lending. But that's just what the current administration has no choice but to do.
It's funny, the administration of George W. Bush got it all wrong. It took 7 1/2 years of lame duck governing before they went it to crisis mode with 6 months to go.
Lucky for W, that he had time to take a two week vacation from watching the Olympics (which must have been draining), because ol boy gotta lot of backpedalling to do to catch up with Barack!
If Democrats were in charge it wouldn't have gotten here. There would be no BIG housing crises that call for BIG government intervention. Because there would have been limited government leadership all along.
Democrats aren't calling for big government. They're calling for limited government leadership. Call it limited liability government, or LLG for short.
Limited liability governments are governments that tax so they can invest wisely to increase the welfare of its country.
Big Governments, like that created by the administration of President George W. Bush, wreck economies, start wars, take on divisive social agendas, and take over the two largest insurers of mortgages, among other things.
And surely even the most staunch Republican would agree that when you have two wars going down abroad the last thing you can afford to manage is the nations two largest insurers of mortgage lending. But that's just what the current administration has no choice but to do.
It's funny, the administration of George W. Bush got it all wrong. It took 7 1/2 years of lame duck governing before they went it to crisis mode with 6 months to go.
Lucky for W, that he had time to take a two week vacation from watching the Olympics (which must have been draining), because ol boy gotta lot of backpedalling to do to catch up with Barack!
05 September 2008
An Economic Justification for Universal Health Care
Higher taxes and lower quality health care are the generally-cited reasons against universal health care. These reasons are speculative at best and fraudulent at worst. That they are presented as fact does a disservice to all Americans. Many uninsured Americans do not get the health care they need. Many insured Americans do not get the health care they deserve. To make sure all Americans have access to the best health care they can afford, America needs to take a chance on universal health care.
It is necessary to make clear that the implementation of universal health care doesn’t necessitate the elimination of privatized health care. Privatized health care will exist as long as there is a market for privatized health care. Universal health care would coexist and act as a check and balance for privatized health care. Universal health care would ensure that Americans who can afford privatized health care receive top of the line health care because privatized health care should at least be better than universal health care.
The notion that universal health care means a tax hike for most working Americans is a falsehood spread by politicians on behalf of lobbyists for insurance and prescription drug agencies. There may or may not be an tax increase. But no matter how fiscally conservative a regime claims to be, the necessity of taxing remains and the question of how much to tax and how to spend those taxes becomes the issue. Effective governments execute policy effectively so that taxes are spent in ways that increase the overall welfare of a country. Taxes are an investment, and while we as Americans have little say in how much we are taxed, we can elect leaders who will make sound investment decisions and cut fatty spending. In fact, if fatty spending on things like campaign financing and advertising were cut and those budgets were shifted toward universal health care, citizens may avoid a tax hike altogether.
Universal health care is a sound investment decision. A healthy nation is a happy nation. A healthy nation is a smart nation. A healthy nation is a productive nation. A universal health care system gives health care workers a compelling incentive to cure patients the first time. A second round of treatments is a waste of time and additional work without a benefit. The current system of health care is predicated on ethics and insurance companies. The incentive for the doctors is backwards. It rewards doctors for prolonged treatment.
Even if there is a hike, the check and balance check and balance of universal health care may well be worth the extra taxes they pay levied the wealthiest Americans. The incentive for prolonged treatment might remain constant, but the check and balance of the universal system makes it necessary for your doctor to give you top-of-the-line treatment at a cost determined by the market instead of some combination of insurance and health care executives. After all, wealthy Americans won't pay more for expensive health care if that in the universal system is better.
We may never be able to assess the cost per person of a universal health care system versus the cost benefit to health care consumers in the private sector. But with proper execution, benefits like lowers costs and better service in the private sector should follow.
Other consumer benefits might result from the need to change the model for insurance companies and new incentives for drug companies.
To be clear, this is not a critique of the hardworking individuals in the health care profession who dedicate their lives to bettering others’ lives. Rather, this is to suggest that a universal health care system can serve all Americans better.
Dustin Newcombe
8/6/2008
It is necessary to make clear that the implementation of universal health care doesn’t necessitate the elimination of privatized health care. Privatized health care will exist as long as there is a market for privatized health care. Universal health care would coexist and act as a check and balance for privatized health care. Universal health care would ensure that Americans who can afford privatized health care receive top of the line health care because privatized health care should at least be better than universal health care.
The notion that universal health care means a tax hike for most working Americans is a falsehood spread by politicians on behalf of lobbyists for insurance and prescription drug agencies. There may or may not be an tax increase. But no matter how fiscally conservative a regime claims to be, the necessity of taxing remains and the question of how much to tax and how to spend those taxes becomes the issue. Effective governments execute policy effectively so that taxes are spent in ways that increase the overall welfare of a country. Taxes are an investment, and while we as Americans have little say in how much we are taxed, we can elect leaders who will make sound investment decisions and cut fatty spending. In fact, if fatty spending on things like campaign financing and advertising were cut and those budgets were shifted toward universal health care, citizens may avoid a tax hike altogether.
