"Mutiny in the Op-Ed of the Wash. Post?" written by Joshua on estrip.org

07/28/08 12:53 - 75ºF - ID#45171

Mutiny in the Op-Ed of the Wash. Post?

You decide: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), Speaker of the House of Representatives, is actively fighting against the wishes of the American people and is single-handedly preventing a vote on drilling legislation in the House. The Washington Post, bastion of leftward-thinking editorials in the same tradition as other papers such as the NY Times, Baltimore Sun and Boston Globe, then proceeded to print this:

A certain segment of our society loves pointing to polls suggesting that is the express wish of the American people for the Iraq war to end, and stomp their feet like spoiled children when their candidates teeter even slightly... especially when men who know what they are talking about (such as Gen. Petraeus) give that candidate information they find politically offensive. So much for "fact finding." I just have one simple question. Why is Speaker Pelosi ignoring the will of the American people on one issue while simultaneously trumpeting the will of the American people to justify her stance on another issue?

You see, Speaker Pelosi is playing a dangerous game on an issue she is dead wrong about. Forget this non-sense about opening the strategic oil reserve - it is a fallacious argument because these liberal politicians argue themselves that drilling won't affect price. Putting 90 billion barrels of oil on the market, they argue, will not affect price accordingly but putting 70 million barrels on the market is somehow a better solution in their eyes. Not only is this argument insulting to the intelligence of the American middle class who are being hurt incredibly by gas prices, but it defies even the most basic tenets of supply and demand. Even the length of time it would take to put the oil on the market has been incredibly overblown. Details aside, this is what the American people clearly want and if she doesn't allow the vote backlash against Democrats will be enormous, albeit unfairly for certain Democrats who, unlike Speaker Pelosi, respects the will of the American people.

Speaker Pelosi is willing to watch Rome burn to make a point and to stay true to the environmentalists she is beholden to. Even papers such as the Washington Post are now standing with mouth agape at Nancy Pelosi. She and she alone is to blame for preventing a vote, which she can do by decree as Speaker, which is a vote that would likely pass. What Americans want only matters to her when Americans agree with her. If she continues she will not be Speaker in another year and will be forced to walk the plank for potentially endangering the majority they currently enjoy.

Trent Lott lost his position for much, much less. If defying the will of the American people based on ideology is treasonous in the context of George W. Bush (sound familiar?), then in this context it is equally applicable as well. People should not be surprised to see that Congress is less popular than President Bush, and under the current leadership it is truly miraculous that in two years Democrats have proven that their leadership is even more haphazard than when Republicans ran things. It has only been two years! When Americans watch and listen to the leaders of Congress, can it be possible that by removing the incompetent Republicans that things have actually gotten worse? Watch and listen to Speaker Pelosi and judge for yourself.

dcoffee writes at 01:43:51 08/04/08 - Comment #37639: We're paying the price for our own inaction over the past 30 years. We could have raised CAFE standards for cars and trucks and stayed ahead of the rest of the world, whose cars we're shipping overseas and buying in America now. We could have stopped subsidizing oil companies and instead funded R&D of renewable technologies, which are suddenly popular, and should be making huge profits for forward thinking American companies. But we didn't do any of that.

Don't blame the tree-huggers... Seems like the environmentalists succeeded in getting support for preserving open spaces in America, it became a popular idea to protect parts of America from pollution, and save them for future generations. But environmentalists did not succeed in convincing the people or the government to take the next logical step, to start creating alternatives and more efficient machines for us to use. Environmentalists have been talking about conservation, pushing solar, wind, raising the CAFE standards... they've been working on it for years, you can blame them for failing to convince the people and the government, or you can blame the politicians and the people for not getting it sooner.

But the real problem is that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels, and if America makes the advances quicker than the rest of the world, we will reap the benefits of a better balance of trade, more wild places for us to enjoy, and more money in our pockets to spend.

