Good news from Alaska, it seems it will indeed require a cold day to see Joe Miller to Washington D.C. and while we now have to wait and see if his lawyers can secure the election for him I doubt they will succeed in their task.
To all who voted, whoever they happened to vote for, thank you, our system only works by the grace of our citizens taking the time.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Miller is screwed Gott sei Dank
Well a new poll conducted Oct 26th shows that Miller has done what I'm sure most of us knew was possible, he screwed himself into 3rd place. Now to be fair the events that I believe have put Miller into 3rd all transpired before the primary but it was his reluctance to address those issues that allowed them to become the fatal flaw in his bid for Alaska's senate seat. Of course the issues to which I am referring are varied and many but most notably are his receipt of government hand-outs and his transgressions while an attorney for the Fairbanks Borough.
The poll in question now shows McAdams with 29% and Miller with 23%, an certain unnamed write-in candidate ranks first with 34% of the vote. Bravo Mr. Miller. Now I have no illusions that his loss will be laid at the feet of nasty negative ads and of course the vile liberal media working to destroy him, but in all fairness this kind of attitude is why Miller is in third. In this case, the media, liberal or not, did its job and did it well. The media dug hard and uncovered aspects of Miller's past that as we can see have most certainly effected the opinion held of him by voters. These were not engineered stories fabricated from half truths, these things happened and wish as he might they cannot be undone. I for one would not have had a problem voting for a candidate with his past, so long of course as that candidate represented my views, Miller does not.
Miller represents what I feel is a fair position, and I can agree with the Tea Party platform that things need to change in Washington and that the democrats and republicans are unlikely to be able to solve these issues to my satisfaction. However I do not feel that Miller represents the Tea Party movement in anything other than name, the kind of solutions to these issues start at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Until we have made the changes at home, in Anchorage, in Fairbanks, in Juneau, electing federal representatives is a moo point (kind of like a cow's opinion). Electing Joe Miller to the senate serves no purpose, there is still no control, there is still no responsibility, there is still nothing other than the word of a politician and a poor chance that it will be kept.
In other news, Tea Party supporters and pro-palin (? I guess they do still exist?) peoples have flocked in mass (~100? guess that counts) to the division of elections to sign up as write-in candidates hoping to make the list and confuse the hell out of Murkowski voters thus handing the victory firmly to McAdams. Frankly this is absurd and only shows that these folks really are delusional. People only want the list to confirm spelling most likely. I'm sure in the aftermath of this election the dems and gop will challenge any vote they can (hanging chad?). To think someone is going to punch Miller because finding Murkowski is to hard is laughable. For those signing up as an act of civil disobedience, well that's well and good, and a good half hour of your life you won't be getting back.
Cheers
The poll in question now shows McAdams with 29% and Miller with 23%, an certain unnamed write-in candidate ranks first with 34% of the vote. Bravo Mr. Miller. Now I have no illusions that his loss will be laid at the feet of nasty negative ads and of course the vile liberal media working to destroy him, but in all fairness this kind of attitude is why Miller is in third. In this case, the media, liberal or not, did its job and did it well. The media dug hard and uncovered aspects of Miller's past that as we can see have most certainly effected the opinion held of him by voters. These were not engineered stories fabricated from half truths, these things happened and wish as he might they cannot be undone. I for one would not have had a problem voting for a candidate with his past, so long of course as that candidate represented my views, Miller does not.
Miller represents what I feel is a fair position, and I can agree with the Tea Party platform that things need to change in Washington and that the democrats and republicans are unlikely to be able to solve these issues to my satisfaction. However I do not feel that Miller represents the Tea Party movement in anything other than name, the kind of solutions to these issues start at the state and local level, not at the federal level. Until we have made the changes at home, in Anchorage, in Fairbanks, in Juneau, electing federal representatives is a moo point (kind of like a cow's opinion). Electing Joe Miller to the senate serves no purpose, there is still no control, there is still no responsibility, there is still nothing other than the word of a politician and a poor chance that it will be kept.
In other news, Tea Party supporters and pro-palin (? I guess they do still exist?) peoples have flocked in mass (~100? guess that counts) to the division of elections to sign up as write-in candidates hoping to make the list and confuse the hell out of Murkowski voters thus handing the victory firmly to McAdams. Frankly this is absurd and only shows that these folks really are delusional. People only want the list to confirm spelling most likely. I'm sure in the aftermath of this election the dems and gop will challenge any vote they can (hanging chad?). To think someone is going to punch Miller because finding Murkowski is to hard is laughable. For those signing up as an act of civil disobedience, well that's well and good, and a good half hour of your life you won't be getting back.
Cheers
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Court reverses ruling on providing lists of write-in candidates.
A higher court reversed the ruling thus allowing lists of write-in candidates to be provided to voters so long as the voter requests it.
Common sense: 1
Asshat political parties: -1
Common sense: 1
Asshat political parties: -1
Monday, October 25, 2010
Is Providing a list of write-in cadidates illegal?
The big political news to kick off this week in Alaska politics is that both the Democrat and Republican parties will be sueing the state division of elections to try and block election workers from providing a list of write in cadidates if requested to do so by a voter. The director of the division of elections has determined that this service falls under providing voter assistance and is something that is only provided if it is requested. The two main parties feel its evidence of the government trying to influence the election. What a joke.
Although it is rare when democrats and republicans agree on issues of policy, its simple for me to see why they are in this case. Both parties are afraid of Lisa Murkowski. Even as a write in she is still perhaps the most electable candidate running. Believe it or not she IS the middle ground. More conservative than McAdams and more liberal than Miller. The democrats are afraid because she polls better than McAdams and the republicans are afraid because she polled most recently neck and neck with Miller.
So are we are the threshold of another election being effectively decided by the courts as it was in 2000? I hope not. Why should it be illegal to provide a list of candidates and instructions on write-in voting if so asked by a voter? We know from experience that the two parties will use even the slightest mistake to get someones vote thrown out thus robbing them of their right (hanging chad anyone?). In fact the parties have already requested lists of votes who may have been made with this assistance provided during early voting last week, I wonder if they are planning legal action to invalidate those votes as well. Election workers provide instrutions on how to fill out ballots all the time, when the integrity of someones vote can so easily be questioned and the vote discarded is it any wonder the responsible voter would request information on doing something most of us have never done? Perhaps even a list of candidates so that spelling will be correct?
I see this whole event as a desperate effort by the parties to disenfranchise as many voters as possible (as long as they aren't their voters). Frankly I find it disgusting and can't wait for the courts to strike it down. If they don't I plan on taking tuesday off and standing outside my polling place (at least 200ft) handing out write-in instructions with a list of write-in cadidates. My way of flipping the bird to the establishment.
Although it is rare when democrats and republicans agree on issues of policy, its simple for me to see why they are in this case. Both parties are afraid of Lisa Murkowski. Even as a write in she is still perhaps the most electable candidate running. Believe it or not she IS the middle ground. More conservative than McAdams and more liberal than Miller. The democrats are afraid because she polls better than McAdams and the republicans are afraid because she polled most recently neck and neck with Miller.
So are we are the threshold of another election being effectively decided by the courts as it was in 2000? I hope not. Why should it be illegal to provide a list of candidates and instructions on write-in voting if so asked by a voter? We know from experience that the two parties will use even the slightest mistake to get someones vote thrown out thus robbing them of their right (hanging chad anyone?). In fact the parties have already requested lists of votes who may have been made with this assistance provided during early voting last week, I wonder if they are planning legal action to invalidate those votes as well. Election workers provide instrutions on how to fill out ballots all the time, when the integrity of someones vote can so easily be questioned and the vote discarded is it any wonder the responsible voter would request information on doing something most of us have never done? Perhaps even a list of candidates so that spelling will be correct?
I see this whole event as a desperate effort by the parties to disenfranchise as many voters as possible (as long as they aren't their voters). Frankly I find it disgusting and can't wait for the courts to strike it down. If they don't I plan on taking tuesday off and standing outside my polling place (at least 200ft) handing out write-in instructions with a list of write-in cadidates. My way of flipping the bird to the establishment.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Miller urged to answer questions about his past BY REPUBLICANS!
Well Joe Milelr may not realize that a press blackout about his background is a mistake but it seems the members of his own party have. It seems a group of about 40 high ranking Alaska republicans have written and signed a open letter to candidate Miller urging him to answer questions about his past.
Of course on this blog we have already covered the folly of such a stance as well as the hipocrisy of faulting Lisa on her past while refusing to disclose your own. Do I think Joe will bend on this matter? I doubt it. In the long list of people Joe doesn't trust, his own party is only a couple places under the media. As it is even though it would help his chances with the undecided voters I'm sure Joe is viewing this as some kind of trap despite the lack of Admiral Akbar being present.
Joe is quickly working to destroy his own momentum anyway possible. Laying blame at the feet of the media and party establishment makes for great talk radio and often gets the head nod from the furthest right among us. Unfortunately, it has a rather poor record of drawing undecided and independent voters in, which as well are often reminded, are the real ones that decide elections.
Of course on this blog we have already covered the folly of such a stance as well as the hipocrisy of faulting Lisa on her past while refusing to disclose your own. Do I think Joe will bend on this matter? I doubt it. In the long list of people Joe doesn't trust, his own party is only a couple places under the media. As it is even though it would help his chances with the undecided voters I'm sure Joe is viewing this as some kind of trap despite the lack of Admiral Akbar being present.
