During the current recess for Congress (bearing an uncanny resemblance to recess for grade-schoolers), half of our Senatorial allotment is actually out among the public, actively soliciting input from the folks that voted him into office.
The other half -- HMFIC of the Finance Committee, Max Baucus -- has yet to turn up at any similar kind of venue. After all the sturm und drang of the healthcare reform process, a body might think he'd have some interest in knowing what his constituents have to say -- but it's tough to tell, since we haven't heard anything from or about him.
Thus, my question above...
Showing posts with label polyticks. Show all posts
Showing posts with label polyticks. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
I think America is screwed.
Since even before the Presidential elections, I've been thinking off and on about politicians, the political system, the parties, voters and non-voters, and a bunch of other related stuff.
I'm still trying to get it all neatly organized and arranged in my mind, but thought I'd take this opportunity to toss out a few of the things that seem most pertinent to me.
What happens, then?
The way I figure it, most likely to happen is that the country will just collapse. There will be more and more people demanding (and getting) benefits from fewer and fewer people able and willing to provide them; the government will step in to make up the difference. Except that sooner or later, somebody (most likely a foreign government [*cough*china*cough*] that has bought our T-Bills or other "stock") is going to decide that it's time to get paid what they're owed - and when they don't get it (because the government doesn't have it), the whole bread-and-circuses deal will fall apart - with much anguish, furor, and unseemliness when our economy and political institutions come to a literal halt.
There is a chance that some group(s) of people will decide that enough is enough and attempt some dramatic change in how government operates - and it might even be big and soon enough to have the desired impact. Otherwise, it's only going to be a relatively minor event that won't appreciably change things.
I just hope it doesn't happen until after I'm dead and buried - it's bad enough just watching this much of it happen.
I'm still trying to get it all neatly organized and arranged in my mind, but thought I'd take this opportunity to toss out a few of the things that seem most pertinent to me.
- We don't seem to have a whole lot of political involvement by the teeming masses of citizens. The ones most likely to consistently vote are those of advanced years, with a significant drop in percentage of active voters as one goes down the age scale. The way I see it, this is perfectly reasonable: older citizens are still of the mind that their votes actually count for something, because they were raised to believe in the government (they're the ones that the old "We're from the government, and we're here to help" was effective on). However, as the years have passed since those folks were young, the American public has been treated to innumerable reports of government ineptitude, incompetence, malfeasance, outright chicanery of different kinds, and generally been given plenty of reason to be suspicious and mistrustful of our elected officials. Amusingly, it's a Catch-22: people don't vote because nothing changes, and nothing changes because people don't vote.
- Another reason that things don't change is because too many people have gotten too damn lazy to maintain the kind of on-going pressure needed to effect change. This year's Teabaggers? See how many of them are still around after this coming November. Or February next year.
- Related to the above is the fact that we have what amounts to a professional politician class. Does anybody really believe that some putz that has spent the last 20+ years in Congress has any concept of what it's like for an ordinary citizen? Particularly when those politicians grant themselves perquisites that distance them even more from real Americans? It's funny that damn near every poll on the subject comes back with the result that most folks think all the rascals in Congress need to be voted out of office - except for their own, of course. Um... people? Everybody in the other 49 states feels the same way about YOUR Concresscritters, too. If we really believed in "majority rule", then in every state, it's 49-to-1 that your Congressrodents need to go... so how about it, huh?
- There's also a growing sense of entitlement among the American people. Part of this is from our professional politicians enacting giveaways in an effort to stay in office, but it's also the fault of those that are all too willing to make demands of the government instead of taking responsibility for themselves and their actions. And as long as they CAN get their demands met, they'll keep at it; unfortunately, there's a hell of a lot more people (mostly younger ones) that are willing to claim what they haven't earned than there are ones willing to tell them "no".
- Our election process is seriously skewed due (in part) to the insistence on continuing to use the Electoral College system, where a few states with high E.C. vote counts can essentially take control of how an election turns out. Sure, the E.C. made great sense when the fastest and most efficient means of communicating and tallying election results for a large area was a hand-written page carried by someone riding a good horse; these days, we've got the means and methods to make truly representative and popular vote possible. How about if we drag our voting system into the technology age?
- Something else that screws up the election process is those incompetent jackasses that are referred to as "single-issue voters": the ones that vote a candidate or party for just ONE reason, instead of taking the time and making the effort to consider a broader range of matters and integrating them as a WHOLE. Screw the budget, screw the deficit, screw too much government involvement in our lives, screw too-high taxes, screw anything except the one, single thing that matters to a particular voter the most. Look, if someone is going to vote just to make themselves heard on one issue in particular? Do the country a favor and chain them to something immovable. Preferably heavy, and in the middle of a deep body of water.
- The political process is being seriously fucked up by the limitation of having just two political parties - every single issue boils down to "us" or "them", which is steadily polarizing them more and more. I genuinely believe that the country needs at least one or two additional political entities so as to allow a more diverse and nuanced response to various issues. Speaking for myself, for example, I'm neither Republican nor Democrat, but bits of both: I'm socially liberal (Gay marriage? Knock yourselves out. Abortion? Sorry, I don't have a dog in that fight; but I'm in favor of leaving it up to those that CAN get pregnant to decide for themselves), but fiscally and politically conservative (Government should be as small as we can possibly manage, kept on a DAMN short leash, and made to pay as it goes along - NO DEFICITS!).
What happens, then?
The way I figure it, most likely to happen is that the country will just collapse. There will be more and more people demanding (and getting) benefits from fewer and fewer people able and willing to provide them; the government will step in to make up the difference. Except that sooner or later, somebody (most likely a foreign government [*cough*china*cough*] that has bought our T-Bills or other "stock") is going to decide that it's time to get paid what they're owed - and when they don't get it (because the government doesn't have it), the whole bread-and-circuses deal will fall apart - with much anguish, furor, and unseemliness when our economy and political institutions come to a literal halt.
There is a chance that some group(s) of people will decide that enough is enough and attempt some dramatic change in how government operates - and it might even be big and soon enough to have the desired impact. Otherwise, it's only going to be a relatively minor event that won't appreciably change things.
I just hope it doesn't happen until after I'm dead and buried - it's bad enough just watching this much of it happen.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Pushing too hard
Once again, the Chinese (People's Republic of China, the commies) have pushed things too hard.
It seems that they've been caught hacking into Google (which helpfully blocks search results the little commie bastards don't want their citizens to see). In response, Google has finally announced to World + Dog what the PRC has been up to -- and then gone so far as to say that they're damn well ready to pull out of China completely because they're tired of all the crap.
If you're interested in some reading material, you might be interested in this report on Chinese "infowar" strategies, policies, and events (PDF download). It isn't too long, and makes for some interesting reading. When you're done, though, you might find yourself asking "Now, just exactly why do I need to buy my crap from this country?"...
