And I'm Santa Claus!

I must be, if the President really believes what he's saying here. From Bloomberg:

Feb. 11 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama said he and his administration have pursued a “fundamentally business- friendly” agenda and are “fierce advocates” for the free market, rejecting corporate criticism of his policies.

“The irony is, is that on the left we are perceived as being in the pockets of big business; and then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business,” Obama said in a Feb. 9 interview in the Oval Office with Bloomberg BusinessWeek, which will appear on newsstands tomorrow.

Well, those on the left are correct- the Administration is in the pockets of big business. Note how he did not say, 'and then on the big business side...'. He said, 'then on the business side, we are perceived as being anti-business'. That's an important distinction, and business (generally) is correct in its' criticism as well.

What is fundmantally business friendly about considering compelling all business owners to provide health insurance for their employees, whether they can afford to do so or not? Or, about considering environmental regulations that would make our energy costs skyrocket? What is inherently 'free trade' about the huge tariffs the Administration slapped on Chinese tires? Or, in taking a huge stake in GM?

It seems like Obama recognizes some inherently beloved aspect of the terms 'free market' and 'business friendly' such that he can sling them around without meaning.

“We are pro-growth,” Obama said. “We are fierce advocates for a thriving, dynamic free market.”

Yeah, right. I can tell how much you respect a free market by how much you meddle in it. Bollocks.

Unemployment Images

Now this is positively frightening.



For a cleaner view, follow this link.

Under the Bush Administration, jobs were being lost, and under a full year of Obama's Administration, it has gotten worse. When you read comments that follow graphics like these, the wilfull partisan ignorance is amazing. Mainly, both sides have failed. Pointing fingers at the Rs or Ds yields one response: You're both right. They're at fault.

Who The F?

I had to laugh when checking out ESPN's website this morning. They had a poll asking which song The Who will play at halftime on Sunday. The winner, in something like 45 of 50 states? "Who Are You".

Give the NFL's edginess about FCC regulations since the Wardrobe Malfunction, I'm thinking there's no way they play "Who Are You". Hope they do. I love the tune, and NFL nervousness makes me grin.

Asylum For Germans?

When is the last time a German national fled his country for the USA seeking something like religious freedom? Looks like 2006. From a Time Magazine article:

Uwe and Hannelore Romeike are not like other asylum seekers, people fleeing war or torture in places like Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia. They're music teachers from a village in southern Germany. And yet, in what appears to be the first case of its kind, the couple and their five children were granted asylum in the U.S. last week by an immigration judge who ruled that they had a "well-founded fear of persecution" in their home country for engaging in what has become a popular albeit somewhat controversial American practice — homeschooling their children.

The Romeikes, who are Evangelical Christians, took their three eldest children out of school in the town of Bissingen in 2006 because they were concerned about the impact the government-approved curriculum and the public-school environment would have on their social development. "Over the past 10 to 20 years, the curriculum in public schools in Germany has been more and more against Christian values, and my eldest children were having problems with violence, bullying and peer pressure. It's important for parents to have the freedom to choose the way their children can be taught," Uwe Romeike said in a statement provided by the couple's attorney, Michael Donnelly of the Virginia-based Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA).

It's as much religious freedom as educational freedom, so the last lines of the story intrigued me greatly:

The ruling is sure to ignite passions on both sides of the debate — and may spur other parents around the world to follow the Romeikes' lead. If this happens, the U.S. could see a flood of a new type of refugees —educational asylum seekers.

With the kinds of jobs current immigrants tend to seek drying up, we've seen a slackened rate of immigration from places like Mexico in the last year or so. Might this ruling indeed spur a new kind of immigrant? It all comes as a surprise to me, as I had viewed American homeschoolers as a sort of hassled bunch. Apparently 'hassled' and 'freedom' continue to be relative terms. Good to know we're more free, and at least for one family, a destination.

Super Graft

The Indianapolis Colts made two Super Bowl tickets available at face value to each of the members of the City-County Council. To get the measure of the graft that represents, consider how difficult it is to get that ticket at any price.

