Happy New Year, dear readers. I hope 2008 was relatively kind to you, though indications are that if you are under 70, this was the worst year of your life. Me? I can't complain too much really. I've got a good job, a good family, and I'm living on the beach for the time being. Sure, I'd like to be massively rich, have a record deal, and be as in shape as I was while I was in the military, but again, I can't complain. I'm not a fat, disgusting slob who has turned into a shell of his former self. Life now is a semblance of good. Finally. If your year sucked, I hope that Fortuna smiles down upon you and turns your luck around.
Now, no more of this touchy-feely stuff. On with it, eh?
Bill Clinton, Junior Senator from NY:
I read an article that informed me that Governor Patterson was leaning towards selecting not Caroline Kennedy or that Cuomo kid, but Bill Clinton to serve out the next two years of Hillary Clinton's Senate term. I seem to have misplaced the link, so you'll have to trust me on this one. Look, by now, you should know my stance on this issue: the person pursuing another office must resign their present office in order to facilitate an immediate election of a replacement. Of course, that doesn't work for those selected as officials in a new administration after an election, so there still must be a mechanism for finding replacements. As I understand it, Clinton's seat will be held by Patterson's selection until 2010, at which time a special election will take place. Thus, Patterson's choice is a seat-warmer. Sure, Patterson might want to find someone who has a reasonable chance at holding the seat in 2010, but I think he should take another approach. I would actually endorse the selection of Bill Clinton as a seat-warmer, contingent of course on him making a public promise to step down in 2010.
In Bill Clinton, New York would get an able politician, albeit one whose politics I do not agree with, but an able, well connected, and generally competent one nonetheless. Choosing him would be better than the blind (no pun intended) selection of Caroline Kennedy. You know what you're getting with Bill. It would also give Ms. Kennedy the chance to prove her worth to New Yorkers over the next two years. I like the idea of her working for the nomination, and showing what she's got or doesn't, rather than letting us find out over the next two years. I'd say the same about Andrew Cuomo as I would about Bill Clinton, but since Cuomo certainly has aspirations for the office, he wouldn't serve the role of seat-warmer very well. Bill might have ulterior motives, but they surely don't revolve around an election to the Senate.
I'm generally not a fan of hereditary or spousal appointments, but I could live with this.
President Jeb Bush:
One thing I would rather not live with is another Bush as President, which is apparently what George H.W. Bush would like. The elder George mentioned in an interview with Fox News Sunday that he'd like to see Jeb, 55, "be president one day, or senator, whatever, yes I would." Yeah, president or...whatever. Bush says that his son has all the qualifications. Hell, apparently the qualifications aren't that high anymore anyway, what with Mr. Hope being elected after a career as a community organizer and then a few as a US Senator. So I guess a pulse and a flimsy message onto which all us plebs can latch are all that's needed.
Would Jeb be a good President? Who can say. At least if he was, he'd be elected rather than appointed to the office. But I'd rather my country not get into the habit asking specific families to lead us. A name does not a leader make. There are 300 million people in this nation and surely there are a few leaders whose names aren't Bush, Clinton, or Kennedy. Let's give them a try, eh?
Pay to Drive:
I've been reading a lot of stories about states or cities adding or changing fees and taxes on the use of motor vehicles. In Oregon, they're looking into adding GPS to every vehicle and charging drivers a mileage tax based on how much they drive and where in order to fund road repair, which is what the gas tax does. In San Francisco, they're trying to figure out how they can add fees to ease congestion, a study made possible through $1 million in federal funds.
I have a lot of questions about these types of programs. Suffice it to say, I don't like them. In Oregon, the point is that they're losing revenue generated through their gasoline tax because of low gas prices (or something), so they're looking to tax something else. I doubt they'll implement this AND ease the gasoline tax, since taxes and fees almost never decrease or vanish. But questions have already arisen about privacy violations with a state-mandated GPS system, which will somehow charge people at the pump. I ask a variety of questions. Who monitors it? Is it automated? Will the police have access to information to verify proof or innocence in a crime? Is this information admissible in court? What about private investigators? Will a driver have access to the GPS information so he or she can use it for navigation or will he have to pay for his own GPS?
Also, who pays for the GPS system? Will the mileage tax, which is paid by drivers, pay for the inclusion of a GPS in every vehicle, or will the driver have to do this along with getting a license, title, and registration (along with the sales taxes)? Who determines which company will provide the GPS service? Contract based? Who's responsible for managing it in terms of administrative snafus? What if my odometer says I've gone 200 miles, but my GPS charges me for 400?