UPDATE
I was aware that the PRC was engaged in a lot of attempts to gain unauthorized access to various computer systems, but not really aware of how broad and deep that activity extended. One report I've found indicates that nearly TWO HUNDRED computers were infected to become part of a single information-gathering operation against Tibet activists and the Dalai Lama; Computer Week reports that Googles revelation is, basically, just the tip of a much bigger iceberg.
People, how much longer are we going to keep buying their crappy products so they can use our money to turn around and try to treat the rest of the world the same way they treat their own people? Does "Tiananmen Square" ring a bell for anyone? How about that airplane of ours that they screwed up, forcing it to land in China, where they held the crew hostage for a week (and kept the airplane)? Poisioned toothpaste and dog food? Date-rape drugs in the toys they sell us? Highly toxic cadmium and other heavy metals in the playthings for our kids? HELLO?
Boycott Wal*Mart, because the shift from American manufacturing to China can be laid directly at their doorstep.
It seems that they've been caught hacking into Google (which helpfully blocks search results the little commie bastards don't want their citizens to see). In response, Google has finally announced to World + Dog what the PRC has been up to -- and then gone so far as to say that they're damn well ready to pull out of China completely because they're tired of all the crap.
If you're interested in some reading material, you might be interested in this report on Chinese "infowar" strategies, policies, and events (PDF download). It isn't too long, and makes for some interesting reading. When you're done, though, you might find yourself asking "Now, just exactly why do I need to buy my crap from this country?"...
UPDATE
I was aware that the PRC was engaged in a lot of attempts to gain unauthorized access to various computer systems, but not really aware of how broad and deep that activity extended. One report I've found indicates that nearly TWO HUNDRED computers were infected to become part of a single information-gathering operation against Tibet activists and the Dalai Lama; Computer Week reports that Googles revelation is, basically, just the tip of a much bigger iceberg.
People, how much longer are we going to keep buying their crappy products so they can use our money to turn around and try to treat the rest of the world the same way they treat their own people? Does "Tiananmen Square" ring a bell for anyone? How about that airplane of ours that they screwed up, forcing it to land in China, where they held the crew hostage for a week (and kept the airplane)? Poisioned toothpaste and dog food? Date-rape drugs in the toys they sell us? Highly toxic cadmium and other heavy metals in the playthings for our kids? HELLO?
Boycott Wal*Mart, because the shift from American manufacturing to China can be laid directly at their doorstep.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Nice, Max, real nice...
It certainly looks like our esteemed Senator Max Baucus has enjoyed his share of Holiday Cheer in this video from the Senate floor...
H/T to Good Sir Jimbo
H/T to Good Sir Jimbo
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Maybe this would work...
With all the bullshit in the news these last few days, I figure I'll toss out my own views on what's going on...
Mexican drug cartels
First off, that 90%-of-the-weapons thing is utter, total bullshit -- and proven to be such. From my perspective, the problem with the Mexican drug lords is two-part: the corruption within the Mexican government and law enforcement, and the demand by (mostly) U.S. consumers. Personally, I think the "War on Drugs" is bullshit -- if we're going to have a "war" on drugs, then by-god wage war: shoot down the aircraft, sink the boats and submarines(!), or otherwise just directly and immediately terminate the smugglers. I also think we should dramatically graduate punishment for users: for a first offence, clean them up and put them on probation for some period of time; for a second offence, add some jail time (and public service, like cleaning up the sides of highways or empty lots, shoveling walks in winter, etc). A third offence earns longer (and more restrictive) prison time. If the government hasn't got the stomach for that, then legalise the shit and be done with it; the current half-assed "war" is only making the cartels richer.
Economy
Much of the current economic mess, I think, is because the Government defaulted on its (self-assumed) power to regulate. Well, if the various agencies weren't ready, able, or willing to "take care of business" (no pun intended) before, then they've got no justification for sticking their oafish thumbs in it now. Sure, enact the laws and rules and regulations, if they think that's necessary -- but don't bail out the greedy, lying dumbasses that got themselves into trouble. Someone is going to lose the house they lied about being able to afford? Tough shit. The bank that made the loan without checking the borrowers claims is going to go under? Too fucking bad. The banks stockholders are going to lose their money if the bank goes tits-up? Well, gee, if it's going hurt them THAT bad, then maybe they should have been paying more attention to what was going on.
Piracy
Jesus jumping Roosevelt Christ, why is this even an issue in this day and time? The U.S. and a number of other countries have special-forces military units (the U.S. has Navy SEALs, Marine Force Recon, and others; Germany's GSG-9, Britains SAS, are among the others) that are MORE than capable of dealing with individual pirated ships, and eager to do so. Point them in the right direction and turn 'em loose. I'll bet that it wouldn't take many instances of pirated ships being recovered that way for the pirates to decide to go into another line of work. It would seem pretty obvious that paying the ransom only guarantees that the problem will continue.
Crime and Punishment
Something that crops up every so often is the number of people that the U.S. has in its jails and prisons. Here's a thought: if a person demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to follow society's rules, then completely remove them from society. This isn't my idea; it's something that I've read in some of Robert Heinlein's books -- the concept of being sent to "Coventry", where society's rules don't apply. If the criminal can't/won't accept the rules of living in a civilized society, then there's no reason for them to enjoy the benefits they get from the productive members of that society. In other words, if someone can't "play nice", then isolate them (NO outside supplies of food/water/whatever) with the other people like them -- root hog, or die. This would be a "Three Strikes and you're REALLY out" solution.
Taxes
One of the truisms of the legal system is that "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" -- but what the hell are we supposed to do when that "law" is Title 26 of the U.S. Code (a.k.a. the Internal Revenue Code -- all 26 1/2 Megabytes [9,067 PAGES, when I loaded it into OpenOffice] downloadable HERE)? How, in god's name, is a mere mortal supposed to keep all of that straight in their head? Here's an example of just how intelligible the Tax Code is: the IRS specifically states that any information or advice from its employees is not to be taken as final and absolute. Got that? Even the IRS says that the tax code is too much for its own staff to comment on in any authoritative manner. Here's a thought: how about if we simplify the tax code down to something that would resemble, say, a DMV Driver's Manual? And set the collection system up in such a way that all the taxes are collected during the year, so that there isn't an "April 15th" any more? All kinds of proposals have been made before ( a flat tax, a national sales tax, and Value Added Tax, among others) -- and all shut down by various permutations of special-interest groups. I would respectfully submit that it's well past time to quit farting around and actually DO it.