I just checked Stub Hub, a ticket re-seller, where I bought NY Rangers tickets two weeks ago at 60% face value. The cheapest nosebleed seat is currently posted at $1,418. The good seats in Section 114 go for as much as $9,131. Each. Hell, they're $3,000+ in the end zones! Stub Hub Super Bowl ticket link.

I don't care that the tickets were offered at face value. The City-County Council votes on Capital Improvement Board issues, which can (and has) put money directly into the pockets of Colts ownership. It's graft. There's no other way to describe it.

I am very proud of Libertarian Councilor Ed Coleman, who was apparently just one of three Councilors to refuse the offer. Why elect Libertarians? They can't be bought like Republicans and Democrats can. 26 of their Councilors accepted the graft, according to the Indy Star:

Ward said the Colts received requests from 32 legislators and four members of Congress. Each was able to purchase two tickets.

Twenty-six of the 29 City-County Council members had purchased two tickets at the $800 face value.

"It's a show of appreciation for their public service," Ward said. "It's very typical among professional sports teams to make this offering."

I'd like to know who did take the tickets. Their names should be MUD.

Free Speech Isn't Always Easy To Sort Out

I had a Facebook dialogue prompt this post, centering on Super Bowl ads for CBS' broadcast, where in one case, perfectly good money was refused because of one controversial message, and in another, a different controversial message will be aired. From a Christian Science Monitor article:

Working in a tough advertising climate, CBS surprised many Americans by explaining a new policy on advocacy ads after news emerged that it had agreed to show an antiabortion ad featuring Florida QB Tim Tebow and his mom, Pam.

That decision caused an uproar over the ad itself, the sponsor (the conservative organization Focus on the Family), and the prospect of politics seeping into a three-hour block where most Americans are trying to escape from the daily grind.

But after CBS on Friday rejected a potentially controversial ad from ManCrunch, a Toronto-based gay dating site, it opened itself up for criticism – which came fast and furious. The so-called “man-kiss ad” shows two football fans touching hands over a bowl of potato chips, which then leads, as the ad implies, to a make-out session."

CBS has a problem when they do something like this at the same time as they allow an anti-gay group like Focus on the Family to place ads during the Super Bowl,” says Jarrett Barrios, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD.) “This network should come clean to the public about what's going on because this seems to be a homophobic double standard."

Well, of course it's a double standard. Interested parties certainly should be unhappy with CBS. Complain loudly if you don't like it. Just don't call it censorship or an affront to free speech.

As owner of their channel, CBS has every right in the world to air, or not air, anything it chooses. They have the right to display any bias they wish with their advertising. That is genuine free speech, when the owner of the medium decides. Indeed, the worst case scenario would be that CBS was made to air an ad it didn't wish to. That's worse than censorship. That's fascism, literally, where one owns a property, but is dictated as to its' use.

As for me, I would love to see other broadcast stations take up the ad. Sure, it's not the same as advertising to the largest TV audience of the year. At the same time, the rejection has generated some buzz that would-be advertisers don't usually enjoy more than a week before the big game.

So, here's what all the fuss is about:



Just doing my part to show that ManCrunch hasn't been censored. Gratis.

(The most objectionable part is showing a Packer and Viking fan embracing. Everyone knows that would never happen.)

Update: Apparently, there is an ad that should be every bit as controversial as these, courtesy of Bud Light. Check out this Reason blog post.

Ugly Business In The Indiana Senate

It seems that every year, Indiana's Senate passes a bill that causes me to feel shame about the state I live in- one that recommends a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

For one thing, the premise is complete bunk. From the mouth of the author, via the Indy Star:

"Marriage is one of the foundations of our society," said Sen. Carlin Yoder, R-Middlebury, who authored the amendment. "It is something that I firmly believe needs to be protected."

I've never understood, despite a ton of hot air, how a same-sex union threatens marriage. I'm married to my wife, and not once have I felt any suspect inclination that it would come crashing to an end upon hearing that gay people were marrying in California or Massachusetts, or some other state. Nothing affects my marriage, because it is between myself and my wife.

You want to protect marriage, Yoder? Ban divorce.

Better yet, get government out of the business of regulating marriage altogether. Let the churches marry people who want to be married. Let the courts uphold the contracts and agreements made by two people, whether married or not. How hard is that?