Joe is quickly working to destroy his own momentum anyway possible. Laying blame at the feet of the media and party establishment makes for great talk radio and often gets the head nod from the furthest right among us. Unfortunately, it has a rather poor record of drawing undecided and independent voters in, which as well are often reminded, are the real ones that decide elections.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Joe Miller staying quiet about his past, is this move smart or suspecious?
So as of Friday senate candidate Joe Miller will no longer be answering any questions about his or his family's past. Now, people can still ask about it, he just won't be answering. Miller is taking this position under the guise of keeping the election about the issues, not about a persons personal past. Unfortunately for Mr. Miller, his past is not only an integral part of who he is, but it is also perhaps the only thing we have to judge him on aside from what he says he supports or will support if elected.
Personnally I place more weight on a person history than I do their speech, ESPECIALLY when that person is a politican. How often are we reminded of a politician that says one thing (especially during an election) only to do another afterward. I think Mr. Miller's history is perhaps more important and speaks more about him than he could ever say himself. As Aristotle once said "We are what we repeatedly do." Is one of the great philosophers of human history wrong when it comes to Mr. Miller?
Perhaps it is just me, but it feels more as if Mr. Miller is attempting to hide his past than to focus on the issues. Lisa Murkowski's past is certainlty available for scrutiny and has been the focus of many of the ads against her re-election. Lisa's past is often used to provide evidence that she believes this or doesn't believe that, that she will push this agenda and ignore another. Are we as voters not entitled to have the same history on Joe Miller so we can draw similar conclusions?
I think it is time that Mr. Miller faced up and accepted that as a public figure his private life is essentially over. It is important that the details of his past be revealed so that the voters can make informed decisions on who they would like to represent them in Washington D.C. Mr. Miller has said that 'he is not perfect, no one is perfect' and I agree and accept that. However, the information still needs to be available so that voters can make their own determination.
Perhaps I am being unfair, perhaps the media is really 'out to get' Mr. Miller. Or, perhaps his lack of disclosure only adds fuel to the fire and blood in the water, even if nothing is there it still encourages people to dig deeper, just in case.
P.S. This brings me back to a though about repealing the 17th admendment and giving selection of senators back to the state governement. It Mr. Miller did supress his past and win the election, then afterwards something immoral, unethical, etc. was uncovered, how would we bring him back? The voting public would have very little recourse, we have almost no protection from something like this.
Personnally I place more weight on a person history than I do their speech, ESPECIALLY when that person is a politican. How often are we reminded of a politician that says one thing (especially during an election) only to do another afterward. I think Mr. Miller's history is perhaps more important and speaks more about him than he could ever say himself. As Aristotle once said "We are what we repeatedly do." Is one of the great philosophers of human history wrong when it comes to Mr. Miller?
Perhaps it is just me, but it feels more as if Mr. Miller is attempting to hide his past than to focus on the issues. Lisa Murkowski's past is certainlty available for scrutiny and has been the focus of many of the ads against her re-election. Lisa's past is often used to provide evidence that she believes this or doesn't believe that, that she will push this agenda and ignore another. Are we as voters not entitled to have the same history on Joe Miller so we can draw similar conclusions?
I think it is time that Mr. Miller faced up and accepted that as a public figure his private life is essentially over. It is important that the details of his past be revealed so that the voters can make informed decisions on who they would like to represent them in Washington D.C. Mr. Miller has said that 'he is not perfect, no one is perfect' and I agree and accept that. However, the information still needs to be available so that voters can make their own determination.
Perhaps I am being unfair, perhaps the media is really 'out to get' Mr. Miller. Or, perhaps his lack of disclosure only adds fuel to the fire and blood in the water, even if nothing is there it still encourages people to dig deeper, just in case.
P.S. This brings me back to a though about repealing the 17th admendment and giving selection of senators back to the state governement. It Mr. Miller did supress his past and win the election, then afterwards something immoral, unethical, etc. was uncovered, how would we bring him back? The voting public would have very little recourse, we have almost no protection from something like this.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Finally! Something I can support Joe Miller on!
I was reading in the usually news sources that I frequent many times a day and ran across an interview with Alaska Senate candidate Joe Miller where he supported repeal of the 17th amendment. While I don't think he will win my vote based on this issue alone I do think it would be worth discussing why I think this amendment was a mistake and why I support his opinion that it should be repealed.
For those who are not familar with the 17th amendent, the 17th amendment was introduced in 1912 and ratified in 1913, it modified the constituion with regards to the election of state senators and filling of vacancies in the senate. Essentially the 17th amendment changed the method of electing Senators from a function of the state legislature to a fuction of popular election. It also gave the Governor of the state the responsibility of filling any senate vacancies.
Maybe with any luck we can return to a time where the interests of the states were represented in the senate, where the merits of a person were debated instead of advertised, and where the daily schedule of the senate did not revolve around fund raising.
Popular election? Whats wrong with that? Well let's get started.
First popular elections are expensive and time consuming undertakings, the require alot of preparation and support to make happen where as the state legislature is already formed and need only add it to their current list of business.
Second, because the senators are choosen by the state legislature they are in this case indirectly elected by the people, assuming that the legislators are following their constituents.
Third, the senators have experience in politics and have ample opportunity to debate their choice for senate where as most popular elections are consumed with advertising and mud slinging.
Fourth, (and I like this one alot) should it be necessary the legislature can recall a senator at the snap of a finger, all it takes is a vote. There is no long drawn out petition process and then waiting for an election cycle for the public to vote on it. With the current system the public has almost no recourse against a Senator who is not properly representing the people other than threatening not to re-elect them or starting the lengthy recall process.
The current system has turned being a U.S. Senator into a perpetual fund raiser. You need to money to out advertise your opponent and win the vote of the public. Rarely is an election about the issues as it is about the public's perception of the candidate. The biggest donors get the most time and since states rarely donate to candidates the states themselves are at the back of line for their own Senator's time. Who's at the front? The special interest groups and corporations that give the most money. State Governments have no lobbyist of PACs.
Sadly, I find it hard to believe that Senators elected via a popular vote would choose to change that system. It would be akin to slashing their own throats which is basically what the states did in ratifying the 17th amendment in the first place. The 17th amendment is in direct conflict with the balance between state and federal government and until this power is given back to the states, the people will forever be at the mercy of the federal government and most their senators will forever be the pawns of those who paid for their elections.
EDIT: In response to comment #1, politicians have the reputation of being liars and untrustworthy, saying whatever is necessary to be elected even though their loyalty seems to remain with whomever finances their campaign. In its most basic form a repeal of 17 would eliminate most of this at least in regards to senate seats. It would no longer be necessary to 'sell' oneself to the public by promising this and that and the other and then having no accountability after the fact.
In addition I think that politicans at the state level are far more reliable, trustworthy, easier to contact, and easier to hold accountable. In addition because of the smaller size of house and senate districts, it is much easier and less expensive to run for state government than a larger office. Even if 17 were repealed it would not fix the system immedeatly but would be a certain step in the right direction.
Thanks for the comment
For those who are not familar with the 17th amendent, the 17th amendment was introduced in 1912 and ratified in 1913, it modified the constituion with regards to the election of state senators and filling of vacancies in the senate. Essentially the 17th amendment changed the method of electing Senators from a function of the state legislature to a fuction of popular election. It also gave the Governor of the state the responsibility of filling any senate vacancies.
Maybe with any luck we can return to a time where the interests of the states were represented in the senate, where the merits of a person were debated instead of advertised, and where the daily schedule of the senate did not revolve around fund raising.
Popular election? Whats wrong with that? Well let's get started.
First popular elections are expensive and time consuming undertakings, the require alot of preparation and support to make happen where as the state legislature is already formed and need only add it to their current list of business.
Second, because the senators are choosen by the state legislature they are in this case indirectly elected by the people, assuming that the legislators are following their constituents.
Third, the senators have experience in politics and have ample opportunity to debate their choice for senate where as most popular elections are consumed with advertising and mud slinging.
Fourth, (and I like this one alot) should it be necessary the legislature can recall a senator at the snap of a finger, all it takes is a vote. There is no long drawn out petition process and then waiting for an election cycle for the public to vote on it. With the current system the public has almost no recourse against a Senator who is not properly representing the people other than threatening not to re-elect them or starting the lengthy recall process.
The current system has turned being a U.S. Senator into a perpetual fund raiser. You need to money to out advertise your opponent and win the vote of the public. Rarely is an election about the issues as it is about the public's perception of the candidate. The biggest donors get the most time and since states rarely donate to candidates the states themselves are at the back of line for their own Senator's time. Who's at the front? The special interest groups and corporations that give the most money. State Governments have no lobbyist of PACs.
Sadly, I find it hard to believe that Senators elected via a popular vote would choose to change that system. It would be akin to slashing their own throats which is basically what the states did in ratifying the 17th amendment in the first place. The 17th amendment is in direct conflict with the balance between state and federal government and until this power is given back to the states, the people will forever be at the mercy of the federal government and most their senators will forever be the pawns of those who paid for their elections.