Social(ist) (in)Security
This one is the fabled "third rail" of American politics. It may have been an acceptable idea back when it was implemented, but thanks to all the political finger-fucking it has been subjected to, it's time we gave up on this one. Sure, I can hear older folks screaming even as I type this: "But I paid into it, and I want my money!" Fine. How about if we just phase the damn thing out, then, over (say) 20 years? Everybody that retires on or before the deadline gets 100% benefits. Then for each year after that, retirees get 5% less: retire the second year, you get 90%; the third year, you get 85%, fourth year 80%, and so on. Also, people would pay the same percentage as they would receive: if you're going to get 100% benefits, then you pay 100% of the tax; if your retirement age is going to be after SSI terminates, so that you wouldn't get any benefits, then you don't PAY anything, either. That would give folks up to 20 years to establish (and maintain) a tax-free retirement account to cover themselves for their old age (using the money the government WOULD have taken, even) -- however much they put into it is exempt from any taxes until such time as they take the money out.
North Korea
Again, this one seems pretty obvious to me: if Kim Jong-Il can't/won't play nice in the world arena, then quit playing with him. Every "agreement" we've made with him has turned into so much toilet paper when it suited him. So why do we keep fucking around with this asshole? China is the only country that really supports him (and then only because they're afraid of all those North Koreans crossing their border if his regime went tits-up). I would suggest that if ol' Kim Jong won't honor his deals, then it's time to quit dealing WITH him. Don't give the crazy little fucker anything. No aid of ANY kind (yes, that'll hurt the civilian populace -- but any more than he's doing to them?). No trade of any kind. Simply refuse to have any talks, negotiations, or anything else until and unless he demonstrates a willingness to behave himself. China doesn't like it? Tough shit -- they need to lean on the goofy little fuck harder. South Korea doesn't like it? So? I've been there, and they're pissing away a LOT of their resources even now, watching that dizzy little shit. The U.S. is arguably the most powerful country in the world -- why in the hell are we falling all over ourselves worrying about little piss-ants like him? He might have A nuke? Big fucking deal -- we've got them, too, though we could run his ass over like a steamroller without them.
Executive Compensation
The U.S. government has absolutely NO business dictating how much money a civilian corporation pays its people. That said, it baffles the shit out of me why stockholders aren't demanding the most basic and simple thing imaginable: basing compensation on results, not promises or expectations. Start a CEO at some base salary, then make future compensation dependent on performance and cumulative results. Hold the bastages accountable for their decisions: if the stock value goes in the toilet, so does the salary; if the stock doubles, then so does the salary -- but put some delay in the process so that the results of decisions have time to take FULL effect. It seems pretty obvious that a decision that increases the value of a company for one year, then makes it all but worthless five years down the road, isn't so good; set the compensation plan up so that the execs pay the same (proportional) penalty as the stockholders for their shitty ideas. I'd bet cash money that if those AIG (and other) assholes had as much risk of going bankrupt as their employers, they'd have been a hell of a lot more careful about their decisions. Here's a thought: write the employment contract in such a way that some (BIG!) percentage of their salary goes into a holding account that can only be paid out some number (5?) of years later. That should encourage execs to start making good long-term decisions, instead of maximizing profits for the short-term.
Mexican drug cartels
First off, that 90%-of-the-weapons thing is utter, total bullshit -- and proven to be such. From my perspective, the problem with the Mexican drug lords is two-part: the corruption within the Mexican government and law enforcement, and the demand by (mostly) U.S. consumers. Personally, I think the "War on Drugs" is bullshit -- if we're going to have a "war" on drugs, then by-god wage war: shoot down the aircraft, sink the boats and submarines(!), or otherwise just directly and immediately terminate the smugglers. I also think we should dramatically graduate punishment for users: for a first offence, clean them up and put them on probation for some period of time; for a second offence, add some jail time (and public service, like cleaning up the sides of highways or empty lots, shoveling walks in winter, etc). A third offence earns longer (and more restrictive) prison time. If the government hasn't got the stomach for that, then legalise the shit and be done with it; the current half-assed "war" is only making the cartels richer.
Economy
Much of the current economic mess, I think, is because the Government defaulted on its (self-assumed) power to regulate. Well, if the various agencies weren't ready, able, or willing to "take care of business" (no pun intended) before, then they've got no justification for sticking their oafish thumbs in it now. Sure, enact the laws and rules and regulations, if they think that's necessary -- but don't bail out the greedy, lying dumbasses that got themselves into trouble. Someone is going to lose the house they lied about being able to afford? Tough shit. The bank that made the loan without checking the borrowers claims is going to go under? Too fucking bad. The banks stockholders are going to lose their money if the bank goes tits-up? Well, gee, if it's going hurt them THAT bad, then maybe they should have been paying more attention to what was going on.
Piracy
Jesus jumping Roosevelt Christ, why is this even an issue in this day and time? The U.S. and a number of other countries have special-forces military units (the U.S. has Navy SEALs, Marine Force Recon, and others; Germany's GSG-9, Britains SAS, are among the others) that are MORE than capable of dealing with individual pirated ships, and eager to do so. Point them in the right direction and turn 'em loose. I'll bet that it wouldn't take many instances of pirated ships being recovered that way for the pirates to decide to go into another line of work. It would seem pretty obvious that paying the ransom only guarantees that the problem will continue.
Crime and Punishment
Something that crops up every so often is the number of people that the U.S. has in its jails and prisons. Here's a thought: if a person demonstrates an inability or unwillingness to follow society's rules, then completely remove them from society. This isn't my idea; it's something that I've read in some of Robert Heinlein's books -- the concept of being sent to "Coventry", where society's rules don't apply. If the criminal can't/won't accept the rules of living in a civilized society, then there's no reason for them to enjoy the benefits they get from the productive members of that society. In other words, if someone can't "play nice", then isolate them (NO outside supplies of food/water/whatever) with the other people like them -- root hog, or die. This would be a "Three Strikes and you're REALLY out" solution.
Taxes
One of the truisms of the legal system is that "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse" -- but what the hell are we supposed to do when that "law" is Title 26 of the U.S. Code (a.k.a. the Internal Revenue Code -- all 26 1/2 Megabytes [9,067 PAGES, when I loaded it into OpenOffice] downloadable HERE)? How, in god's name, is a mere mortal supposed to keep all of that straight in their head? Here's an example of just how intelligible the Tax Code is: the IRS specifically states that any information or advice from its employees is not to be taken as final and absolute. Got that? Even the IRS says that the tax code is too much for its own staff to comment on in any authoritative manner. Here's a thought: how about if we simplify the tax code down to something that would resemble, say, a DMV Driver's Manual? And set the collection system up in such a way that all the taxes are collected during the year, so that there isn't an "April 15th" any more? All kinds of proposals have been made before ( a flat tax, a national sales tax, and Value Added Tax, among others) -- and all shut down by various permutations of special-interest groups. I would respectfully submit that it's well past time to quit farting around and actually DO it.