Apparently, for Republicans, that's too much to take. They apparently are much happier sticking their nose into people's private lives. Don't be fooled by their rhetoric about smaller government. What a load of crap. Don't let me hear another Republican derisively shout 'socialism'! Physician? Heal thyself!

So, I was especially proud of the Libertarian Party of Indiana, when the party stood up to declare opposition to this bill.

The notion of changing our Constitution to include Senate Joint Resolution 13 is in complete disharmony with the Preamble of this State’s guiding document.

Our Constitution reads, “WE DECLARE, That all people are created equal; that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that all power is inherent in the People; and that all free governments are, and of right ought to be, founded on their authority, and instituted for their peace, safety, and well-being.”

Let me translate for the proponents of SJR-13. Our government was instituted to protect the right of every Hoosier to make decisions as they see fit. Our Constitution was written to protect us from invasive government.

Shame on those members of both the Senate and House that seek to violate the purpose of our Constitution. For all the sign waving by my Republican friends about liberty and socialism, it is striking that they would propose to write into this document discrimination and direct government interference.

Beyond this, the Republicans who promote this nonsense actually make Pat Bauer look like he's got his finger on the pulse of the state. From the Star:

House Speaker B. Patrick Bauer, D-South Bend, said the amendment is unlikely to receive a hearing this year, arguing the state's trial and appeals courts have upheld Indiana's marriage law.

"It's the same old song," Bauer said. "Some people don't have enough to do creating jobs and moving this economy forward, so they think up divisive things."

So, I'm proud of the LPIN, and ashamed of the Republicans. Why could I never get on board with the Republicans? Because they do so many irrelevant and needlessly antagonistic, counterproductive, and oppressive things.

What The Talk Will Be Tomorrow

Did the President give a speech tonight? Forget about that. Glenn Beck will be all over what Chris Matthews said on MSNBC. It's so egregious that Media Matters posted it up:






I was just remarking the other day what a complete douchebag Chris Matthews is. So it goes.

If Glenn Beck said this, there would be calls for his head and his job. Let's see if there are similar calls for Matthews.

It's just as well. The State of the Union address was what is becoming typical Obama: Great speechifying, little real substance, contradictions and impossibilities within the text, and the masterful deception of making one's own messes appear to have been someone else's doing and cause for alarm/action. Seemed like a campaign speech rather than a report.

What? There's Waste?

On the drive from NYC to Cleveland last week, I saw the highway signs referred to in this CNN article:

A state senator from Ohio says his state is spending $1 million on road signs to advertise the use of stimulus money for road projects. In other words, the state is using your money to tell you it's spending your money.

State Sen. Tim Grendell, R-Ohio, calls it a waste of taxpayer dollars. The road signs he's concerned about display words such as "Project Funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" Some road projects have two signs, and some don't have any at all, but the signs aren't cheap.

The bigger signs can cost as much as $3,000 each, according to Grendell, who says this is just a big "thank you" to the Obama Administration.

He told CNN, "Send a fruit basket if you want to say 'thank you.' Don't waste a million dollars saying 'thank' you to Washington for giving us back our tax money."

Grendell says the message here is that stimulus dollars are "being spent stupidly."

Ohio's Department of Transportation says that criticism misses the point -- that this is all about transparency.

Oh, it's transparent all right. It's easy to see that money is being flushed down the shitter. Why not just post big signs campaigning for Obama's re-election? Yeah. Send the fruit basket instead. That it is called the 'American Recovery and Reinvestment Act' allows one to see through what a gigantic load of BS it is.

I've seen the same signs in southern Indiana, on I-64 between Louisville and Evansville, if memory serves. My reaction then was that it was more a big gesture of patting onesself on the back. The angle of the waste of it didn't even occur to me. $3,000 per sign? Wow.

Who Says A Libertarian Doesn't Pray For Obama's Success?

Wow. Was just looking over my 2009 tax info. Scary stuff. In 2009, I made half of what I made in 2008, which was half of what I made in 2007. Depressing.

I can't afford to half my income again, so yes, I do pray for Obama's success and a turnaround in the economy. I don't have a lot of faith in the process of repeating so many Bush mistakes that got me and so many others to this point, but I have to hold out hope, don't I?