EDIT: In response to comment #1, politicians have the reputation of being liars and untrustworthy, saying whatever is necessary to be elected even though their loyalty seems to remain with whomever finances their campaign. In its most basic form a repeal of 17 would eliminate most of this at least in regards to senate seats. It would no longer be necessary to 'sell' oneself to the public by promising this and that and the other and then having no accountability after the fact.
In addition I think that politicans at the state level are far more reliable, trustworthy, easier to contact, and easier to hold accountable. In addition because of the smaller size of house and senate districts, it is much easier and less expensive to run for state government than a larger office. Even if 17 were repealed it would not fix the system immedeatly but would be a certain step in the right direction.
Thanks for the comment
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Late Blog Post: The illusion of personal responsiblity......
Today in the news was the story of a man who's home he watched burn to the ground with a group of fire fighters by his side. The man had decided it was not necessary to pay the $75 fee a nearby town charges to extend fire service coverage into the rural area of Tennessee where he lives. When he initially called 911 he offered to pay 'whatever it takes' to save his home. Still the fire fighters did not intervene until the fire threatened his neighbor's property. The neighbor had paid the $75 fee.
No one was inside, no one was hurt, but the man did lose everything. (Lets just hope he didn't skimp on insurance)
This reminds me of a story in the Alaska news a while back of a family who's home was burning and as the fire fighters approached the family was able to watch in horror as the engines turned off their lights, and sirens and turned around. This family was just outside the fire service area, and as I recall had also decided against paying the fee/tax whatever you want to call it.
So this brings up a very important question. Do have the right to refuse services if they want to, and does society owe it to them to provide those services even if they are not paying into the system. In my mind it comes down to 2 words, personal responsibility. The idea that people are responsible for their own actions and decisions and that no one is obligated to save them from it. Now in both cases I understand why the firefighters chose not to intervene. In the Alaska situation as I recall it had to do with them not being insured to fight fires outside the service area if it was not being paid for, and I am fairly certain that a similar circumstance is in effect in the more recent case. In other words the fire fighters were taking personal responsibility. I'm sure it was a hard decision to make, but when its only a loss of property is it worth the possibility of injury or death with no insurance? They seem to have decided its not.
Now we need to ask if the home owners were taking personal responsibility....the answer is no. In these cases the home owners decided a small cost savings was worth the risk of not having fire protection or better yet perhaps thought that if the need ever did arise that they would receive the service anyway. I would not be surprised if, ironically enough, these folks thought of themselves as very 'independent' and 'self-sufficient'. There is a price to pay for such avarice, and if someone does want to walk that path they must be prepared to be RESPONSIBLE for what they may find.
A lack of personal responsibility, or perhaps the illusion of it, is incredible rampant today in American society. We have an entire culture built around escaping blame and pushing it onto others. Its to the point where we can't be responsible for spilling coffee on our self, its not our fault if the coffee wasn't so hot I could have spilt all I wanted to and not burned myself. So I better sue. Or perhaps that its not our fault we lost our home to foreclosure, its not because I purchased more than I could afford its because the loan agent lied about my income to get me the loan. Yes I knew the information was wrong but that's not my fault either.
See where this is going? Nothing bad that ever happens to anyone is their fault, it's always someone else's. Well bad news. Your responsible.....hell your even responsible for things you can't control! Car ran a red light and hit your motorcycle and broke your back? Guess who should have seen it coming? YOU. Someone comes into your yard and is bitten by your dog. Guess who should have had the dog chained? YOU. Someone picks a fight with your son at school and your son ends up hurting the other kid? Guess who should have taught their son not to stick up for themselves. That's right.....YOU.
Sure you can take any one of those examples and try to push the blame on someone else. But the fact of the matter is you are responsible and in most cases the only reason why you'd have a problem is because the other party won't take responsibility. 'Motorcycles are so hard to see', or 'He was speeding!' (how this changes running the red light I don't know...). Nevermind that person should have never been in your yard anyway and was probably up to no good, and nevermind that the other kid started the fight with your son. Their failure is your liability.
Life is most like a game in that its only fun when everyone plays by the same rules. Those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves are a burden on all the rest of us and are often the ones who believe themselves the most responsible, or in the right. However, for the most part (some exceptions exist) they deserve to reap the fruits of their illusion, however rotten they may be.
P.S. I bet he wished he paid the $75 and I'm sure there is a lawsuit in the works against the fire department.
No one was inside, no one was hurt, but the man did lose everything. (Lets just hope he didn't skimp on insurance)
This reminds me of a story in the Alaska news a while back of a family who's home was burning and as the fire fighters approached the family was able to watch in horror as the engines turned off their lights, and sirens and turned around. This family was just outside the fire service area, and as I recall had also decided against paying the fee/tax whatever you want to call it.
So this brings up a very important question. Do have the right to refuse services if they want to, and does society owe it to them to provide those services even if they are not paying into the system. In my mind it comes down to 2 words, personal responsibility. The idea that people are responsible for their own actions and decisions and that no one is obligated to save them from it. Now in both cases I understand why the firefighters chose not to intervene. In the Alaska situation as I recall it had to do with them not being insured to fight fires outside the service area if it was not being paid for, and I am fairly certain that a similar circumstance is in effect in the more recent case. In other words the fire fighters were taking personal responsibility. I'm sure it was a hard decision to make, but when its only a loss of property is it worth the possibility of injury or death with no insurance? They seem to have decided its not.
Now we need to ask if the home owners were taking personal responsibility....the answer is no. In these cases the home owners decided a small cost savings was worth the risk of not having fire protection or better yet perhaps thought that if the need ever did arise that they would receive the service anyway. I would not be surprised if, ironically enough, these folks thought of themselves as very 'independent' and 'self-sufficient'. There is a price to pay for such avarice, and if someone does want to walk that path they must be prepared to be RESPONSIBLE for what they may find.
A lack of personal responsibility, or perhaps the illusion of it, is incredible rampant today in American society. We have an entire culture built around escaping blame and pushing it onto others. Its to the point where we can't be responsible for spilling coffee on our self, its not our fault if the coffee wasn't so hot I could have spilt all I wanted to and not burned myself. So I better sue. Or perhaps that its not our fault we lost our home to foreclosure, its not because I purchased more than I could afford its because the loan agent lied about my income to get me the loan. Yes I knew the information was wrong but that's not my fault either.
See where this is going? Nothing bad that ever happens to anyone is their fault, it's always someone else's. Well bad news. Your responsible.....hell your even responsible for things you can't control! Car ran a red light and hit your motorcycle and broke your back? Guess who should have seen it coming? YOU. Someone comes into your yard and is bitten by your dog. Guess who should have had the dog chained? YOU. Someone picks a fight with your son at school and your son ends up hurting the other kid? Guess who should have taught their son not to stick up for themselves. That's right.....YOU.
Sure you can take any one of those examples and try to push the blame on someone else. But the fact of the matter is you are responsible and in most cases the only reason why you'd have a problem is because the other party won't take responsibility. 'Motorcycles are so hard to see', or 'He was speeding!' (how this changes running the red light I don't know...). Nevermind that person should have never been in your yard anyway and was probably up to no good, and nevermind that the other kid started the fight with your son. Their failure is your liability.
Life is most like a game in that its only fun when everyone plays by the same rules. Those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves are a burden on all the rest of us and are often the ones who believe themselves the most responsible, or in the right. However, for the most part (some exceptions exist) they deserve to reap the fruits of their illusion, however rotten they may be.
P.S. I bet he wished he paid the $75 and I'm sure there is a lawsuit in the works against the fire department.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Sarah Palin: Lisa Murkowski backers are Liberals and Union Thugs
So begins the mud slinging. Sarah Palin was on the radio show of Mark Levin on Friday and offered this to describe Lisa Murkowski, that she was backed by democrats and "union thugs".....so whos backing McAdams? Sarah Palin hasn't liked Lisa Murkowski in a very long time. Sarah ran very hard against Lisa's farther Frank and as with most elections there was some mud slung. Of course Lisa was able to get her jabs in as well stating she was very 'disappointed' when Sarah quit as governor.
Alaskans seem fairly well divided over Sarah, I think most people can appreciate what she tried to do but even if you agree with her politics its hard to support a quiter. I admit to being a Palin supporter on most issues (mainly AGIA and oil/gas tax reform) but when she quit because of the ethics complaints I lost alot of respect for her.
As for Lisa Murkowski being a left wing nut job.....I'm pretty sure she's rather right than McAdams and I am VERY sure she is farther left than Miller. So I suppose if you were looking at her from the perspective of the darling of the Tea Party (Palin) she would appear left. However, I think most Alaskans see her as being a moderate.
Either way this is turning into another case of the pot calling the kettle black, no matter how you look at it both candidates are using money from less than perfect sources. Miller even refuses to tell how much he raised and from whom during his recent trip to Washington D.C. There is plenty of out of state money flying around in this election to make any politician blush. Cheers to you Sarah for going to bat for your candidate but couldn't you find some issues to attack her on instead of pandering to fear of liberals and unions? But I guess that is what gets the Tea Party vote out.
You betcha.
Alaskans seem fairly well divided over Sarah, I think most people can appreciate what she tried to do but even if you agree with her politics its hard to support a quiter. I admit to being a Palin supporter on most issues (mainly AGIA and oil/gas tax reform) but when she quit because of the ethics complaints I lost alot of respect for her.