Social(ist) (in)Security
This one is the fabled "third rail" of American politics. It may have been an acceptable idea back when it was implemented, but thanks to all the political finger-fucking it has been subjected to, it's time we gave up on this one. Sure, I can hear older folks screaming even as I type this: "But I paid into it, and I want my money!" Fine. How about if we just phase the damn thing out, then, over (say) 20 years? Everybody that retires on or before the deadline gets 100% benefits. Then for each year after that, retirees get 5% less: retire the second year, you get 90%; the third year, you get 85%, fourth year 80%, and so on. Also, people would pay the same percentage as they would receive: if you're going to get 100% benefits, then you pay 100% of the tax; if your retirement age is going to be after SSI terminates, so that you wouldn't get any benefits, then you don't PAY anything, either. That would give folks up to 20 years to establish (and maintain) a tax-free retirement account to cover themselves for their old age (using the money the government WOULD have taken, even) -- however much they put into it is exempt from any taxes until such time as they take the money out.
North Korea
Again, this one seems pretty obvious to me: if Kim Jong-Il can't/won't play nice in the world arena, then quit playing with him. Every "agreement" we've made with him has turned into so much toilet paper when it suited him. So why do we keep fucking around with this asshole? China is the only country that really supports him (and then only because they're afraid of all those North Koreans crossing their border if his regime went tits-up). I would suggest that if ol' Kim Jong won't honor his deals, then it's time to quit dealing WITH him. Don't give the crazy little fucker anything. No aid of ANY kind (yes, that'll hurt the civilian populace -- but any more than he's doing to them?). No trade of any kind. Simply refuse to have any talks, negotiations, or anything else until and unless he demonstrates a willingness to behave himself. China doesn't like it? Tough shit -- they need to lean on the goofy little fuck harder. South Korea doesn't like it? So? I've been there, and they're pissing away a LOT of their resources even now, watching that dizzy little shit. The U.S. is arguably the most powerful country in the world -- why in the hell are we falling all over ourselves worrying about little piss-ants like him? He might have A nuke? Big fucking deal -- we've got them, too, though we could run his ass over like a steamroller without them.
Executive Compensation
The U.S. government has absolutely NO business dictating how much money a civilian corporation pays its people. That said, it baffles the shit out of me why stockholders aren't demanding the most basic and simple thing imaginable: basing compensation on results, not promises or expectations. Start a CEO at some base salary, then make future compensation dependent on performance and cumulative results. Hold the bastages accountable for their decisions: if the stock value goes in the toilet, so does the salary; if the stock doubles, then so does the salary -- but put some delay in the process so that the results of decisions have time to take FULL effect. It seems pretty obvious that a decision that increases the value of a company for one year, then makes it all but worthless five years down the road, isn't so good; set the compensation plan up so that the execs pay the same (proportional) penalty as the stockholders for their shitty ideas. I'd bet cash money that if those AIG (and other) assholes had as much risk of going bankrupt as their employers, they'd have been a hell of a lot more careful about their decisions. Here's a thought: write the employment contract in such a way that some (BIG!) percentage of their salary goes into a holding account that can only be paid out some number (5?) of years later. That should encourage execs to start making good long-term decisions, instead of maximizing profits for the short-term.
Monday, April 13, 2009
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Disgusting
I really didn't need to see this over at Good Sir Jimbo's place. Not because of anything Jimbo did, but for what it represents.
It's good to know that the Obamessiah is so proud of being an American, and the representative of our nation.
Fuckhead.
It's good to know that the Obamessiah is so proud of being an American, and the representative of our nation.
Fuckhead.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Selectively picking the taxpayers pocket
Those ass-munches in Congress (both House and Senate) have decided that the way to pay for some "health" program or other is to dramatically raise taxes on tobacco -- to over $25/pound.
There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which include:
Dickheads.
There are a number of problems with this, not the least of which include:
- The greatest percentage of smokers are poor -- the very same folks that are most likely to need the SCHIP services the new tax is meant to fund.
- Another tax on tobacco is going to reduce the number of smokers -- and thus the source of the money they're after.
- Taxing ONE "bad" product is eminently unfair -- why not go after other unhealthy products, too, like fast food, soft drinks, junk food, and the like?
I realise that smokers make a nice, convenient target every time you assclowns need to raise taxes for some "health" issue -- but enough is enough!Yes, that's really what I wrote -- and that was "restrained", considering what I really wanted to say.
Next time Congress needs to bleed a bunch of taxpayers for money for some targeted medical issue, how about you go after an even bigger source of income, like the fast-food establishments, soft drinks, junk food purveyors, and the like? Have you somehow missed the "crisis" of overweight/obese people in this country? Has it somehow escaped your attention that there are a WHOLE lot more lardasses than there are smokers?
Or is the idea of better distributing the additional burden too much for your teeny little brains to comprehend?
Dickheads.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Friday, February 20, 2009
Obama losing more staff...
Apparently, he's having worse trouble getting good help than had been reported...
H/T to the Presurfer
H/T to the Presurfer
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Yeeeaaaaah....
Just read a CNN story about how there's a spiffy new website up about the Recovery program that the lugnuts in Congress passed, and His Obamaness signed.
Went over to the site, and it's pretty lame, just now. Had a look at their "timeline", and it's as devoid of any facts or details as His Obamaness' campaign rhetoric.
Went over to the site, and it's pretty lame, just now. Had a look at their "timeline", and it's as devoid of any facts or details as His Obamaness' campaign rhetoric.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Catching up
Kind of had my hands full the last week, which is why I haven't posted anything. Not much of an excuse, I suppose, but there you go...
* Got more information on doing my own CNC system. My laser idea won't work for doing printed circuit boards -- not only is copper difficult to cut with a laser, anyway, but the way a laser cuts metal precludes using on a PCB. My emergency fallback position is to go ahead and build a 'regular' CNC that uses a rotating cutting bit to create my boards. An additional benefit is that I can also use it to drill the holes in the board, as well as engrave any panels and such that I might need.
* Watching McNeil/Lehrer last night, I saw a bunch of Congressweasels giving one of the big Financial weenies in Gummit a hard time -- seems the Congressweasels didn't understand that the $750B funding they voted for was not for bailing out people with bad mortgages, but simply to stabilize the financial system. The guy they were dishing shit to tried to explain to them (repeatedly) that there had been no mention of mortgage bailouts or anything else; that he (and others) had EXPLICITLY said that the money was for the financial system. Congressweasels simply couldn't get that concept to stick in their tiny little minds, and were all upset and offended that people were still losing their homes -- and wanted Something To Be Done about it, and right now. Morons. Pretty much all of the folks that have lost their homes did so because there was a "mismatch" between what they claimed their income was, and what they were really earning -- essentially, they lied to get themselves into a house they couldn't afford, and calmly proceeded to spend 101% of their income via MasterCard, Visa, Discover, and all the rest. My thought is: fuck 'em. Yeah, it's gonna hurt the economy for a while -- but when it's over, the financial system (and no, I don't mean just the banks and such) will be a hell of a lot more stable, and stronger.