Kind of funny, but I really long for the days when I would write a check to cover my taxes that went above my withholding. Haven't 'had the pleasure' in waaaaay too long.

NFL All-Star Game A Joke

None of the pro sports has an all-star game more irrelevant than the NFL. It was bad enough that the league used to host the game after the Super Bowl, so as to be anti-climactic. Now the game is hosted the week before the Super Bowl, assuring that nobody from the two best teams in the league will play.

I mean, why would anyone want to see Drew Brees, or Peyton Manning, or six other Colts play, right? Check out this article for yuks.

All other sports host their games mid-season. I know the NFL is rightly concerned about injuries occurring during an exhibition game. Why not just have a skills competition? The NHL does it, and it's every bit as entertaining, or moreso, than the actual all-star game.

Back From New York

I spent the better part of last week in New York City, helping my friend Steve move. The City is still fun for me, but it appeals to me a lot less than it once did. I'm sure having two little kids at home makes Indiana more appealing than NYC, but there were trends I noticed that I didn't like.

The City is getting dirty again. I noticed a lot more litter everywhere I went.

The panhandling is increasing. Several times, people got on the train for the sole purpose of loudly announcing their personal tale of woe, and trying to pull the heart strings & purse strings. I hadn't seen this in more than 10 years.

Then, after going to a great Indian restaurant, the Jackson Diner in Jackson Heights- one an Indiana recommended to me- I realized that there is an Indian restaurant every bit as good in Fishers (India Sizzling).

I love the full-on ethnic diversity in places like Jackson Heights, in Queens. Indiana positively lacks this. But the tradeoffs? Noise, foul smells, dog crap on every sidewalk, hellish traffic, crowded slow trains, high prices... Feh.

Had a great exchange with a receptionist at the Museum of American Finance, on Wall Street. We got to talking and it came out that I am from Indiana. With the Jets-Colts game coming up, it went like this:

Her: Are you ready for the big game?
Me: What big game?
Her: What do you mean, 'what big game'? My Jets and your Colts!
Me: (Ignoring that they aren't 'ours') Big game? That's in three weeks.
Her: What's the matter with you? The game is this Sunday.
Me: Yeah, but that's not the big game. The Super Bowl is in three weeks. The Jets are a nice tune-up for the Colts.
Her: Uh, hey!

Good museum. Indiana also lacks the sheer volume and range of museums NYC has, and I couldn't have had this banter here at home. Still- nice place to visit, but no longer any desire to live there.

Purity or Compromise

I had a very interesting, very provocative article sent to me, covering the political suicide that is ideological purity. Check this out, on Frum Forum:

One thing political parties and partisans seem never to learn: the purer you are, the more you lose.

The divisions of Red and Green parties in ancient Rome, where heads literally rolled, have manifested themselves in the blog beheadings by the two greatest proponents of purity in American politics today: the “progressive” left of the Democratic Party and the “purifier” forces in the Republican Party. So far, the great achievements of these two forces has been two-fold: the Progressives have been able to help President Obama’s approval ratings tank; and, the Republican purists have been able to facilitate the Republican loss of the 23rd House District of New York and help push Sen. Arlen Specter over to the Democratic Party. But, MoveOn.org and the Club for Growth have so much more work to do. After all, the theological nature of these two groups demands that they drive out apostasy even if it means that they defeat the very policies they purport to support.

For a tidy case in point, check out this urgent article on the need for Massachusetts progressives to defeat Coakley:

It is very important that progressives help defeat Coakley. Please read my explanation. The more power the folks in the Democratic Corporate Suck Up wing of the party gain, the more we will have to fight to make the party move to the left. I do not think that many progressive Democrats understand that putting such people as Coakley into power is worse than having a Republican in the seat. Just being in the Democratic Party does not and will not ensure a progressive agenda. Do you not see that? So, if you get her into the seat, what makes you think she will be any better than Lincoln, or Nelson, or Lieberman! It will, in fact, ensure that there will be NO progressive agenda. It was not the Republicans who failed us of late. It was the Democrats. We will never succeed as long as the Dem’s can talk liberal and vote corporate.

