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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.