* The U.S. automakers are now begging and grovelling for a handout, too, and there's no small controversy over whether or not they should get anything. On one side, if the automakers go tits-up, that throws a metric buttload (which is roughly 10% larger than a regular buttload) of people out of jobs, which seriously fucks economies all over the country. Opposing that is the fact that it's the automakers (and all the demands from the unions) dumbassery that got them to this point: there's no reason not to think that they'll just end up pissing the money away and cratering, anyway. Me, I don't think they should get anything until and unless the Autoworkers union is obliged to give up a goodly chunk of the assorted crap that they've demanded over the years, and the automakers trim a bunch out of their bloated administration and management (so they can respond to the market in a timely manner). Then give the bastards a ONE-TIME loan of about half what they're asking for before letting them sink or swim on their own.
* The news media has caught wind of the fact that people that already own guns are buying more of them -- but can't seem to figure out why. Dumbshits.
* The Obamessiah is promising to dismantle a lot of the "protection" bullshit (i.e. warrantless wiretaps, anti-terrorism measures, etc) that the Bush administration hosed us with. That only makes me worry that he's going to try to do even worse shit.
* Got more information on doing my own CNC system. My laser idea won't work for doing printed circuit boards -- not only is copper difficult to cut with a laser, anyway, but the way a laser cuts metal precludes using on a PCB. My emergency fallback position is to go ahead and build a 'regular' CNC that uses a rotating cutting bit to create my boards. An additional benefit is that I can also use it to drill the holes in the board, as well as engrave any panels and such that I might need.
* Watching McNeil/Lehrer last night, I saw a bunch of Congressweasels giving one of the big Financial weenies in Gummit a hard time -- seems the Congressweasels didn't understand that the $750B funding they voted for was not for bailing out people with bad mortgages, but simply to stabilize the financial system. The guy they were dishing shit to tried to explain to them (repeatedly) that there had been no mention of mortgage bailouts or anything else; that he (and others) had EXPLICITLY said that the money was for the financial system. Congressweasels simply couldn't get that concept to stick in their tiny little minds, and were all upset and offended that people were still losing their homes -- and wanted Something To Be Done about it, and right now. Morons. Pretty much all of the folks that have lost their homes did so because there was a "mismatch" between what they claimed their income was, and what they were really earning -- essentially, they lied to get themselves into a house they couldn't afford, and calmly proceeded to spend 101% of their income via MasterCard, Visa, Discover, and all the rest. My thought is: fuck 'em. Yeah, it's gonna hurt the economy for a while -- but when it's over, the financial system (and no, I don't mean just the banks and such) will be a hell of a lot more stable, and stronger.
* The U.S. automakers are now begging and grovelling for a handout, too, and there's no small controversy over whether or not they should get anything. On one side, if the automakers go tits-up, that throws a metric buttload (which is roughly 10% larger than a regular buttload) of people out of jobs, which seriously fucks economies all over the country. Opposing that is the fact that it's the automakers (and all the demands from the unions) dumbassery that got them to this point: there's no reason not to think that they'll just end up pissing the money away and cratering, anyway. Me, I don't think they should get anything until and unless the Autoworkers union is obliged to give up a goodly chunk of the assorted crap that they've demanded over the years, and the automakers trim a bunch out of their bloated administration and management (so they can respond to the market in a timely manner). Then give the bastards a ONE-TIME loan of about half what they're asking for before letting them sink or swim on their own.
* The news media has caught wind of the fact that people that already own guns are buying more of them -- but can't seem to figure out why. Dumbshits.
* The Obamessiah is promising to dismantle a lot of the "protection" bullshit (i.e. warrantless wiretaps, anti-terrorism measures, etc) that the Bush administration hosed us with. That only makes me worry that he's going to try to do even worse shit.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
All ahead whoa
I've been keeping myself pretty well occupied with the various projects that I've got going.
I've had to order a few parts so that I can continue with my 'bot, so while I wait for those, I'm fiddling with the programming for it. I also had the chance to do a little honest-to-goodness basic electronics by troubleshooting and repairing an older electronic device for a friend of mine.
I've been "push-polled" a couple of times in the last week, and am getting a mailbox full of political bullshit pretty much every day. Has anyone ever been swayed by the mailings sent out by either of the political parties? Or is it just a waste of time, resources, and money on both sides? And more to the point, is there any way of getting OFF their fucking mailing lists?
I've had to order a few parts so that I can continue with my 'bot, so while I wait for those, I'm fiddling with the programming for it. I also had the chance to do a little honest-to-goodness basic electronics by troubleshooting and repairing an older electronic device for a friend of mine.
I've been "push-polled" a couple of times in the last week, and am getting a mailbox full of political bullshit pretty much every day. Has anyone ever been swayed by the mailings sent out by either of the political parties? Or is it just a waste of time, resources, and money on both sides? And more to the point, is there any way of getting OFF their fucking mailing lists?
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Holding my nose
While milling about aimlessly today, I stopped by the Billings voter registration office to cast my ballot early -- I'm anticipating that there's going to be a lot of folks busying up the polling places come November 4th, and I'm not real big on standing in long-ass lines; I did enough of that shit in the Navy.
Many of the offices had candidates from the Libertarian party, and a few even included Independent/Unaffiliated -- and those are what I went for, for the most part. The few cases where it was Republicrat or Demolican, I simply cast my vote in favor of the challenger, regardless of party. I still maintain that the whole gott-damn system needs to be reworked and cleaned up, and I'm hoping that trying to vote out every incumbent I can helps send a message to the Big Two. Otherwise, I think it isn't going to be too long until all of us are pretty much fucked, regardless of WHICH party wins.
Many of the offices had candidates from the Libertarian party, and a few even included Independent/Unaffiliated -- and those are what I went for, for the most part. The few cases where it was Republicrat or Demolican, I simply cast my vote in favor of the challenger, regardless of party. I still maintain that the whole gott-damn system needs to be reworked and cleaned up, and I'm hoping that trying to vote out every incumbent I can helps send a message to the Big Two. Otherwise, I think it isn't going to be too long until all of us are pretty much fucked, regardless of WHICH party wins.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
I hope to hell I'm wrong
I just woke up from the gott-DAMNEDest dream. It quite frankly scared the hell out of me, and I'm going to try and get it written down while it's still fresh in my mind -- and hope and pray that I can get the full sense of it across, because it was just that damn scary to me.