As for Lisa Murkowski being a left wing nut job.....I'm pretty sure she's rather right than McAdams and I am VERY sure she is farther left than Miller. So I suppose if you were looking at her from the perspective of the darling of the Tea Party (Palin) she would appear left. However, I think most Alaskans see her as being a moderate.
Either way this is turning into another case of the pot calling the kettle black, no matter how you look at it both candidates are using money from less than perfect sources. Miller even refuses to tell how much he raised and from whom during his recent trip to Washington D.C. There is plenty of out of state money flying around in this election to make any politician blush. Cheers to you Sarah for going to bat for your candidate but couldn't you find some issues to attack her on instead of pandering to fear of liberals and unions? But I guess that is what gets the Tea Party vote out.
You betcha.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
Slightly Off-Topic, RE: Rutger's student suicide shows how dangerous the internet is.....
Please, if anything it shows how hurtful people can be....but we already knew that. While, I mean no disrespect to the family, friends, and loved ones of Tyler Clementi, this is not a proper event to use as a call to arms for internet regulation. For those of you not familiar with the story you can Google it, but basically the young man committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington bridge after he was recorded in his dorm being intimate with another man and this recording was broadcast using a internet service.
Now despite what some may think. The internet was not out to get this youngman and did not maliciously search him out and plant the camera in his room then broadcast it. No, this was perpitrated by his roommate, who did it either out of malice or perhaps boredom. As it seems people need to be reminded so often that the internet is a tool, and as a tool the potential for misuse is always present and the ethics of the matter are left to the users.
While I do abhore the fact that this persons privacy was violated in such an extreme way, we need to focus on punishing those individuals responsible instead of pushing the responsibility onto the internet. We as Americans need to begin taking responsibility for our own actions. We have cultivated such a culture of blame that it paralyzes us from actually being able to solve problems and move forward. The person actually responsible is being charged with a felony which I think is more than appropriate. Although I am saddened at the loss of life and that those responsible did not have the decency to let this man be, we are all in the end responsbile for our own actions.
I applaud the family of Mr. Clementi for having the strength of character and wish them the best.
Now despite what some may think. The internet was not out to get this youngman and did not maliciously search him out and plant the camera in his room then broadcast it. No, this was perpitrated by his roommate, who did it either out of malice or perhaps boredom. As it seems people need to be reminded so often that the internet is a tool, and as a tool the potential for misuse is always present and the ethics of the matter are left to the users.
While I do abhore the fact that this persons privacy was violated in such an extreme way, we need to focus on punishing those individuals responsible instead of pushing the responsibility onto the internet. We as Americans need to begin taking responsibility for our own actions. We have cultivated such a culture of blame that it paralyzes us from actually being able to solve problems and move forward. The person actually responsible is being charged with a felony which I think is more than appropriate. Although I am saddened at the loss of life and that those responsible did not have the decency to let this man be, we are all in the end responsbile for our own actions.
I applaud the family of Mr. Clementi for having the strength of character and wish them the best.
Murkowski write-in damages McAdams more than Miller, recent poll shows.
When Lisa Murkowski first announced her write-in campaign, it was understood that it could go one of two ways. Either Murkowski would divide the republican vote, or she would take support from McAdams the democratic nominee in the form of independents and moderates. Well, according to a poll recently released by Ivan Moore (a local political consultant and pollster) it seems to be the latter.
The recent polls show that Murkowski is drawing support from those who would have more likely voted democrat had she not been in the race, while Miller's support is maintaining solidarity. This is quickly becoming the situation that many Murkowski supporters had feared. If support was leeched from Miller it would only strengthen Lisa's chances. However with the support coming from McAdams there is a chance that it will divide the anti-Miller vote to the point that neither candidate will be able to prevail over him. According to the pull 30% of democrats polled said they were supporting Murkowski while 15% remained undecided. The poll also shows Miller leading followed closely by Murkowski.
Whether or not these polls are to be taken as representitive is always up for debate. This is of course the same pollster that showed Murkowski easily winning the Republican primary election. The polling was primarily done with 'super-voters' (those who have voted in the last 3-4 elections) and make it difficult to gauge the effect that newly motivated voters (Tea Parties?) might have on the outcome. Even while McAdams is shown as trailing both Murkowski and Miller the Alaska Democratic Party maintains that they believe the race is still 'wide-open'.
Regardless of how correct these polls are they do highlight an important reality. The supporters of Joe Miller are in a much better position. By being the candidate of the far right and the far right being very mobilized he has a stronger base to work with. Murkowski on the other hand is coming from being a conservative but not conservative enough for many Tea Party supporters. As a result Miller could very well win the election on the count of neither McAdams nor Murkowski being able to generate enough votes individually, although I do believe that their votes combined would hand him defeat. Unfortunately I don't see a remedy for this other than either McAdams or Murkowski dropping out. Sadly for McAdams, even if Murkowski dropped out I don't think he would have the votes to win, and sadly for the anti-Miller crowd, I dont' see McAdams dropping out at all.
The recent polls show that Murkowski is drawing support from those who would have more likely voted democrat had she not been in the race, while Miller's support is maintaining solidarity. This is quickly becoming the situation that many Murkowski supporters had feared. If support was leeched from Miller it would only strengthen Lisa's chances. However with the support coming from McAdams there is a chance that it will divide the anti-Miller vote to the point that neither candidate will be able to prevail over him. According to the pull 30% of democrats polled said they were supporting Murkowski while 15% remained undecided. The poll also shows Miller leading followed closely by Murkowski.
Whether or not these polls are to be taken as representitive is always up for debate. This is of course the same pollster that showed Murkowski easily winning the Republican primary election. The polling was primarily done with 'super-voters' (those who have voted in the last 3-4 elections) and make it difficult to gauge the effect that newly motivated voters (Tea Parties?) might have on the outcome. Even while McAdams is shown as trailing both Murkowski and Miller the Alaska Democratic Party maintains that they believe the race is still 'wide-open'.
Regardless of how correct these polls are they do highlight an important reality. The supporters of Joe Miller are in a much better position. By being the candidate of the far right and the far right being very mobilized he has a stronger base to work with. Murkowski on the other hand is coming from being a conservative but not conservative enough for many Tea Party supporters. As a result Miller could very well win the election on the count of neither McAdams nor Murkowski being able to generate enough votes individually, although I do believe that their votes combined would hand him defeat. Unfortunately I don't see a remedy for this other than either McAdams or Murkowski dropping out. Sadly for McAdams, even if Murkowski dropped out I don't think he would have the votes to win, and sadly for the anti-Miller crowd, I dont' see McAdams dropping out at all.
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Alaska's Senate seat does not belong to the Tea Party....
True, Alaska's seat belong to Alaskans.
As some may have read, Lisa Murkowski made this statement during an interview on Friday, October 1st, and I agree completely. Alaska's Senate seats belong to Alaskans, and every few years ago we elect two people to conduct our business with them. Now, I know that some folks that may not like Lisa Murkowski may be saying "Well, it's not your seat either Lisa!", and that true it isn't.
What Lisa is referring to is the effort underway by the Tea Party Express to directly affect the Senate election here in Alaska. They are, as I write this, supposedly sending buses of people from Califronia to Alaska to work at getting Joe Miller elected. Frankly I can't see why there is no outcry against this. Nearly every election cycles has some protestation against 'outside' influences in our elections, be it money, or some other support. I see this as being no different, and feel just as strongly to speak out against it.
It is my opionion that the Tea Parties are composed of the kinds of people who would be the first to speak out against outside influences in elections. I am sure they were/are some of the most vocal opposition to the prospect of corporations and forign governments exercising influence in our elections, so why is this any different? Is it just because the Tea Party is a grass roots movement that it is allowed such behavior? Is this another case of do as I say not as I do? or do they see the desired ends as justifying their actions? Whichever way they attempt to justify it, I find it unacceptable. Can you imagine the outcry if the Obama campaign had bused supporters up to Alaska?
I love what the Tea Parties are trying to do. I want to see more rights to the states and a smaller Federal government. I think its great that we have so many grass roots movements popping up all over the country supporting the Tea Party movement. However, I feel that the Tea Party Express is trying to nationalize the movement, which I would think goes against what the Tea Party movement stands for. If Alaska's Tea Party organizations are not able to create enough support for their candidate to win, then it is irresponsible for a much larger tea party orginaization to come in for the sole purpose of proping up that candidate.
I think the Tea Parties is scared that even with the GOP nomination Joe Miller won't be able to win.
As some may have read, Lisa Murkowski made this statement during an interview on Friday, October 1st, and I agree completely. Alaska's Senate seats belong to Alaskans, and every few years ago we elect two people to conduct our business with them. Now, I know that some folks that may not like Lisa Murkowski may be saying "Well, it's not your seat either Lisa!", and that true it isn't.
What Lisa is referring to is the effort underway by the Tea Party Express to directly affect the Senate election here in Alaska. They are, as I write this, supposedly sending buses of people from Califronia to Alaska to work at getting Joe Miller elected. Frankly I can't see why there is no outcry against this. Nearly every election cycles has some protestation against 'outside' influences in our elections, be it money, or some other support. I see this as being no different, and feel just as strongly to speak out against it.