People are getting squeezed now because we waited for the market to tell us what to do, instead of acting on the obvious. The government's job is to anticipate changes and make sure the country is prepared to adjust and hopefully be able to take advantage of those changes, they failed. Now the market is squeezing us by the balls, and we're like "but we can't change that fast" and the market is like "what the hell have you been doing for the past 5 years? you knew this was going to happen." and we're like "Rush Limbaugh told us it would all be fine!?" /comedy

I do believe that competition is the engine of innovation, but I also see that an unregulated market usually leads to monopoly, not competition. The idea that the market should be the only government we need is the biggest pipe dream of them all. /tangent

I know working class people are paying the price for all these high prices, my family is a case in point. and something needs to be done, because they don't deserve this crap. But we should put drilling as the last priority, not the first, because even though we won't see that oil for about 5 years, drilling is still a short term solution. I'll blame the government for inaction, not the environmentalists who have been demanding change for all these years. I remember hearing that if the environmentalists get their way the economy would be in the toilet, well the economy is in the toilet, even without those 'green' bogymen.

mike writes at 11:11:28 07/28/08 - Comment #37478: i say high gas prices are fine. I think we don't need falsely low gas prices, it is only gonna come bakc and slap us in the face eventually. WE might as well start dealing with it now and start looking for alternatives and lower the amount of driving. I don't think we need to have cheap gas, people oculd rearrange their life and tyr to live on less gas. Granted i live at home and work a block away but i just tink it miht be good if there are other ways to deal with high prices instead of pumping out more oil

drew writes at 03:49:53 07/28/08 - Comment #37463: I am not saying that high prices are good. But high prices are leading to conservation, and that is good.

Prices, so long as they are set by an open market, are neither good nor bad. They are natural. (On the openness of the oil market, I am not smart enough to speak--but it doesn't seem very open to me)

As for congress standing up to the executive branch, they have rolled over on war funding, on the wiretapping of American citizens, and on obstruction of justice. I believe the last two are impeachable offenses, but the congress, after raising a bit of a stink, stops fighting and even goes along with these misdeeds.

joshua writes at 02:51:28 07/28/08 - Comment #37462: Oh - after all that - it is worth mentioning that the complaints concerning the government purchasing oil were heard. In 2006 the government announced that it was going to stop purchasing crude, and in May of this year stated that by July all increases in the reserve would be halted. By the way, reserve capacity is also affected by refinery capacity, but it also appears that we are reaching full capacity for the reserve anyway, so I suppose it is only logical that this slowdown would occur.

joshua writes at 02:46:33 07/28/08 - Comment #37461: (e:ajay) - what she is doing isn't funny - the middle class and the poor definitely aren't laughing at what she's doing. The lady is an embarrassment nationally and deserves every bit of criticism she is getting. The opinion polls aren't flattering... even Dick Cheney is trumping Congress at the moment.

(e:drew) - I support a multi-pronged approach, including drilling as much as possible while simultaneously pursuing alternative technologies in an aggressive manner. Some aspects of our energy infrastructure could be easily replaced with power supplied by renewable resources, but with other aspects switching to different sources is a pipe dream. We aren't snapping our fingers and replacing a hundred million cars, thousands of aircraft, etc. to hydrogen or biofuel. It just isn't going to happen - like it or not we still need oil for the foreseeable future, but in my opinion I don't see why (save this for posterity) Al Gore's goal of having all renewable electricity within 10 years should be ignored.

Taking oil from the reserve is a political blunder and nothing more. Even if they released the entire reserve the amount of oil would last 33 days - we are talking about a tenth of that amount. This is akin to pissing on a house fire and blatantly ignores the will of the people.

I have to admit - when people suggest that high prices is a good thing, it drives me bat shit crazy. Tell that to the working poor and to the elderly, the latter of which represented a quarter of all bankruptcies last year. Punishing the most vulnerable in our society because of an ideological slant is unconscionable, even immoral in my view. Arguing that the ends justify the means, which is exactly what this is, is specious. In my opinion anyway, this is just as regressive an idea as cigarette taxes.