It started out with me just kind of floating up in the air - not like a balloon or anything, but just hanging there in one place - and I was watching what was going on below me. Every so often, my vision would zoom in on a newspaper headline, or I'd be able to hear as people talked to each other, but other than that, I wasn't actively DOING anything.
I'm not entirely sure what the hell was going on, but it was like I could watch as history unfolded beneath me -- at least, in broad terms. I didn't have any sense of exact time or anything like that; all I recall is that I could just tell what the big events were, not the little ones... kind of like when you're high up over the ocean and can see the big waves, but not the ripples, only this was history, okay?
Anyway, it started from shortly after Obama got elected President. He started pushing for a lot of the things that he's been campaigning for, and wasn't getting a lot of traction - at least, at first. But then a hellacious lot of the people that voted for him started kicking up a fuss that Congress should start doing what he wanted -- they elected him President, after all. It took a little while, but making laws for the stuff that Obama has been saying, most of them driven by poor people. Some of the poor were White, but most of them were Black, and a lot of the talk was about how it was time Black folk got their 'share'. There were some people (Black AND White) that tried to explain that the country couldn't afford all the social programs and such, and tried to point out the bad side of some of the policies and programs that were being called for, but they kept being shouted down; too many people wanted Obama to keep his campaign promises, and they were giving him the power to actually do it. The other part was that he didn't get rid of all the negative Bush bullshit. Stuff like USA PATRIOT, warrantless wiretaps, and all the DHS/TSA crap stayed because Obama thought he might be able to use it.
I don't know exactly, but I got the impression that Obama lasted two terms; by the time he was leaving office, pretty much everybody was starting to realize that doing all the crap he wanted was actually hurting everyone, so the next President to get elected was a conservative that campaigned on the promise that he'd 'fix' all the shit Obama broke. He got elected by a landslide, and once he was sworn in, started trying to do what he said. Thing was, he got carried away, and another liberal got voted in to replace him. The two sides went back and forth like that for a long time - each of them trying to undo what the one before them did.
Even though the two sides were trying to undo each others shit, they never quite managed to get it done - there would always be little bits and pieces of legislation, rules, laws, policies, and other crap that didn't get erased. That meant that no matter what else happened, each side was building ON TOP OF the little bits of stuff left over from whoever came before them - so that each time one side or the other tried to build something new, they were starting with more than they really knew - and so that no matter WHAT the hell the voters thought was going to happen, the bottom line was that we ended up with a few more rules and regulations and such than we had before.
I got the sense that what was happening was like politics was a big pendulum, making little swings to either side of the middle - except that from Obama on, the swings kept getting bigger and bigger: we'd go from a conservative to a liberal to a bigger conservative to a bigger liberal to an even bigger conservative, and so on and so on. And no matter WHO got into the Presidency, the Congress kept farting around: taking campaign "contributions", trying like hell to stay in office, doing whatever they could get away with, and generally being a bunch of worthless fucks.
Along the way, different government offices (on their own) started issuing "directives" under the guise of security, stability, or whatever: all email and phone calls monitored; had to have a permit to own a computer and/or get on the Internet; no new guns sold, old ones confiscated at owners death; people relocated against their will in the name of 'energy conservation'; travel restricted; library usage monitored; and other crap like that.
The whole thing ended when some hyper-conservative asshole got into office, got the rest of the government actively backing him, and declared martial law until he could get his own "security forces" (think Nazi Gestapo, with similar uniforms) in place. When I woke up, it was right after I watched a couple of random, completely innocent (somehow, I knew) people get stopped for their 'papers' and get hauled off. The rest of the folks on the street didn't even look at them after they got stopped, never mind when they were being taken away.
The sense I got was that the idea of "Law" got watered down by unenforceable 'feel-good' laws (the kind of things that politicians try to pass after some tragedy) so that it stopped having any tangible meaning; the Constitution and Bill of Rights gradually started to mean what the Government wanted them to, and less any kind of protection, because nobody insisted; damn near everybody was poor as they could be because they'd all agreed to letting the government do for them what they should have done for themselves, and got left hanging when those in power weren't so nice.
Looking back on it, I guess the dream was about people being played off against each other until someone decided to play for keeps; as all that was happening, more and more people were demanding special priveleges while abdicating responsibility for themselves, and demanding "someone" protect them from everyone else.
Please, god, let it just be a dream and never actually happen.
It started out with me just kind of floating up in the air - not like a balloon or anything, but just hanging there in one place - and I was watching what was going on below me. Every so often, my vision would zoom in on a newspaper headline, or I'd be able to hear as people talked to each other, but other than that, I wasn't actively DOING anything.
I'm not entirely sure what the hell was going on, but it was like I could watch as history unfolded beneath me -- at least, in broad terms. I didn't have any sense of exact time or anything like that; all I recall is that I could just tell what the big events were, not the little ones... kind of like when you're high up over the ocean and can see the big waves, but not the ripples, only this was history, okay?
Anyway, it started from shortly after Obama got elected President. He started pushing for a lot of the things that he's been campaigning for, and wasn't getting a lot of traction - at least, at first. But then a hellacious lot of the people that voted for him started kicking up a fuss that Congress should start doing what he wanted -- they elected him President, after all. It took a little while, but making laws for the stuff that Obama has been saying, most of them driven by poor people. Some of the poor were White, but most of them were Black, and a lot of the talk was about how it was time Black folk got their 'share'. There were some people (Black AND White) that tried to explain that the country couldn't afford all the social programs and such, and tried to point out the bad side of some of the policies and programs that were being called for, but they kept being shouted down; too many people wanted Obama to keep his campaign promises, and they were giving him the power to actually do it. The other part was that he didn't get rid of all the negative Bush bullshit. Stuff like USA PATRIOT, warrantless wiretaps, and all the DHS/TSA crap stayed because Obama thought he might be able to use it.
I don't know exactly, but I got the impression that Obama lasted two terms; by the time he was leaving office, pretty much everybody was starting to realize that doing all the crap he wanted was actually hurting everyone, so the next President to get elected was a conservative that campaigned on the promise that he'd 'fix' all the shit Obama broke. He got elected by a landslide, and once he was sworn in, started trying to do what he said. Thing was, he got carried away, and another liberal got voted in to replace him. The two sides went back and forth like that for a long time - each of them trying to undo what the one before them did.
Even though the two sides were trying to undo each others shit, they never quite managed to get it done - there would always be little bits and pieces of legislation, rules, laws, policies, and other crap that didn't get erased. That meant that no matter what else happened, each side was building ON TOP OF the little bits of stuff left over from whoever came before them - so that each time one side or the other tried to build something new, they were starting with more than they really knew - and so that no matter WHAT the hell the voters thought was going to happen, the bottom line was that we ended up with a few more rules and regulations and such than we had before.