More practically, is the amount of tax paid dependent on vehicle weight? Do commercial trucks pay more? How will truckers feel about that, since their expenses are already pretty hefty? Let's say they do away with the gasoline tax, and thus gas is cheaper in Oregon than in Washington. What is the fee on those Washingtonians who drive across the border to buy their gas and, say, drive on Oregon's roads? What happens when I drive exclusively in cities, where GPS signals don't work so well all the time?
The San Francisco tax is questionable as well. Apparently, the amount paid will be dependent on the section of city entered as well as the times drivers enter them. How will this be tracked? Checkpoints? Why not, they'd also serve to limit criminal behavior along with the benefit of tracking the population's movement? You could even bar people from entering areas that are undesirable or unsafe, such the red light district or an area controlled by gangs. All in the sake of protection, folks. What about people who live in high congestion areas? Will they be levied a fee for driving home at night? A fee others might not have?
The money generated through San Fran's tax will be used to improve public transportation. I suppose they already have an efficient method of taxation to repair roads. Perhaps Oregon should call San Francisco. But it's good for them to think of public transport...and trying to encourage people to use public transportation. I'm sure the municipality, which generally runs mass transit, will then lower fees for tickets, right? No, probably not. Public transportation is great, if you've got time to use it. Many people don't, and many work in areas not serviced by public transport. Is the goal to improve the public transportation in San Fan so much that it becomes some utopian system that everyone wants (and is encouraged) to use?
More government, and certainly more regulation, is a good thing. Right...? Yay, government.
Franken Frocked a Senator:
No, it's not a sick joke, in whichever way you might be thinking. For one, being frocked has a different meaning than what you might think (you military types will know). For two, Franken now appears to have won the Senate seat in Minnesota held by Norm Coleman, so I wasn't just exercising in drama.
I suppose that if you count enough times, the numbers will eventually work out in your favor, though I took numbers to be rather more absolute than subjective. Ho hum. Not in a democracy. Look, while I take issue with the fact that this putz is apparently the best qualified candidate in Minnesota (I honestly don't believe that), I don't care who wins so long as it's done fairly. If it's done fairly, then a democratic election has taken place, and that's all I really ask for. Who's to say now what fairly is now? There have been recounts upon recounts. Never mind that liberals are hypocrites; remember they whined for eight years about stolen elections. But I'm sure conservatives are going to do the same thing, and it looks like they're going to take the issue to court, further drawing out a bullshit affair. In fairness, whoever the losing candidate turned out to be apparently has a legal right to challenge the outcome in court, so if by some stroke Coleman would win, then Franken would likely take the issue to court.
I'm all about fighting for the right of each vote to count, but at this point, both groups of idiots (liberals and conservatives) have removed any possibility that there will be an objective answer. In the end, I question the validity of the outcome either way. Let's be honest, neither side truly wants ALL the votes to be counted. They only want specific votes counted. Dick Morris states in a letter to...friends?...that the Republican National Lawyers Association is "the nation's leading Republican group fighting for a fair vote in Minnesota. Really? Can one say that with a straight face? Come on. Can't we have maybe a nonpartisan group fighting for a fair vote? I mean, give me a break.
You know, a couple other Senate seats, the ones vacated by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, have really bugged me lately too, but man, what a beast to tackle in a mere blog. Some idiot, I can't remember who, but I believe he was a Senator, dared the Senate to bar Roland Burris, who was selected by Blagojavich to replace Obama, from serving. His thoughts being that because Burris is black, the Senate wouldn't dare to bar him because there are only a couple of minority Senators in the Senate. Seriously. He said this. I suppose his point is that Affirmative Action should be applied to elected office or something. Sure, the body's not very diverse, but to suggest the Senate can't deny a seat to a man, black, white or other, selected by a raving, corrupt lunatic, is just absurd. They can and should. Perhaps Burris is an eminently qualified person. If so, he can run in 2010.
Word of the Day: Abstinent (adjective): Abstaining, especially from self-indulgence.
On This Day in History: The US House of Representatives votes to stop sharing the Oregon Territory with the UK (1846). Wilhelm Roentgen discovers X-rays (1896). Ford Motor Company announces an eight-hour workday and a minimum wage of $5 for that eight-hour day (1914). The Free Committee for a German Workers Peace is founded. This would eventually become the Nazi Party (1918). The first female governor, Nellie Tayloe Ross of Wyoming, is elected (1925). President Nixon orders the development of the space shuttle program (1972).
"Quote? Who needs a quote?" - Anonymous.
No comments:
Post a Comment