Again, why is the will of the American people important when the topic of Iraq comes up, but is utterly irrelevant when drilling comes up? No critics of drilling are able to answer this question so far. Americans are getting upset, particularly when they discover that between ANWR, the continental shelf and the shale oil in the Rockies we have three times (!) more reserves than the Saudis, not to mention vast reserves of natural gas. The environmentalists' concerns are becoming less relevant in the minds of the American people - that much is absolutely crystal clear. The environmentalists have been good at intimidating the politicians but they will not intimidate the vast bulk of Americans (three-quarters of all Americans, based on the most recent Zogby poll) who are not concerned about the plight of the caribou and support expansion of domestic drilling.

I don't think subsidizing oil companies on anything will be happening anytime soon, particularly when just this week the big oil companies are going to release news of record profits. What are they doing with their profits? Buying back stock. People are watching them carefully and are wondering why more money was spent buying back stock than attempting to find more supply and development of alternative energy combined.

It is incredibly easy to beat up on the energy companies though. Did you know that we haven't built a new refinery in America in over 30 years because groups like the Sierra Club actively intimidated your politicians into rejecting the idea? In the State of California, just as an example, the citizens are proud and puff their chests because they prevented the construction of new nuclear plants in their state. Now 25% of the power provided to California is imported from nuclear plants in neighboring states. It is the height of hypocrisy, but also sheds some light on how special interests have bought off our government to see things their way, to the utter detriment of the country.

Point on conservation - that is a valid point, and I think it is true that conservation has lead in part to decreased prices. I'm not about to make a logical leap and inflate the importance of conservation on prices, but I think in the long run we are going to conserve more and more. I also think any drop in the amount of crude that we use will be more than offset by demand in India and China in the long run. That is part of the problem. In any case though, Americans have instituted their own de-facto conservation policy which has been interesting to watch. The one thing we cannot do is tell people how to use their energy and how to live. Believe me, if it were a sin to be wasteful with energy Al Gore would have a special place in Hell.

One of the most interesting aspects of the low Congressional approval ratings is the variety of reasons why people are not happy. As far as 'standing up to the executive branch' is concerned, what exactly do you mean? I would love to see a qualification of that statement. They are co-equal branches and do not oversee or regulate each other, nor does one branch set an agenda for the other. I can't think of one instance where the Democratic Congress acquiesced since they took over.

ajay writes at 01:44:14 07/28/08 - Comment #37456: "Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), . . . is actively fighting against the wishes of the American people"

LOL.
(deep breath)
LOL.
(deep breath)
LOL.
(deep breath)

You have a great sense of humor, (e:Joshua). Say, could you remind your "Decider" about the wishes of the American people too, sometime? Thanks!

jason writes at 01:39:08 07/28/08 - Comment #37455: Of course she doesn't want a vote. She's afraid the people on her side will do the predictable thing and vote based on what will get them elected.

mrmike writes at 01:32:06 07/28/08 - Comment #37454: She has been a catastrophe. The 2006 election gave the Dems a chance to claim a mandate for action and she has been pissing it away. This latest pile of nonsense does make you wonder about who she actually is working for. Being scared to get vetoed shouldn't keep you from at least trying.

drew writes at 01:27:40 07/28/08 - Comment #37453: There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue.

Meanwhile, prices are heading back down. Why? Because people are driving less.

Meanwhile, conservatives are starting to convince me that more drilling MAY be a good thing, if it is done responsively (and isn't subsidized at all.)

In the short run, actions with the strategic reserve WOULD have a much greater effect, because they would be immediate and two-fold. Not only would we be releasing oil to the market, but we likely would stop filling the reserve as well. Right now, the federal government is driving UP the cost of oil by buying for the reserve.