One lesson I learned by observation was that when politics becomes an all or nothing game, you are bound to get nothing. At the same time, look at Ron Paul. He ran a very ideologically pure campaign, and sparked great interest. Maybe not votes in the primaries, but a real following, and a development of his ideas. Barry Goldwater didn't win in 1964, but he set the stage. Etc. If some of Paul's bills advance and are passed, that marks a win for purity. For now...

In my own case, I consider myself a fairly radical libertarian. This may shock some of the folks who declined to back my campaign in 2006 on the basis of my running as a moderate Libertarian. That was my campaign strategy. All or nothing? I wasn't in it for nothing.

I also learned a lot from observing Ted Kennedy. He never came out and declared himself a socialist, although I believe that is exactly what he was. He always called for ever more incremental movements in his direction. Damned if he really didn't take tremendous gains over the life of his Senate career.

Going back to the Frum article, there are a few things I take issue with. Calling Ronald Reagan a libertarian? Check his war record as President and then get back to me. (Oh, was I being too pure there?) Then this:

If we were to scratch most of the Tea Party protesters, we would probably find just as many libertarians as social conservatives, if not more. Indeed, the battle within the GOP won't be among so-called moderates, social conservatives, and populists. The real battle will be between the pro-Ayn Rand Club for Growth (which supports the right of any banker in New York City to make any amount of money he or she can) and the populist Tea Party gang (which wants to hang every banker in New York City). The present marriage of convenience between these two forces cannot last. Can one imagine a true Tea Party member supporting the right of Goldman Sachs' employees to make as much money as they can, regardless of the consequences to society? Or the Club for Growth insisting that their members absolutely condemn abortion in any circumstance?

It's a lot grayer than that. I reckon there are a lot of Tea Party folks who don't care how much bankers make, but care deeply about how much money Congress throws to the banks. They surely do react to the bonuses that come out of public largess, but if those bonuses were private money, many (most?) wouldn't fuss a whit. Also, many of the staunchest anti-abortion social conservatives reserve judgment on abortion in the cases of rape and incest.

The bulk of the article rings true to me, but sadly. The sad thing really, is that it points to more of this Bush-Obama morph, running to the center on no ideology at all, but the mere expedience of the moment which consists little more than of sticking one's finger in the air to see which way the wind blows. That ain't leadership. Look at what it's doing to us with this corporatist war-state.

(Big h/t to Wainstead!)

Yum, Yum! Plate O' Crow!

Looks like I was proven wrong about the Colts chances after resting players. Where's my fork and my salt? Todd, can you help a feller out here?


While I did watch the game, and was pulling for the Colts, I found myself fairly detached from it. I watched hockey and surfed at the same time. I'm not one of those sports fans who merely cheers on the team wearing my colors. I like my teams to have certain characterisitcs that I can identify with. Shrinking from greatness and history is just not something I can get behind.

I've struggled with being a San Jose Sharks fan these last couple of seasons. Now they are one of the most talented teams in the league. It wasn't always the case. My favorite years backing the Sharks were '99-04. These were the years with decent talent like Owen Nolan, Mike Vernon, Mike Ricci, Vincent Damphousse, and Gary Suter. They were coached by Daryl Sutter, and were a tough, gritty team, with players like Bryan Marchment, Stephane Matteau, Adam Graves, Dave Lowry, Ronnie Stern, Tony Granato, and Ron Sutter. These teams acheived beyond their talent, and I really wanted to pull for them each and every game.

Now? They team often takes the tack of, "We're the great San Jose Sharks. We merely need to put our sticks on the ice, and we'll win". They've gotten knocked out of the playoffs, early in the playoffs, every season since coach Sutter left.

Give me heart over talent any day. I couldn't tell which it was that won the game for the Colts yesterday. Maybe a little of each. Maybe a lot of Ravens' mistakes. Big mistakes.

I'll watch the next game. Well, at least part of it. I'll be playing hockey during part of it. I really don't suspect I'll be thinking about the Colts even a little bit while out on the ice.

A Replacement For George Carlin?