It is my opionion that the Tea Parties are composed of the kinds of people who would be the first to speak out against outside influences in elections. I am sure they were/are some of the most vocal opposition to the prospect of corporations and forign governments exercising influence in our elections, so why is this any different? Is it just because the Tea Party is a grass roots movement that it is allowed such behavior? Is this another case of do as I say not as I do? or do they see the desired ends as justifying their actions? Whichever way they attempt to justify it, I find it unacceptable. Can you imagine the outcry if the Obama campaign had bused supporters up to Alaska?
I love what the Tea Parties are trying to do. I want to see more rights to the states and a smaller Federal government. I think its great that we have so many grass roots movements popping up all over the country supporting the Tea Party movement. However, I feel that the Tea Party Express is trying to nationalize the movement, which I would think goes against what the Tea Party movement stands for. If Alaska's Tea Party organizations are not able to create enough support for their candidate to win, then it is irresponsible for a much larger tea party orginaization to come in for the sole purpose of proping up that candidate.
I think the Tea Parties is scared that even with the GOP nomination Joe Miller won't be able to win.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Joe Miller Fails to file Senate Disclosure, Hides from reporters.
Joe Miller has so far failed to file the necessary Senate Disclosure forms for his investments, personal holdings and potential conflict on interests. These reports are due once a candidate receives more than $5000 in campaign contributions, in this case they were due in April. Both of the other contenders for the Alaska senate seat, Lisa Murkowski and Scott McAdams have filed their appropriate claims. These forms serve to allow the public a glimpse of the candidates investments and personal wealth so that potential conflicts of interest can be identified. The forms are vague to protect at least some privacy, but list such items as college funds, properties, income source, stock holdings, and other investments.
Joe Miller's campaign manager chalks this up to a simple 'oversight' and claims the forms will be filed shortly. Still one is left wondering how such an important part of the process can be ignored. There is a fine of $200 for being one month late on the filing and Miller requested no extension. The fine for not filing at all is $50,000. To me this seems like odd behavior for a man that refused to pay the full price for his hunting and fishing license, and instead choose to apply for a low-income license. (See previous blog post)
So what does he have to hide? It would be fairly simple to compile the necessary information to file the form. Government forms might be confusing but they are seldom impossible. I'm sure someone in the Republican party knows how to fill this form out. Lisa sure does. From a man who seems to have taken advantage of just about every government program he has been eligible for, maybe he's afraid of what people will think if he has more farm subsidies or something.
Regardless of what he is hiding Miller is completely unwilling to talk with reporters, even to the point of misleading and lying. While attending a Republican fund raiser in Washington D.C. Miller left through the back door and was presumably picked up in the alley way. When a reporter asked the driver of a black pickup if he was there for Miller the driver answered 'no', although this was the same black pickup that had pulled up front of the fund raiser and told police they were there to pickup Miller. The a man later came out form the fund raiser and told the pickup to go around to the alleyway.
Why can't we actually have honest politicians, who are upfront, and straight forward? Why does it always have to be pulling teeth? Its not like people aren't going to find out eventually, hiding it just makes the problems bigger. This is often a lesson most people are taught at a young age. That coming forward is better than hiding the truth and being exposed later. Perhaps this is a lesson Mr. Miller never learned. You can't avoid the media, you shouldn't avoid the media. Despite all the accusations that the media is pushing a leftist agenda, the only thing worse than relying on only the media from our information would be only relying on Joe Miller's Campaign.
Am I being to judgmental of Mr. Miller? Unfair? I don't think so. I would hope that most voters would approach his avoidance of the media and failure to file simple (yet important) forms to be suspicious at least.
Feel free to comment with your thoughts. You can read a complete story here.
Joe Miller's campaign manager chalks this up to a simple 'oversight' and claims the forms will be filed shortly. Still one is left wondering how such an important part of the process can be ignored. There is a fine of $200 for being one month late on the filing and Miller requested no extension. The fine for not filing at all is $50,000. To me this seems like odd behavior for a man that refused to pay the full price for his hunting and fishing license, and instead choose to apply for a low-income license. (See previous blog post)
So what does he have to hide? It would be fairly simple to compile the necessary information to file the form. Government forms might be confusing but they are seldom impossible. I'm sure someone in the Republican party knows how to fill this form out. Lisa sure does. From a man who seems to have taken advantage of just about every government program he has been eligible for, maybe he's afraid of what people will think if he has more farm subsidies or something.
Regardless of what he is hiding Miller is completely unwilling to talk with reporters, even to the point of misleading and lying. While attending a Republican fund raiser in Washington D.C. Miller left through the back door and was presumably picked up in the alley way. When a reporter asked the driver of a black pickup if he was there for Miller the driver answered 'no', although this was the same black pickup that had pulled up front of the fund raiser and told police they were there to pickup Miller. The a man later came out form the fund raiser and told the pickup to go around to the alleyway.
Why can't we actually have honest politicians, who are upfront, and straight forward? Why does it always have to be pulling teeth? Its not like people aren't going to find out eventually, hiding it just makes the problems bigger. This is often a lesson most people are taught at a young age. That coming forward is better than hiding the truth and being exposed later. Perhaps this is a lesson Mr. Miller never learned. You can't avoid the media, you shouldn't avoid the media. Despite all the accusations that the media is pushing a leftist agenda, the only thing worse than relying on only the media from our information would be only relying on Joe Miller's Campaign.
Am I being to judgmental of Mr. Miller? Unfair? I don't think so. I would hope that most voters would approach his avoidance of the media and failure to file simple (yet important) forms to be suspicious at least.
Feel free to comment with your thoughts. You can read a complete story here.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Why putting off the tough votes until after november was a mistake....
Because it makes it look like your going to piss your supporters off. There is really no other way to put it. You want to wait until your either voted out of office so you know it won't affect the outcome or you want to wait until you win (re)election so you have years to go before they can vote you out of office.
If politicians were half as concerned with the fate and direction of our country as they were about their own careers we would be running a multi-trillion dollar surplus with 3% unemployment. Instead we have a bunch of wimps who can't pass legislation because they know it will be unpopular because it screws over Americans.
Why is it so hard for some people to do the right thing? Is it not enough that after one term in the senate you get retirement and health care? That you have to work against the American people while you are there. Are these people just evil? ignorant? some fantastic combination of the two? Since you don't want to do the votes now I'm just going to assuming your plan is to screw us over.
If politicians were half as concerned with the fate and direction of our country as they were about their own careers we would be running a multi-trillion dollar surplus with 3% unemployment. Instead we have a bunch of wimps who can't pass legislation because they know it will be unpopular because it screws over Americans.
Why is it so hard for some people to do the right thing? Is it not enough that after one term in the senate you get retirement and health care? That you have to work against the American people while you are there. Are these people just evil? ignorant? some fantastic combination of the two? Since you don't want to do the votes now I'm just going to assuming your plan is to screw us over.
Should Alaskans Recall Senator Mark Begich? and why they won't.
This is an interesting question for Alaska. Senator Mark Begich has been found by a municipal investigation to be in the wrong for his hand it the city of Anchorage's budget shortfall. But the only ones who seem to care are conservatives and tea parties. In fact there is little if any media coverage of the recall campaign, it isn't the talk of the town and for the most part few if anyone seems concerned.
With 4 more years left in his term there is ample time to recall him and field a new senator, but is there the political will? Based on the investigation a re-election campaign will be particularly difficult for Senator Begich but not impossible. I doubt he will even have anyone from his own party challenge him. Perhaps if Lisa Murkowski fails at her write-in campaign we will see her again in 2014.
To be honest I think the scuffle between Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski has done more to dismiss efforts to recall Senator Begich than anything else could have. 95% of the people interested in recalling him are now tied up trying to defeat Lisa to pay him any attention. I've met Senator Begich several time and have always thought he was a nice person, and I must be like many Alaskans in that I don't feel the need to hasten his departure from the U.S. Senate. However, when 2014 rolls around, I probably won't be voting for him, maybe he won't even run.
But why won't Alaskans recall him? Why be content to let him finish his term? It seems to me a well publicized recall campaign would do great harm to the democrats in the upcoming election, so why not?
Well to be honest the report is not very damning. It cites "Administration failed to practice prudent fiscal management". Of course it also faults the Anchorage Assembly for the same thing. Basically Senator Begich failed to notify the assembly of the shortfall but also the assembly failed to ask for it. You can read the full report here, Begich's spokesperson blamed the economy in 2008 for the lack of fiscal transparency. "But the findings in the audit report need to be evaluated in context. The events and decisions analyzed occurred during the most extreme economic conditions since the Great Depression. Those conditions at the end of 2008 created challenges for governments and businesses in Alaska and across the country that were unparalleled. They were certainly unprecedented in the history of the Municipality of Anchorage." You can read about that story here.
Aside from their being enough blame to go around the single website I could find trying the champion the recall "recallbegich.org" seems to have very little activity and more concerned with selling buttons that pushing any real recall effort (sorry guys), but with roughly one post a week and some of them not even about the recall effort its obvious this is not their top priority. Additionally I'm sure their lack of site support stems from the requirement to 'sign-up' and provide an e-mail address before you can view anything but the landing page.
If the die-hards aren't motivated how can you expect anyone else to be?