Universal health care is a sound investment decision. A healthy nation is a happy nation. A healthy nation is a smart nation. A healthy nation is a productive nation. A universal health care system gives health care workers a compelling incentive to cure patients the first time. A second round of treatments is a waste of time and additional work without a benefit. The current system of health care is predicated on ethics and insurance companies. The incentive for the doctors is backwards. It rewards doctors for prolonged treatment.
Even if there is a hike, the check and balance check and balance of universal health care may well be worth the extra taxes they pay levied the wealthiest Americans. The incentive for prolonged treatment might remain constant, but the check and balance of the universal system makes it necessary for your doctor to give you top-of-the-line treatment at a cost determined by the market instead of some combination of insurance and health care executives. After all, wealthy Americans won't pay more for expensive health care if that in the universal system is better.
We may never be able to assess the cost per person of a universal health care system versus the cost benefit to health care consumers in the private sector. But with proper execution, benefits like lowers costs and better service in the private sector should follow.
Other consumer benefits might result from the need to change the model for insurance companies and new incentives for drug companies.
To be clear, this is not a critique of the hardworking individuals in the health care profession who dedicate their lives to bettering others’ lives. Rather, this is to suggest that a universal health care system can serve all Americans better.
Dustin Newcombe
8/6/2008
Karl Rove's Bride of Young Frankenstein
A now for the speech that turned the republican tide...but for the better?
I have to say for all its nonsense, I liked this speech. Sure it was the political equivalent of an In Touch Weekly article. But I like In Touch Weekly. And maybe they'll leave Brittany alone, at least until November when Barack Obama wins the election.
There was a Romy-and-Michelle-guilty-pleasure quality to this speech. It was almost refreshing. I'm cringing, and I know you must be too. While I wouldn't vote for her, I would SO make her made-for-tv-move (or at least her E! True Hollywood Story). It's Missus Smith Goes to Washington spun with Bride of Young Frankenstien.
You can't write stuff this good. I can't write stuff this good. I don't think anybody can write stuff this good.
A PTA Soccer Mom turned small town mayor, turned state governer, turned vice presidential candidate. And on top of that, she has 5 kids including a newborn, a pregnent teen, and a 19 year old soon off to war. She has a husband she calls "my guy." She's a former beauty queen. She attended rifle training in Kuwait. Need I go on? Like SERIOUSLY who is this?
In all seriousity, I want the movie rights. Because the life of Sarah Palin is a part that Sandra Bullock was born to play! And when Sandra Bullock was born, somebody should have told her to stay away from 90% of the parts she's played!
But back to Palin: Was it just me, or was this a heartfelt, relatable, funny, and non-nonsense bit of political nonsense delivered with soccer mom gusto. On top of that, take away the glasses and the bangs and girl's a looka!
I'm scared. I'm scared that Sarah Palin may be Karl Rove's Bride of Young Frankenstein. And if there is any legitimacy at all to my claim, it could be the best stroke of misguided, misleading political genius this side of wishy washy.
Or maybe Sarah Palin is just that unremarkably remarkable, a homespun republican reformer tenacious enough to take the plunge even if the current is strong and the waters way over her head.
But I will admit it right here right now. I like this chick. Not to vote for. But maybe to hunt caribou with in Kuwait!
I have to say for all its nonsense, I liked this speech. Sure it was the political equivalent of an In Touch Weekly article. But I like In Touch Weekly. And maybe they'll leave Brittany alone, at least until November when Barack Obama wins the election.
There was a Romy-and-Michelle-guilty-pleasure quality to this speech. It was almost refreshing. I'm cringing, and I know you must be too. While I wouldn't vote for her, I would SO make her made-for-tv-move (or at least her E! True Hollywood Story). It's Missus Smith Goes to Washington spun with Bride of Young Frankenstien.
You can't write stuff this good. I can't write stuff this good. I don't think anybody can write stuff this good.
A PTA Soccer Mom turned small town mayor, turned state governer, turned vice presidential candidate. And on top of that, she has 5 kids including a newborn, a pregnent teen, and a 19 year old soon off to war. She has a husband she calls "my guy." She's a former beauty queen. She attended rifle training in Kuwait. Need I go on? Like SERIOUSLY who is this?
In all seriousity, I want the movie rights. Because the life of Sarah Palin is a part that Sandra Bullock was born to play! And when Sandra Bullock was born, somebody should have told her to stay away from 90% of the parts she's played!
But back to Palin: Was it just me, or was this a heartfelt, relatable, funny, and non-nonsense bit of political nonsense delivered with soccer mom gusto. On top of that, take away the glasses and the bangs and girl's a looka!
I'm scared. I'm scared that Sarah Palin may be Karl Rove's Bride of Young Frankenstein. And if there is any legitimacy at all to my claim, it could be the best stroke of misguided, misleading political genius this side of wishy washy.
Or maybe Sarah Palin is just that unremarkably remarkable, a homespun republican reformer tenacious enough to take the plunge even if the current is strong and the waters way over her head.
But I will admit it right here right now. I like this chick. Not to vote for. But maybe to hunt caribou with in Kuwait!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)