I got the sense that what was happening was like politics was a big pendulum, making little swings to either side of the middle - except that from Obama on, the swings kept getting bigger and bigger: we'd go from a conservative to a liberal to a bigger conservative to a bigger liberal to an even bigger conservative, and so on and so on. And no matter WHO got into the Presidency, the Congress kept farting around: taking campaign "contributions", trying like hell to stay in office, doing whatever they could get away with, and generally being a bunch of worthless fucks.
Along the way, different government offices (on their own) started issuing "directives" under the guise of security, stability, or whatever: all email and phone calls monitored; had to have a permit to own a computer and/or get on the Internet; no new guns sold, old ones confiscated at owners death; people relocated against their will in the name of 'energy conservation'; travel restricted; library usage monitored; and other crap like that.
The whole thing ended when some hyper-conservative asshole got into office, got the rest of the government actively backing him, and declared martial law until he could get his own "security forces" (think Nazi Gestapo, with similar uniforms) in place. When I woke up, it was right after I watched a couple of random, completely innocent (somehow, I knew) people get stopped for their 'papers' and get hauled off. The rest of the folks on the street didn't even look at them after they got stopped, never mind when they were being taken away.
The sense I got was that the idea of "Law" got watered down by unenforceable 'feel-good' laws (the kind of things that politicians try to pass after some tragedy) so that it stopped having any tangible meaning; the Constitution and Bill of Rights gradually started to mean what the Government wanted them to, and less any kind of protection, because nobody insisted; damn near everybody was poor as they could be because they'd all agreed to letting the government do for them what they should have done for themselves, and got left hanging when those in power weren't so nice.
Looking back on it, I guess the dream was about people being played off against each other until someone decided to play for keeps; as all that was happening, more and more people were demanding special priveleges while abdicating responsibility for themselves, and demanding "someone" protect them from everyone else.
Please, god, let it just be a dream and never actually happen.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The political landscape
While looking through some of the captioned photos over at ROFLrazzi, I found a few that amused me greatly, and I thought I'd share them...
see more celeb pics
see more celeb pics
see more celeb pics
see more celeb pics
Friday, October 17, 2008
Just say "No"
It is a truism of politics that even if there isn't a candidate that you want to vote for, there's surely someone that you would vote against.
The problem with this is that it presumes that the 'other' candidate is at least acceptable; what isn't usually taken into consideration with that saying is what to do when one is less than impressed with EITHER of the mainstream candidates.
The most obvious solution is to simply continue to apply the principle by voting for neither of them. The value of this option becomes even more significant when the two main political parties have become so polarized, so entrenched, so dominant that they skew and bias the political scene so thoroughly that alternative candidates are marginalized and excluded -- effectively denying the voting public the free exercise of the franchise.
I would suggest that it is well past the time for the voting public to make it known that they do not appreciate what the election process has devolved to, that they do not like being limited to just one or two candidates from the two main political parties, and that they do NOT want the current process to limit them to just a couple of 'mainstream' parties.
Personally, I'm more than a little disgusted with the way political campaigns have become a blood sport, the general malaise most people have about the process, the political pandering, and being obliged to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils. I, like most people, am disgusted with the whole process and resulting jackassery. What used to be sarcastic comments on the state of politics have become entirely too true: "The opposite of 'pro' is 'con', so the opposite of Progress is Congress", "Politicks comes from the Latin 'poly', meaning many; and 'ticks', a species of blood-sucking parasites", "No one's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session", "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys", and so on. Think about the other, similar, sayings that you know -- and whether or not you think they're more true now than they were in years past.
If you are less than impressed with the political process, or you aren't entirely committed to voting for one of the main candidates, then I would encourage you to join me in sending a message to those that are supposed to be our public servants: that it's nigh time they cleaned up their act, started working WITH each other instead of at cross purposes, and started making it possible for us to have the kind of government that we want, DOING what we want: vote for anybody but either of the two mainstream candidates -- hell, vote for Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul, if that's what it takes. Hell, write in Adolf Hitler, if that's what it takes to make it painfully clear that you're not voting for either of the other two. If you don't have a 3rd-party alternive in a particular race, then vote for whoever the challenger is for an office. Voting for Nader or someone else might sound risky ("But what if he actually gets elected!"), but it isn't, really: there are undoubtedly enough people still going to vote Republicrat or Demolican that Nader (or whoever) getting into office is unlikely in the extreme. What voting for him WILL do, however, is let the other parties know that there is a significant portion of the voting public that is less than pleased with them -- and that's the point that needs to be made.
The problem with this is that it presumes that the 'other' candidate is at least acceptable; what isn't usually taken into consideration with that saying is what to do when one is less than impressed with EITHER of the mainstream candidates.
The most obvious solution is to simply continue to apply the principle by voting for neither of them. The value of this option becomes even more significant when the two main political parties have become so polarized, so entrenched, so dominant that they skew and bias the political scene so thoroughly that alternative candidates are marginalized and excluded -- effectively denying the voting public the free exercise of the franchise.
I would suggest that it is well past the time for the voting public to make it known that they do not appreciate what the election process has devolved to, that they do not like being limited to just one or two candidates from the two main political parties, and that they do NOT want the current process to limit them to just a couple of 'mainstream' parties.
Personally, I'm more than a little disgusted with the way political campaigns have become a blood sport, the general malaise most people have about the process, the political pandering, and being obliged to vote for what I consider the lesser of two evils. I, like most people, am disgusted with the whole process and resulting jackassery. What used to be sarcastic comments on the state of politics have become entirely too true: "The opposite of 'pro' is 'con', so the opposite of Progress is Congress", "Politicks comes from the Latin 'poly', meaning many; and 'ticks', a species of blood-sucking parasites", "No one's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session", "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys", and so on. Think about the other, similar, sayings that you know -- and whether or not you think they're more true now than they were in years past.
If you are less than impressed with the political process, or you aren't entirely committed to voting for one of the main candidates, then I would encourage you to join me in sending a message to those that are supposed to be our public servants: that it's nigh time they cleaned up their act, started working WITH each other instead of at cross purposes, and started making it possible for us to have the kind of government that we want, DOING what we want: vote for anybody but either of the two mainstream candidates -- hell, vote for Ralph Nader, or Ron Paul, if that's what it takes. Hell, write in Adolf Hitler, if that's what it takes to make it painfully clear that you're not voting for either of the other two. If you don't have a 3rd-party alternive in a particular race, then vote for whoever the challenger is for an office. Voting for Nader or someone else might sound risky ("But what if he actually gets elected!"), but it isn't, really: there are undoubtedly enough people still going to vote Republicrat or Demolican that Nader (or whoever) getting into office is unlikely in the extreme. What voting for him WILL do, however, is let the other parties know that there is a significant portion of the voting public that is less than pleased with them -- and that's the point that needs to be made.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Disenfranchisement
One of the cornerstones of American democracy is that pretty much everyone is allowed to exercise their voting franchise.