You know what else uses a lot of oil? War. Those Humvees ain't hybrids.

For the record, I think we should be cautious with drilling, and neither fill nor empty the reserve. We should end the occupation because it is the will of the Iraqi people and smart, and if it reduces gas prices, that's nice bonus (I believe it will).

Prices will remain high for a while which should serve as an economic incentive for other technologies. Additional incentives, when done cautiously and intelligently, might help (note: not the way we are doing ethanol--that is just pork for farm states).

As for your opinion on Pelosi, I agree that she has been disappointing, but for different reasons. She has done little to stand up to the executive branch as it has abused the constitution. Forgive me for sounding like Ron Paul, but she has failed to uphold her oath of office nearly as much as Bush/Cheney have.

Permalink: Mutiny_in_the_Op_Ed_of_the_Wash_Post_.html
Words: 570

07/25/08 10:02 - 69ºF - ID#45134

Love Affair Over?

Two extraordinarily unflattering articles regarding the Anointed One -

London Times mocks Obama in ways only the British can -

American press corps admits realities of Obama campaign's arrogance, stoking suspicions many Americans have always had of the man. FNC? National Review? Try The New Republic -

Permalink: Love_Affair_Over_.html
Words: 78

07/24/08 10:22 - 66ºF - ID#45120

Endless eBay Frustration

I have shit luck on eBay.

I've posted about this before - this is where (e:paul) would find the old link and leave it here but I'm not that industrious.

For years now, I've been looking for a very specific copy of Jack Kerouac's On The Road. I've owned and read several copies previously and I suppose you could say that to me this is more than just a book. My interest in Beat literature has evolved from voracious reading to voracious reading with an additional wish to collect paperback copies with original cover art. Some examples -

I just bought The Subterraneans from another guy on eBay a month ago. Now I wish I would have waited... or maybe I'll buy this one and donate my copy to a local library or a friend.

This is a copy currently up for bid. THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. Cruelly (at least in my view) I just missed out on a copy like this a half-hour ago, for a third of the price. The guy who won? The guy who sold me The Subterraneans! Still though, this is a slightly nicer copy and is three years older (fourth edition, 1960). Even with the picture a bit fuzzy it is hard to believe that this is a 48-year old paperback. Is it worth up to $30? Had I not missed out on bidding I could have gotten the other copy for $11, including shipping. That is the frustrating bit - on eBay more often than not auctions get "bidded up" by armies of resellers. These people test maximum bid limits on honest people to bid up their auctions - I lost an auction on a similar copy of On The Road to a guy who got screwed like this to the tune of $64. Buyers with names such as f***e, a***r, t***a, etc. kept ratcheting up the auction to trigger this guy's maximum bid at the last minute. On other occasions I've seen someone flat out bid up on an auction within seconds from $4.50 to $20 - why would somebody increase the price they have to pay for the book? If you ask me, this kind of activity is borderline criminal and at the very least is completely unethical. Really, when the sellers cry about eBay's rules I laugh. Where else can people be readily ripped off and the company facilitating it all has no rules to protect buyers from predatory tactics like I've described?

So now somebody with a similarly anonymous name has bid on this copy I'm watching.... and I wait.

Permalink: Endless_eBay_Frustration.html
Words: 435

07/14/08 03:15 - 74ºF - ID#45014

Quick News

1. Regarding the big banks that are imploding due to bad assets - the stuff off of the balance sheet might be more interesting than what is on the balance sheet.

It will be interesting to see what happens if in fact the riskiest stuff wasn't on the balance sheet.

2. John McCain states that the figure he tries to model himself after is Theodore Roosevelt. While I wouldn't exactly call it a direct comparison, he might be the closest guy around. Teddy Roosevelt was far more intellectual than McCain is - Roosevelt had a brilliant, brilliant mind. He was a true Renaissance man and if you ask me is the single most interesting president we've ever had, with the possible exception of George Washington. Actually I'd skip the article about McCain

and go straight to Theodore Roosevelt's Wiki page

- it is much more interesting.