I snickered when I read the CNN politics page link teaser, "Sarah Palin Gets Vegas Gig". No, she isn't doing stand-up, even if her candidacy for VP seemed like a Neil Hamburger routine. But no, she's addressing the alcohol industry at a convention. From the CNN report:

Washington (CNN) - Las Vegas and alcohol probably aren't the first two things that come to mind at the mention of Sarah Palin, but the former vice presidential candidate is about to change that.

At least that's according to Craig Wolf, the president and CEO of the Wine and Liquor Wholesalers of America, who announced Tuesday that Palin will keynote the group's annual convention and and expo in Las Vegas in early April.

"Governor Palin is a great supporter of America's free enterprise system and understands that industries like the beverage alcohol industry play a key role in driving our national economy. We're proud and honored to welcome her as a speaker," Wolf said in a statement. "We expect she will share with the convention attendees her analysis of the current political environment and her vision for America's future."

If she were such a great supporter of truly free enterprise, she'd get up before them and let them know that she finds the wholesaling laws to be protectionist and generating a needless, inefficient monopoly for middlemen.

I know that would be bad form, taking their speaking fee and then bursting their bubble. But hey, just saying. I guess maybe the reason Palin appeals to conservatives is that they don't understand liberty.

What Next? Jokes on SNL?

The Onion has a take on the Colts rested players. Excellent.

Colts To Rest Starters For First Game Of Playoffs

INDIANAPOLIS—At his weekly press conference Monday, Colts head coach Jim Caldwell announced that he will rest key starters during the divisional round of the AFC playoffs to keep his players fresh for a Super Bowl run. "You can't win the Super Bowl if you don't get there with all your players healthy," said Caldwell, who added that next Saturday quarterback Peyton Manning would probably get the first two series, which will mostly be comprised of running plays. "Dwight [Freeney] and Dallas [Clark] will get about a quarter in the AFC Championship game. But honestly, even if we make it to the Super Bowl, I can't see playing these guys the whole game. The 2010 season is closer than you think." Throughout the entire press conference Manning could be seen in full uniform, stalking and pacing in the back of the room.

Heh.

A Soup of Thoughts on Travel and Food

I'm going to New York City next week, and looking forward to the food. Mainly, I'm staying in Queens, in Jackson Heights, which has more ethnic food of excellent quality than all of Indiana, far as I can tell. I am certain that I will eat Indian and Afghani, and probably eat in Chinatown for Dim Sum. Other options include a huge range of Latino offerings (Mexican, Columbian, Ecuadoran) and of course Italian.

New York is a funny place. Because I started going there in the late 80s, I still kind of think of it as a wild, permissive place. That's not in line with the outward reality, what with the smoking ban, the assault on trans fats, and now an attack on salt. From CNN:

First it was trans fats. Then it was high-calorie fast food. Now, the New York City Health Department is tackling another diet enemy: salt.

The department unveiled an initiative Monday urging restaurants and food companies across the country to voluntarily reduce their products' salt levels, city officials said.

"Salt is a huge problem in our diets," said Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and Control Program at the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. "The majority of us consume too much salt, which increases blood pressure and puts us at risk for heart attack and stroke."

New York has partnered with cities, states and national health organizations across the country with the goal of cutting the salt in packaged and restaurant foods gradually by 25 percent over five years. Doing that would reduce the nation's salt intake by 20 percent, Angell said.

The funny thing is, I don't smoke (never have), don't eat a lot of fast food, and I have low blood pressure (have even been advised by my physician to increase my salt intake at times). I didn't need any laws to bring me to this way of life, as astonishing as that may be to a pointy-headed New Yorker.

I'm kind of interested to see what impact these laws have had on the food there. One place I want to visit is Manhattan's Skylight Diner. They have many Greek dishes, but their fries were to die for. I want to see how they taste, along with some of their other obviously high calorie offerings.

This year, I chose to give up sodas. Now, my friends know what a sacrifice that is. I LOVE sodas. I used to drink 4 liters of Coke daily. When I started realizing that I could shed a few pounds just by switching from regular Coke to Diet Coke, I lost eight pounds. But, I've had a kidney stone, and phosphoric acid is an obvious culprit, so I dramatically cut my cola intake back in 2006.

Mind you, I did this without the benefit of a well-intentioned law directing me accordingly. I gathered the data, and made a choice. Isn't that incredible! That's not supposed to actually work in the real world.