With 4 more years left in his term there is ample time to recall him and field a new senator, but is there the political will? Based on the investigation a re-election campaign will be particularly difficult for Senator Begich but not impossible. I doubt he will even have anyone from his own party challenge him. Perhaps if Lisa Murkowski fails at her write-in campaign we will see her again in 2014.
To be honest I think the scuffle between Joe Miller and Lisa Murkowski has done more to dismiss efforts to recall Senator Begich than anything else could have. 95% of the people interested in recalling him are now tied up trying to defeat Lisa to pay him any attention. I've met Senator Begich several time and have always thought he was a nice person, and I must be like many Alaskans in that I don't feel the need to hasten his departure from the U.S. Senate. However, when 2014 rolls around, I probably won't be voting for him, maybe he won't even run.
But why won't Alaskans recall him? Why be content to let him finish his term? It seems to me a well publicized recall campaign would do great harm to the democrats in the upcoming election, so why not?
Well to be honest the report is not very damning. It cites "Administration failed to practice prudent fiscal management". Of course it also faults the Anchorage Assembly for the same thing. Basically Senator Begich failed to notify the assembly of the shortfall but also the assembly failed to ask for it. You can read the full report here, Begich's spokesperson blamed the economy in 2008 for the lack of fiscal transparency. "But the findings in the audit report need to be evaluated in context. The events and decisions analyzed occurred during the most extreme economic conditions since the Great Depression. Those conditions at the end of 2008 created challenges for governments and businesses in Alaska and across the country that were unparalleled. They were certainly unprecedented in the history of the Municipality of Anchorage." You can read about that story here.
Aside from their being enough blame to go around the single website I could find trying the champion the recall "recallbegich.org" seems to have very little activity and more concerned with selling buttons that pushing any real recall effort (sorry guys), but with roughly one post a week and some of them not even about the recall effort its obvious this is not their top priority. Additionally I'm sure their lack of site support stems from the requirement to 'sign-up' and provide an e-mail address before you can view anything but the landing page.
If the die-hards aren't motivated how can you expect anyone else to be?
What wrong with the Federal Government and how to fix it.....
What if a politician were to shrink government and cut spending? How could they run again after that? Who would elect someone who's platform was I cut jobs and didn't spend more of your money than I had to. We as Americans had developed a mentality that the government is there to provide programs and spend money. Now we are seeing the fruits of that labor. Even the great Ronald Regan didn't shrink the deficit. While true he increased defense spending and defeated communism he still did at a deficit.
I would love to see the IRS eliminated and a flat tax or national sales tax in its place. How many jobs would that eliminate? Most people at the IRS, private accountants, tax lawyers, clerks, tax website, quick books, quicken, turbo tax, most of these professions and companies would be diminished if not completely eliminated. Which brings me to why this and things like it won't happen. There is not enough will in Washington or in the American Public to sacrifice in the short term for gain in the long term. Our habit of deficit spending proves it.
America didn't have the patience to wait and save for something when they could just borrow to get it, and get that, and that over there, and this too. There was no fiscal responsibility because much like communism the only way to defeat the other party was to outspend them on platforms you believe America supported. For the Democrats it was social spending and for the GOP is was defense spending. The facts are we spend to much on both, but cutting social spending makes me a monster and cutting defense spending makes me a socialist (or Nazi, although technically a Nazism is a far right ideology, so all you folks that call liberals Nazis are incorrect, communists maybe but not Nazis.)
We need to go back to the days when senators were elected by the state legislatures and could be immediately recalled if their behavior was deemed unacceptable. Just imagine how many senators would have been yanked back before health care was passed? A majority of Americans opposed it and yet it still passed? What a slap in the face. The ability to revoke their office if enough people in a state wanted it would be a great incentive for senators to better represent their constituents.
This is one time where I can agree with the Tea Party, the states need to play a more active role, the federal government has become the dominant force and this was not the way it was supposed to be.
I would love to see the IRS eliminated and a flat tax or national sales tax in its place. How many jobs would that eliminate? Most people at the IRS, private accountants, tax lawyers, clerks, tax website, quick books, quicken, turbo tax, most of these professions and companies would be diminished if not completely eliminated. Which brings me to why this and things like it won't happen. There is not enough will in Washington or in the American Public to sacrifice in the short term for gain in the long term. Our habit of deficit spending proves it.
America didn't have the patience to wait and save for something when they could just borrow to get it, and get that, and that over there, and this too. There was no fiscal responsibility because much like communism the only way to defeat the other party was to outspend them on platforms you believe America supported. For the Democrats it was social spending and for the GOP is was defense spending. The facts are we spend to much on both, but cutting social spending makes me a monster and cutting defense spending makes me a socialist (or Nazi, although technically a Nazism is a far right ideology, so all you folks that call liberals Nazis are incorrect, communists maybe but not Nazis.)
We need to go back to the days when senators were elected by the state legislatures and could be immediately recalled if their behavior was deemed unacceptable. Just imagine how many senators would have been yanked back before health care was passed? A majority of Americans opposed it and yet it still passed? What a slap in the face. The ability to revoke their office if enough people in a state wanted it would be a great incentive for senators to better represent their constituents.
This is one time where I can agree with the Tea Party, the states need to play a more active role, the federal government has become the dominant force and this was not the way it was supposed to be.
Can Lisa Murkowski Win a Write-In?
As we edge ever so closer to the November elections many Alaskan conservatives are being faced with a tough question. If they are or were supporters of Lisa Murkowski before the primary and still believe she can do a better job than Joe Miller. Do they vote for her as a write-in and risk splitting the republican vote and giving the win to the Democratic challenger Scott McAdams, or do they toe the party line and vote for Miller because being far right is better than being far left?
This will be a tough call for many Alaskans. For the most part the reason Senator Murkowski was targeted by the tea parties for replacement was the same qualities that made her appeal to many Alaskans. She was and is not a far right conservative, at least not as far right as Joe Miller. So while some feel that she isn't conservative enough, most Alaskans appreciated having a more center right representative. Although many far right voters will fault Senator Murkowski for working with the democrats and voting on some controversial issues, she was at least willing to work towards a compromise, and at the same time not remain content with just obstructing.
Its hard to back a party who sits and pouts like a child when they don't get their way, who spends so much time and energy demonizing the other side that it makes it political suicide to agree with them on anything, even if that agreement would be on an issue that both sides should support. I think we know I'm talking about the GOP.
While I won't be able to support a democrat in this election its very difficult to support the GOP when they offer almost nothing as far as real solutions. Sure the soundbites and battle cries sound nice. Shrink government! Cut Spending! The GOP is just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to our debt and bloated federal government. Even voting for a tea party candidate at least in this race seems a little pointless. Joe Miller is NOT a tea party champion, he may be running under their banner and with their support but when he last ran for office in 2004 he ran as a republican, and there is more in his past to damage his tea party credentials than it seems there is to support it.
The Joe Miller Saga in Alaska is very similar to whats going on in Delaware with Christine O'Donnel. She has ran before and was not particularly far right, but now that she has tea party support it looks like she might win. This election might actually go down as a huge bust, where unqualified and potentially unstable candidates were elected for no better reason than their ability to mold themselves into the proper platform.
Educated? Never owned a business? government employee? sounds like a list of reasons the for conservatives not to vote for someone. Yet this is some of Joe Miller's background. Personally I'm worried by a group who thinks a lack of experience in politics makes someone more qualified to hold political office. The problem is not that we elected the wrong people in most cases. Its that we didn't hold them accountable and uphold our values as Alaskans and Americans. It wasn't until President Obama was elected that we really saw an outcry for smaller government and cutting spending, yet the excess of the last 2 years has been a hallmark of the federal government for more than the last half century.
I think Lisa Murkowski can win and despite all my misgivings about her I do believe she has represented Alaska faithfully during her time in office. Pursing, what under the circumstances was what she thought Alaskans wanted. We need a change of thinking, senators and congress are not there in Washington to conduct the business of the federal government. They are there to reign in the executive branch and make sure that the states are allowed to thrive. Not receive handouts or bail outs, if the people in a state want welfare, or health care, or something along those lines. Then those states should vote on it, have it, and pay for it. I think if re-elected Lisa will represent to new mood of Alaskans and recognize what necessary to fix the federal government.
This will be a tough call for many Alaskans. For the most part the reason Senator Murkowski was targeted by the tea parties for replacement was the same qualities that made her appeal to many Alaskans. She was and is not a far right conservative, at least not as far right as Joe Miller. So while some feel that she isn't conservative enough, most Alaskans appreciated having a more center right representative. Although many far right voters will fault Senator Murkowski for working with the democrats and voting on some controversial issues, she was at least willing to work towards a compromise, and at the same time not remain content with just obstructing.
Its hard to back a party who sits and pouts like a child when they don't get their way, who spends so much time and energy demonizing the other side that it makes it political suicide to agree with them on anything, even if that agreement would be on an issue that both sides should support. I think we know I'm talking about the GOP.
While I won't be able to support a democrat in this election its very difficult to support the GOP when they offer almost nothing as far as real solutions. Sure the soundbites and battle cries sound nice. Shrink government! Cut Spending! The GOP is just as guilty as the democrats when it comes to our debt and bloated federal government. Even voting for a tea party candidate at least in this race seems a little pointless. Joe Miller is NOT a tea party champion, he may be running under their banner and with their support but when he last ran for office in 2004 he ran as a republican, and there is more in his past to damage his tea party credentials than it seems there is to support it.