Permalink: Quick_News.html
Words: 175

07/01/08 11:49 - 69ºF - ID#44837

Coquille St. Stench w/ baby bok choy

After searing some scallops at home last night in celebration of (e:jason)'s bonus our apartment smelled like seafood. This morning, the apartment still smelled like seafood - the air circulation is extremely poor and so I've left fans on and windows open in the kitchen to air it out. I can't get the smell out of my nose as I type this - I think somehow the seafood searing smoke got into my shorts, which I happily wore again (THE HORRAH!). Actually, today I think it is a horror given the circumstances!

Permalink: Coquille_St_Stench_w_baby_bok_choy.html
Words: 93

06/25/08 06:53 - 77ºF - ID#44785

Security Cameras, yet again.

This is a bit of a damning report on how the security cameras in cities such as ours have been expanding but actually help very little.

Permalink: Security_Cameras_yet_again_.html
Words: 32

06/23/08 11:05 - 65ºF - ID#44758

Informed Voting, Obama, and You

This is what I worry about -

It's all too common. These people are not informed; they are starstruck.

drew writes at 02:18:07 06/24/08 - Comment #36406: He took control of how he was defined. Early on, he was the "wouldn't it be nice but too bad he's unelectable." He was not quite in the kucinich category, but still considered a rising star that needed time. I distinctly remember a column in the Times (from before he declared) begging him to wait, because he couldn't win now and a false start would be damaging.

Even when he was ahead in the polls, plenty of pundits were suggesting that he should be VP, which, for a front-runner, is just stupid.

His organization, his campaign, and ultimately, his votes led to him being taken more seriously. Before that, he was a liberal black guy that could make a great speech. A lot of people liked him, but didn't think he could be president.

joshua writes at 02:08:07 06/24/08 - Comment #36405: (e:drew) - don't know what to say when you suggest that Obama and his supporters have changed the media. In a way I do agree, although for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't agree with. What are we suggesting - fair weather fandom in politics? I think the media has been very consistent in who they have generally trumpeted. Prior to Iowa it was pretty clear that Obama and Hillary were by far the two biggest candidates and were being treated as such - have to disagree with you. Accuracy in media reported on this somewhat over a year ago - :::link:::

I have heard suggestions that Obama has been treated unfairly in comparison to Hillary, which I find impossibly ludicrous.

drew writes at 08:43:10 06/23/08 - Comment #36398: I don't have a valid sample size, but the majority the McCain voters I talk to don't want to/need to know anything about his record. They are pleased that he is not Obama, pro-life, and pro-war (which is, of course, a contradiction in an of itself).

I guess that shows the company I keep.

drew writes at 08:39:03 06/23/08 - Comment #36396: Obama was not taken seriously by the media until after Iowa.

Don't you remember that Hillary was "inevitable?"

The media coverage changed because Obama (and his supporters) changed it.

joshua writes at 08:11:06 06/23/08 - Comment #36395: (e:jim) - c'mon. I'm not nearly that conspiratorial. Have you guys really come up with a nickname for that? I like it anyway.

(e:drew) - I actually would like to see that proven re: what McCain supporters would say, in a similar format, or "man on the street" style.

McCain is flip flopping for the conservatives... he's trying to reassure them and get their full, if not somewhat reluctant support. He's a Teddy Roosevelt sort of Republican, similar to what I used to be prior to my leaving the party. What he isn't, is a GWB conservative. That is not, by the way, an indicator of support - I'm still considering writing myself in or voting for Lyndon LaRouche - I hear he's out of jail!