And, I've said nothing about root beer. I really loooooove root beer. No matter. I've given them up. Gone 11+ days now without one. It's a matter of my personality that I find it easier to go completely without at first. Maybe come Summer I'll allow myself the occasional fizzy treat. But for now, a clean break. Lots of unsweetened ice teas, with loads of lemon for me!

Global Warming, Indeed

This weather we're having must be the effects of global warming. From CNN:

Floridians braced for a second surge of Arctic air that promised to dip well into the southern parts of the state. Key West already set a record low temperature on Thursday, bottoming out at 47 degrees -- shattering the previous low set back in 1897. Temperatures on Sunday and Monday are expected to be in the low-to-mid-40s.

Here I was expecting Florida to submerge under the rising oceans. Maybe that investment in real estate in rural Georgia was a hasty move.

Why The Fight?

Interesting. Democrats have been pushing for heavy taxes on estates, so it is a curiosity that Mel Simon's estate is being fought over in the courts. Per the Star:

One of Simon's daughters, Deborah J. Simon, is accusing her father's second wife, Bren, of coercing her ill husband to sign a new estate plan a few months before his death, while he was gravely ill and dependent on her for care.

The new estate plan increased Bren Simon's share of the estate by hundreds of millions of dollars, according to a complaint filed by Deborah Simon in Hamilton Superior Court. Meanwhile, the change essentially eliminates all charitable donations and dramatically reduces the inheritances of Deborah and her two siblings, the complaint alleges.

Bren's a good Democrat. She should be pleased to see unearned wealth handed over to the omnipotent state. Government knows best what to do with money, after all. Tax those rich people as they pass! Heavily!

Trying To Understand Union Mentality

First off, I've never belonged to a union. I've had a number of jobs, mostly private sector, one public sector. I've always made my deal directly with the employer. We negotiated terms, we agreed to terms, I worked under the terms, we both held up our respective ends of the bargain.

Collective bargaining is a mystery to me. I've never had someone negotiate for me, and I've never tied my lot to someone else. Most unions do just that. The individual is represented in a collective negotiation, and they are paid by seniority. Been here 10 years? You get more than the rookie.

Well, what if the rookie performs better than the 10-year veteran? Why would I be happy, as the rookie, to observe that I do better work, and/or produce more, than the guy who gets more money for lower quality work, and/or less output? Easy: I wouldn't be happy.

I think of things like this when I think of big union employers. It comes to mind when I think of auto manufacturers or steel plants. I thought of it again when I read a letter to the Indy Star regarding the construction of the new Wishard hospital downtown.

When the leaders of Wishard Hospital brought forward a massive renovation plan, all of the appeal was for this to be an all-community effort. The entire community was asked to support this by their votes "confirming our community's commitment to the New Wishard." Matt Gutwein, CEO of the Health and Hospital Corp., on a number of occasions in public meetings to rally community support touted inclusiveness of all community sectors as important to the success of this project.

Now that actual construction documents are being distributed, we find a much different story. We are finding out that a large sector of the construction industry -- nonunion contractors and nonunion construction workers -- will essentially be locked out from participating due to a backroom deal with the local big labor bosses.

These deals are always fascinating to me. The bidding process in government jobs always seems inherently corrupt. Deals are made that exclude non-union builders, and someone complains. Deals are made the include non-union builders, and the union complains. Here's an idea: Why not use the best builders available?

So, back to my thoughts about relative merit. If I'm a top rate carpenter, and I'm 8 years in, putting me in the upper end of the lower third of workers, behind the 15- and 20-year guys, why would I stand for it? If I'm good, I want to be paid accordingly. Isn't three going to be some righteous grumbling going on?

Which begs, how good is the work going to be really, in this kind of scenario?

Unions represent all kinds of employees. Obviously, this kind of scheme doesn't apply to the NFL or Major League Baseball. A highly touted rookie who hasn't done anything can score a far greater deal than a 10-year utility infielder. But this does apply to police and fire, autoworkers and many others.

I suspect there is something about differences of personality, where I couldn't tolerate such a scenario, yet others are very happy with it. Thoughts?