The Joe Miller Saga in Alaska is very similar to whats going on in Delaware with Christine O'Donnel. She has ran before and was not particularly far right, but now that she has tea party support it looks like she might win. This election might actually go down as a huge bust, where unqualified and potentially unstable candidates were elected for no better reason than their ability to mold themselves into the proper platform.
Educated? Never owned a business? government employee? sounds like a list of reasons the for conservatives not to vote for someone. Yet this is some of Joe Miller's background. Personally I'm worried by a group who thinks a lack of experience in politics makes someone more qualified to hold political office. The problem is not that we elected the wrong people in most cases. Its that we didn't hold them accountable and uphold our values as Alaskans and Americans. It wasn't until President Obama was elected that we really saw an outcry for smaller government and cutting spending, yet the excess of the last 2 years has been a hallmark of the federal government for more than the last half century.
I think Lisa Murkowski can win and despite all my misgivings about her I do believe she has represented Alaska faithfully during her time in office. Pursing, what under the circumstances was what she thought Alaskans wanted. We need a change of thinking, senators and congress are not there in Washington to conduct the business of the federal government. They are there to reign in the executive branch and make sure that the states are allowed to thrive. Not receive handouts or bail outs, if the people in a state want welfare, or health care, or something along those lines. Then those states should vote on it, have it, and pay for it. I think if re-elected Lisa will represent to new mood of Alaskans and recognize what necessary to fix the federal government.
The Importance of Voting
Voting is an important if not almost sacred part of being an American, and yet so many of us choose not to vote. Every election cycle my mind is astounded by the turn out numbers, 40%....? 30%....? Less.....?!?! and this is the combined voter turn out for both parties. No wonder so many Americans are upset with the politicians in Washington and elsewhere they were elected by at best 1/4 of the voting population.
As the Republican Senate primary and the previous senate election of 2006 prove, races, especially in Alaska can be decided by a relatively small amount of votes, with the margins between winner and loser being very tight. Every vote counts and its always comical to me when I discuss politics with someone and while they complain about this or that you ask...."Well did you vote?" and the answer is "No." Your vote is your best opportunity to effect the direction of your state and country, aside from protesting in the streets (or writing a political blog :P) both of which are significantly more time consuming than 10 minutes in a booth every few years.
Personally I don't see how we can't have 80% or 90% voter turnout. I understand that sometimes things happen and maybe you didn't get to the polls....this time, but that you will be more than sure next time to do so. That's fine, but I've met people in their 30s and older that have NEVER voted in their life. For the most part neither of their parents voted either. Which is probably where they got the idea it wasn't important or necessary in the first place.
Now as much as it pains me this is one thing we can't blame on politicians, they try very hard to 'get the vote out' especially if those people are going to vote for them. No, unfortunately it is the non-voting public who is at fault. Which happens to be a majority of Americans. So you could actually say America is at fault.
Now, this isn't the fault of the school system or some other institution. The schools do more than their fair share in encouraging the youth to take their civic duty seriously. I think really responsibility rests with the parents. In so many instances our behaviors and responsibilities are shaped by our parents. While I failed to find a related statistic (I love those), it seems that the common thread is parents who vote have children who vote, and even more so parents who take their kids with them when they vote, those children are even MORE likely to be voters themselves when the grow up.
When you fail to vote, your basically giving up your best chance to engage the political process. I bet there are a ton of Lisa Murkowski supporters out there that wish they had found the time.
As the Republican Senate primary and the previous senate election of 2006 prove, races, especially in Alaska can be decided by a relatively small amount of votes, with the margins between winner and loser being very tight. Every vote counts and its always comical to me when I discuss politics with someone and while they complain about this or that you ask...."Well did you vote?" and the answer is "No." Your vote is your best opportunity to effect the direction of your state and country, aside from protesting in the streets (or writing a political blog :P) both of which are significantly more time consuming than 10 minutes in a booth every few years.
Personally I don't see how we can't have 80% or 90% voter turnout. I understand that sometimes things happen and maybe you didn't get to the polls....this time, but that you will be more than sure next time to do so. That's fine, but I've met people in their 30s and older that have NEVER voted in their life. For the most part neither of their parents voted either. Which is probably where they got the idea it wasn't important or necessary in the first place.
Now as much as it pains me this is one thing we can't blame on politicians, they try very hard to 'get the vote out' especially if those people are going to vote for them. No, unfortunately it is the non-voting public who is at fault. Which happens to be a majority of Americans. So you could actually say America is at fault.
Now, this isn't the fault of the school system or some other institution. The schools do more than their fair share in encouraging the youth to take their civic duty seriously. I think really responsibility rests with the parents. In so many instances our behaviors and responsibilities are shaped by our parents. While I failed to find a related statistic (I love those), it seems that the common thread is parents who vote have children who vote, and even more so parents who take their kids with them when they vote, those children are even MORE likely to be voters themselves when the grow up.
When you fail to vote, your basically giving up your best chance to engage the political process. I bet there are a ton of Lisa Murkowski supporters out there that wish they had found the time.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Joe Miller's Low Income Hunting License, Legal but also unethical
Well now that people are actually looking at Joe Miller it seems a day can't go by that some new clue to his total lack of moral compass doesn't pop up.
The case in point today is that Mr. Miller filed for a 'low-income hunting license' in 1995. Now in Alaska at the time in order to meet the requirements for a low-income license one had to either be on welfare or have an annual family income of less than $8200. According to a report by the Anchorage Daily News, Miller did make less than that during the prescribed time period. Although he also managed to buy a $88,000 home (now worth over $400,000) he did this by selling some farm property in Kansas (the same property he received government subsides for) and working as a store clerk for part of the year. The remainder of the year he was going to law school at Yale.
This was all for 1994, the hunting license was for 1995. When he actually applied and received the hunting license which was distributed in July, he had graduated from Yale and obtained employment as assistant borough attorney for Fairbanks, Alaska. This job had an estimate salary of $70,000 a year. His wife received her low-income license about a month later.
So while no law may have been violated it certainly seems that the spirit of the low income license was violated. This is the kind of behavior that I would not expect from a constitutional conservative. To me it appears more opportunistic than anything else and represents exactly the type of actions that this man is supposed to be against! Primarily the existence of and taking advantage of government programs designed to help the poor. This is one step away from accepting unemployment from the government, something he has said is unconstitutional. All this to save $290? Really? you couldn't have just paid it? The rest of us do....what makes it different for you? Had this not come to light I'm sure if asked Mr. Miller would have spoken out about the unfairness of such a program that provides a low cost license to the poor while saddling the 'wealthy' (+$8200 isn't very wealthy) with the costs.
Another example of do as I say, not as I do. At least we are getting a better look at Candidate Miller's character before the election. I'm sure facts like this and his farm subsides will make the choices this November much more clear cut.
Click here to get 1 Million Guaranteed Real Visitors, FREE!
The case in point today is that Mr. Miller filed for a 'low-income hunting license' in 1995. Now in Alaska at the time in order to meet the requirements for a low-income license one had to either be on welfare or have an annual family income of less than $8200. According to a report by the Anchorage Daily News, Miller did make less than that during the prescribed time period. Although he also managed to buy a $88,000 home (now worth over $400,000) he did this by selling some farm property in Kansas (the same property he received government subsides for) and working as a store clerk for part of the year. The remainder of the year he was going to law school at Yale.
This was all for 1994, the hunting license was for 1995. When he actually applied and received the hunting license which was distributed in July, he had graduated from Yale and obtained employment as assistant borough attorney for Fairbanks, Alaska. This job had an estimate salary of $70,000 a year. His wife received her low-income license about a month later.
So while no law may have been violated it certainly seems that the spirit of the low income license was violated. This is the kind of behavior that I would not expect from a constitutional conservative. To me it appears more opportunistic than anything else and represents exactly the type of actions that this man is supposed to be against! Primarily the existence of and taking advantage of government programs designed to help the poor. This is one step away from accepting unemployment from the government, something he has said is unconstitutional. All this to save $290? Really? you couldn't have just paid it? The rest of us do....what makes it different for you? Had this not come to light I'm sure if asked Mr. Miller would have spoken out about the unfairness of such a program that provides a low cost license to the poor while saddling the 'wealthy' (+$8200 isn't very wealthy) with the costs.
Another example of do as I say, not as I do. At least we are getting a better look at Candidate Miller's character before the election. I'm sure facts like this and his farm subsides will make the choices this November much more clear cut.
Click here to get 1 Million Guaranteed Real Visitors, FREE!
GMO Atlantic Salmon, One Alaskan's View
So one of the big topics this week is the GMO Atlantic Salmon or 'Frankenfish' as it has started to be called. For those of you who haven't heard this fish has been 'genetically modified' by Aqua Bounty Farms Inc. (feel free to follow the link and tell them what you think :P )to grow twice as fast as natural Atlantic Salmon. They claim that the fish is perfectly safe and this claim is currently under investigation by the FDA but to be honest looks like its heading for approval.
So what does this mean for Alaska?
As most Alaskans will tell you the commercial fishing industry is a major source of income for many Alaskan families. For other Alaskans it is a source of food and yet others still a great sport. I prefer fishing for silvers myself, although not as large as the kings I enjoy being able to fish for more than 1 a day (the current limit on kings).