Actually the media has been incredibly interesting to me lately, because there has been a LOT of open introspection lately regarding whether or not their coverage of Hillary Clinton was fair. Just last week on NPR they openly questioned some of Obama's claims about McCain as well. That is not, to say, that they are being balanced in their coverage... they never have been. What they (some of them, anyway) certainly are interested in and self-conscious about lately, it seems, is fairness. We'll see how things go.

The Wright story could not be ignored - for them to do so would have been silly regardless of how they felt about it. This is a business, after all. So yes, they did cover it, but how MSNBC shaped their coverage was vastly different than FNC. The New Yorker virtually deified Michelle Obama while referring to Cindy McCain literally as a "Stepford Wife" - in the same article. Obama's speeches being referred to on every alphabet network as "worthy of RFK, Abraham Lincolnc, etc." We all know there will be no invitation for Cindy McCain on The View. We all know how the NYT, LAT, Boston Globe, etc. editorials read. Those of us who don't know any better still watch the network news. To suggest that Obama has had a tough time in the media... I'm sorry (e:drew) but I won't be buying it.

Governors in my view have always been the best pool of Presidential candidates because they have already done much of what the POTUS will do in terms of governing a large bureaucracy... simply on a much smaller scale and without foreign affairs concerns. I don't think it is a coincidence that congressmen rarely make it to the top desk. This year is rare and notable in that regard. In my opinion anyway, many Senators already think they should be President (Joe Biden, Barack Obama, John McCain, Chris Dodd, Hillary Clinton STAND UP!), and most of them are arrogant blowhards to begin with. House members mostly have local concerns to worry about when legislation isn't being considered. Plus, the House is occupied by two of the weirdest men ever to hold office in world politics, let alone run for President - Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. I dunno - overall I like governors much better.

jim writes at 06:20:13 06/23/08 - Comment #36387: Nutpicking, not a representative or statistically valid sample would be my 2 cents.

drew writes at 05:43:03 06/23/08 - Comment #36386: Sadly though, you are right. The majority of the voters don't know who they are voting for (or against).

A lot of people just vote because of party affiliation. Others are voting because of race (both ways). Many people are sucked in by "celebrity," many others are scared by Obama's name.

Anyway, if they assembled the same panel with McCain supporters, the response would be similar. Or, at the very least, it would be humorous, because--as I mentioned earlier--McCain is against the McCain-Fiengold campain finance law and the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform.

This link will show you his "accomplishments" of his most recent term :http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=300071&tab=bills

This link will show you that McCain has only voted in the Senate once since March 15: :::link:::

drew writes at 05:13:07 06/23/08 - Comment #36385: Our past two presidents were sorely lacking in experience when they were elected. Sure, they had been governors, but neither state was particularly just or prosperous while they were in office.

As for Cindy McCain, I am sure that if she wants to be on the view, she can get on the view. I think the campaign doesn't want her out there.

The same media that is "polishing" Obama played Wright over and over and asked (again and again) "can America handle a black president?" It hasn't been a cakewalk.

gotta go. More later.

joshua writes at 03:34:42 06/23/08 - Comment #36384: Hmm - interesting perspective.

As for registering huge numbers of new voters, indeed that is a great accomplishment, although I'd venture to say 9/10 of them sound like these people as they are utterly and completely new to politics. Nevertheless, people have to start somewhere so in the end this is, in fact, one certified and worthwhile accomplishment Obama can lay claim to. Where were you in that crowd (e:drew)? You could have flustered Hannity! =P

It really is, however, an elegant illustration of how hollow the foundation is that Obama's candidacy has been built upon. The man's reputation has been built on hype and celebrity aura rather than achievements. I'm sorry, but when talking about voting for the POTUS that is an incredible problem. Voters don't know who he is - even those who claim to support him. I thought it was telling that Chris Matthews was as dogged as he was. After all, he is the one who Media Matters tried to crucify due to perceived anti-Hillary bias.