Of course, there are those of us that wonder about the sense and rationality of some of the folks on the 'other side' of an issue, but we generally don't limit the right to vote except for the insane, mentally impaired, or felony criminals.
I would suggest that we, as a nation, consider changing that policy for the simple reason that there are (unfortunately) those that do not exercise their voting rights in a reasoned, thoughtful manner: those that latch onto a particular issue (to the exclusion of everything else) to decide how their vote should be cast, and the folks that don't bother to keep up with the assorted issues brought up by the candidates and thus enter the polling booth ignorant as newborn babes.
Then there are those people that see only one aspect of a particular candidate to the exclusion of everything else. Finally, there are those individuals such as the author of this disjointed, rambling gibberish.
Consider that the missive in question was a letter to the editor: the author had ample time to think through what he wanted to say and how to say it -- and yet still produced and submitted that kind of drivel. While it is possible to make out what the individual was trying to say, does anyone really think that it benefits our political process to allow someone like that to actually cast a ballot?Are we to believe that the kind of mind (and I do use the term loosely in this case) that produced that is going to be capable of distinguishing the subtleties and implications of political discourse?
No, I think our nations founders were being wildly optimistic to make the voting franchise as easily exercised as they did -- and that it's time we correct that oversight.
Of course, there are those of us that wonder about the sense and rationality of some of the folks on the 'other side' of an issue, but we generally don't limit the right to vote except for the insane, mentally impaired, or felony criminals.
I would suggest that we, as a nation, consider changing that policy for the simple reason that there are (unfortunately) those that do not exercise their voting rights in a reasoned, thoughtful manner: those that latch onto a particular issue (to the exclusion of everything else) to decide how their vote should be cast, and the folks that don't bother to keep up with the assorted issues brought up by the candidates and thus enter the polling booth ignorant as newborn babes.
Then there are those people that see only one aspect of a particular candidate to the exclusion of everything else. Finally, there are those individuals such as the author of this disjointed, rambling gibberish.
Consider that the missive in question was a letter to the editor: the author had ample time to think through what he wanted to say and how to say it -- and yet still produced and submitted that kind of drivel. While it is possible to make out what the individual was trying to say, does anyone really think that it benefits our political process to allow someone like that to actually cast a ballot?Are we to believe that the kind of mind (and I do use the term loosely in this case) that produced that is going to be capable of distinguishing the subtleties and implications of political discourse?
No, I think our nations founders were being wildly optimistic to make the voting franchise as easily exercised as they did -- and that it's time we correct that oversight.
Monday, October 6, 2008
Congress? We don' need no steenkin' Congress...
At least that seems to be the result of an opinion poll courtesy of Rasmussen Reports.
From the article:
From the article:
If they could vote to keep or replace the entire Congress, 59% of voters would like to throw them all out and start over again.and
Only half (49%) believe that the current Congress is better than individuals selected at random from the phone book. Thirty-three percent (33%) believe a randomly selected group of Americans could do a better job and 19% are not sureand
...there is agreement across party lines when it comes to whether or not most Members of Congress understand legislation before they vote on it—25% of Democrats say yes along with 24% of Republicans and 24% of unaffiliated voters.Anybody with me on implenting the first option?
Friday, September 26, 2008
I call 'Bullshit!'
In the last couple of weeks, I've gotten no less than six phone calls from outfits wanting me to participate in a 'survey'.
Now, normally, I'm willing to go along with such requests if I have the time. The thing is, every single one of the survey calls has been from someone that specified they were calling for political purposes (i.e. from the McCain campaign, the Democratic party, etc).
Since none of the political parties or candidates (or politicians, for that matter) has bothered to ask what I thought about things before this (I've gotten more political opinion calls in the last two weeks than I've gotten in the last two YEARS), I've got to figure it's all about the current election cycle.
Which is what causes me to call "Bullshit!".
If these assorted shitheads really wanted to know what I think about this or that, they'd have asked before this -- but since they didn't, I've got to figure that the calls are either 'push polls', or simply a way for a particular candidate or party to 'adjust' their position to garner more votes. Either way, it's bullshit: I figure if a candidate or party has to resort to that kind of nonsense in order to get votes, then they shouldn't be running for an elected office -- when I cast a vote for someone, I want them to have enough of a spine to take an actual stance on something, and MEAN it. If they believe in something, then they should be able and willing to lay out their reasons in such a way as to convince me with the FACTS -- not by playing games with how they phrase something. If someone wants to represent me in an elected office, ask me what I think about things BEFORE you need/want my vote.
The sad part of this is that these various assclowns will get enough people to respond (I hung up on them) to convince them to keep doing this kind of crap. Too bad that more of us Ordinary Citizens aren't willing to stand up and let the 'mainstream' politicians and parties know we don't like the game they're playing by casting our votes for 'none of the above'.
Personally, at this point, I'd vote for that moonbat Ralph Nader before casting a ballot for either of McCain or Obama.
Now, normally, I'm willing to go along with such requests if I have the time. The thing is, every single one of the survey calls has been from someone that specified they were calling for political purposes (i.e. from the McCain campaign, the Democratic party, etc).
Since none of the political parties or candidates (or politicians, for that matter) has bothered to ask what I thought about things before this (I've gotten more political opinion calls in the last two weeks than I've gotten in the last two YEARS), I've got to figure it's all about the current election cycle.
Which is what causes me to call "Bullshit!".
If these assorted shitheads really wanted to know what I think about this or that, they'd have asked before this -- but since they didn't, I've got to figure that the calls are either 'push polls', or simply a way for a particular candidate or party to 'adjust' their position to garner more votes. Either way, it's bullshit: I figure if a candidate or party has to resort to that kind of nonsense in order to get votes, then they shouldn't be running for an elected office -- when I cast a vote for someone, I want them to have enough of a spine to take an actual stance on something, and MEAN it. If they believe in something, then they should be able and willing to lay out their reasons in such a way as to convince me with the FACTS -- not by playing games with how they phrase something. If someone wants to represent me in an elected office, ask me what I think about things BEFORE you need/want my vote.
The sad part of this is that these various assclowns will get enough people to respond (I hung up on them) to convince them to keep doing this kind of crap. Too bad that more of us Ordinary Citizens aren't willing to stand up and let the 'mainstream' politicians and parties know we don't like the game they're playing by casting our votes for 'none of the above'.
Personally, at this point, I'd vote for that moonbat Ralph Nader before casting a ballot for either of McCain or Obama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