Regardless, how is this new fish going to affect Alaskans? Well simple economics say the price of Alaskan salmon will go down. However, I am not so sure. The current law DISALLOWS (so you can't do it) a product from claiming that it is 100% natural non-GMO. If this were to be changed and Alaskan Salmon (and others) could be marketed as 100% non-GMO I think it would actually improve the product and give us a new market that never existed before. Even if the GMO 'Frankenfish' is perfectly safe there will still be a large number of people who will never trust it and never want anything to do with it.
I'm not saying there will be no impact on our commercial fishing but this should make the conservationists happy as it will bring demand down (slightly). Of course this price drop is only assuming that Aqua Bounty doesn't price their fish accordingly. There is still going to be a cost associated with developing this product and of course with growing and marketing it.
Additionally there will be almost no market for sport fishing these fish as they will all be farm grown and kept in pins as to insure they never escape into the wild.
Personally I see this as an opportunity for Alaska to promote the Alaskan Salmon as a pure natural alternative. So it won't be used in low end products (which is what I imagine the GMO alternative will be used for), but this has been the domain of red salmon (often considered the least desirable) for decades now.
Please feel free to comment and leave feedback, and better yet feel free to contact the GMO Salmon company at the link above. If you've already followed that link and still feel feisty here is the link to the FDA Contact Site, tell them what you think.
So what does this mean for Alaska?
As most Alaskans will tell you the commercial fishing industry is a major source of income for many Alaskan families. For other Alaskans it is a source of food and yet others still a great sport. I prefer fishing for silvers myself, although not as large as the kings I enjoy being able to fish for more than 1 a day (the current limit on kings).
Regardless, how is this new fish going to affect Alaskans? Well simple economics say the price of Alaskan salmon will go down. However, I am not so sure. The current law DISALLOWS (so you can't do it) a product from claiming that it is 100% natural non-GMO. If this were to be changed and Alaskan Salmon (and others) could be marketed as 100% non-GMO I think it would actually improve the product and give us a new market that never existed before. Even if the GMO 'Frankenfish' is perfectly safe there will still be a large number of people who will never trust it and never want anything to do with it.
I'm not saying there will be no impact on our commercial fishing but this should make the conservationists happy as it will bring demand down (slightly). Of course this price drop is only assuming that Aqua Bounty doesn't price their fish accordingly. There is still going to be a cost associated with developing this product and of course with growing and marketing it.
Additionally there will be almost no market for sport fishing these fish as they will all be farm grown and kept in pins as to insure they never escape into the wild.
Personally I see this as an opportunity for Alaska to promote the Alaskan Salmon as a pure natural alternative. So it won't be used in low end products (which is what I imagine the GMO alternative will be used for), but this has been the domain of red salmon (often considered the least desirable) for decades now.
Please feel free to comment and leave feedback, and better yet feel free to contact the GMO Salmon company at the link above. If you've already followed that link and still feel feisty here is the link to the FDA Contact Site, tell them what you think.
Sarah Palin stalker, was it only a matter of time?
So it appears that Sarah has finally began to reap the benefits of the national spotlight, she now has her very own stalker. While I'm sure this isn't the first one or the last, this is the first one that she's needed a protective order for.
Apparently, Shawn R. Christy an 18 year old from Pennsylvania sent Sarah a receipt for a gun he purchased along with a statement saying “he tried to follow the Bible but had evil and wickedness in him.” In the petition for the protective order it goes on to say that he called Sarah from a 907 area code (which is an Alaska area code for those of you who don't know) number saying that he believed she had to be punished if she wouldn't tell the truth and also claimed to have had an affair with the former governor. Police have spoken with Mr. Christy apparently but I don't think we have heard the last of this nut job. It a shame we can't deport this guy.
While, like many Alaskans, I don't really appreciate what Sarah has done for this us, I am glad that this wacko is at least being watched and wish Sarah and her family the best.
If you'd like to read the whole story you can read about it here.
Apparently, Shawn R. Christy an 18 year old from Pennsylvania sent Sarah a receipt for a gun he purchased along with a statement saying “he tried to follow the Bible but had evil and wickedness in him.” In the petition for the protective order it goes on to say that he called Sarah from a 907 area code (which is an Alaska area code for those of you who don't know) number saying that he believed she had to be punished if she wouldn't tell the truth and also claimed to have had an affair with the former governor. Police have spoken with Mr. Christy apparently but I don't think we have heard the last of this nut job. It a shame we can't deport this guy.
While, like many Alaskans, I don't really appreciate what Sarah has done for this us, I am glad that this wacko is at least being watched and wish Sarah and her family the best.
If you'd like to read the whole story you can read about it here.
My View: Joe Miller vs. Lisa Murkowski (What it means for Alaska)
Joe Miller, right-wing nut or Alaska's savior?
As we creep ever closer to the November election. It appears more and more that this will be a 2 horse race. McAdams will get a majority of the liberal vote I'm sure, however, most Alaskans aren't liberals. Most Alaskans are Independents and Republicans. Even with Lisa as a write-in candidate I don't think McAdams has a snowballs chance at a rodeo at winning this seat. In fact I would place money that Lisa will pull it off and make some history in the process.
1) Joe Miller really isn't a political newcomer. He made a run for the Alaska State House in 2004 (lost to a democrat).
2) Despite not being a political newcomer he is inexpeienced politically.
3) He doesn't walk the walk. Despite all his tough talk about being a constituational conservative, he himself has taken advantage of the programs he has called unconstitutional. (Farm subsidies anyone?) At the very least this damages the strength of his conviction and principles.
4) Has never ran a business. This is often the Republican battle-cry as why so many over-educated (is there such a thing?) liberals are not fit to hold public office.
5) He comes off as a bit of a wack job. Now granted, I think most politicians come off as wack jobs, something about talking out both sides of your head does this to you. I've watched and listened to the interviews and while it is very much the 'in' thing to talk about how so many government programs are unconstitutional he has very little to say to back up why. Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer?
Lisa Murkowski on the other hand needs to learn how to run a campagin. In all honesty she deserved to be beat by Joe Miller. She took one look at him and saw no threat whatsoever and so decided to treat him as such. Had she gone out and campagined like her seat depended on it she would have won the primary and had a much easier time of this whole election. Perhaps this was a lesson in respect she needed to learn.
There is no possible way anyone can convince me that Lisa Murkowski didn't have more support than Joe Miller for the primary. Joe Miller just proved far more capable at getting his supporters out to vote for him.
Not to go without airing Lisa's dirty laundry, her write in campagin makes her reek of entitlement, especially after breaking her pre-election promise of listening to 'the will of the people' that she made with Joe. The fact that her voting record put her on the top of most Tea Party hit lists, while she had 1 and 1/2 terms to make herself a champion of smaller government and reigning in spending is also a sad fact. Sadly she was just going with what most of the republican party was doing.
Hopefully this will teach her a lesson as when she retains her seat (as I believe she will), she will go on to represent Alaska as the true conservative senator we demand and deserve.
As we creep ever closer to the November election. It appears more and more that this will be a 2 horse race. McAdams will get a majority of the liberal vote I'm sure, however, most Alaskans aren't liberals. Most Alaskans are Independents and Republicans. Even with Lisa as a write-in candidate I don't think McAdams has a snowballs chance at a rodeo at winning this seat. In fact I would place money that Lisa will pull it off and make some history in the process.
1) Joe Miller really isn't a political newcomer. He made a run for the Alaska State House in 2004 (lost to a democrat).
2) Despite not being a political newcomer he is inexpeienced politically.
3) He doesn't walk the walk. Despite all his tough talk about being a constituational conservative, he himself has taken advantage of the programs he has called unconstitutional. (Farm subsidies anyone?) At the very least this damages the strength of his conviction and principles.
4) Has never ran a business. This is often the Republican battle-cry as why so many over-educated (is there such a thing?) liberals are not fit to hold public office.
5) He comes off as a bit of a wack job. Now granted, I think most politicians come off as wack jobs, something about talking out both sides of your head does this to you. I've watched and listened to the interviews and while it is very much the 'in' thing to talk about how so many government programs are unconstitutional he has very little to say to back up why. Isn't he supposed to be a lawyer?
Lisa Murkowski on the other hand needs to learn how to run a campagin. In all honesty she deserved to be beat by Joe Miller. She took one look at him and saw no threat whatsoever and so decided to treat him as such. Had she gone out and campagined like her seat depended on it she would have won the primary and had a much easier time of this whole election. Perhaps this was a lesson in respect she needed to learn.
There is no possible way anyone can convince me that Lisa Murkowski didn't have more support than Joe Miller for the primary. Joe Miller just proved far more capable at getting his supporters out to vote for him.
Not to go without airing Lisa's dirty laundry, her write in campagin makes her reek of entitlement, especially after breaking her pre-election promise of listening to 'the will of the people' that she made with Joe. The fact that her voting record put her on the top of most Tea Party hit lists, while she had 1 and 1/2 terms to make herself a champion of smaller government and reigning in spending is also a sad fact. Sadly she was just going with what most of the republican party was doing.
Hopefully this will teach her a lesson as when she retains her seat (as I believe she will), she will go on to represent Alaska as the true conservative senator we demand and deserve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)