They don't know what they are voting for, and I'm sorry, but millions of these sort are looking at Barack Obama in a favorable light because of his air of celebrity. It has little to do with what is important (the issues). The truth is that if you look at what he has advocated for in his speeches (carbon taxes, windfall profit taxes, increased taxes on income LOL except for the middle class!, virtually immediate withdraw from Iraq regardless of what his commanders tell him, universal health care, expansion of entitlement programs, etc.) - all of it is classic liberalism, the economics in particular of which will have disastrous consequences for the American economy if actually implemented. Americans don't trust him on security, and for good reason - we'd be handing a glorified community organizer the title of Commander-in-Chief, and a lot of Americans are concerned about that one.

Even the Chinese government last week through out a pre-emptive shot at Obama - clearly they don't respect him and perceive him as a weak, if not terminally inexperienced leader. Particularly interesting to me is the media's complicit willingness to scrub the Obama's image... think Cindy McCain will be on The View anytime soon?

All of this is lost on the people in that video. I'd prefer that people actually know what they are talking about - admiring his vision isn't enough when it comes to the POTUS, and overlooking a lack of experience in favor of some nebulous vibe the candidate is giving off is bewildering to me. This is the POTUS we are talking about, for chrissakes! I suspect that when the debates begin there will be millions of liberal Democrats who will get a cold splash of water to the face because they've never been exposed to, or have flat out ignored the negative aspects of their own candidates. Hillary included there as well. It won't be introspection going on, either... these people will miss the point and wonder why so many people disagree with them.

drew writes at 11:51:07 06/23/08 - Comment #36383: Few could do the same for McCain. As for McCain's accomplishments, such as his immigration bill and his campaign finance reform bill, he has stated that he would not vote for either one of them today.
What other accomplishments does McCain have? Bringing Iraq almost back to the place where it was before he authorized war?

I think registering millions of new voters is a huge accomplishment, as is raising a ton of cash from individuals (as opposed to special interests).

But I don't care as much about accomplishments as I do about vision. If McCain were good at getting things done, that would make him an even LESS desirable candidate, because most of what he wants to accomplish is bad for the country. I would prefer an ineffective person working for good to an effective person that makes things worse any day (and I think that Obama will show himself to be effective anyway!)

Permalink: Informed_Voting_Obama_and_You.html
Words: 31

06/19/08 02:35 - 64ºF - ID#44719

Buffalo Security Cameras, Pt. 2395863

As I predicted, the City of Buffalo wants to expand the usage of the cameras, an idea openly advocated for by city officials because it will increase revenue $3.5 million per year. Keep in mind - this system was built with $5m in grant money and the city really has never paid a dime for it. They want to send a ticket in the mail if you run a red light. What is next down the slippery slope? Tickets for jaywalking? Tickets for parking on the street overnight when a cop is too lazy to patrol? As I've said, and actually as the city has said, this camera system is no replacement for law enforcement. Apparently only one of us was being honest.

The advocacy group Cameras For A Better Police State, aka the Buffalo Common Council and the Buffalo Police Department, cynically prop up the suggestion that safety is the primary concern. Everybody knows that is bullshit. I am sick and tired of our elected officials treating us like children in a juvenile detention center, who can't possibly possess the intelligence and foresight to realize how dishonest these fork-tongued bastards are. I wonder if they even regard us that much. This is what you get when your populace doesn't care - the people in power can fuck with you with no repercussions to their careers or reputations. Hell, if it isn't City Hall being buffoons and making a complete mockery of our city, it's the School Board. None of this is going to stop without the citizens demanding that they do so. I'm for safer streets like anybody else - I'm not for this tripe the city is trying to serve us in the form of reasons. I'm not hearing reasons; I'm hearing excuse making and patronizing vomit speech. Speaking of vomit speech, FUCK Byron Brown, the police department and our city officials. The idea that they are on our side and working to make our city a better place to live is a joke - our city is one or two plant closings away from being a certified hollow shell. They are currently worried about spending grant money in a way that will generate "revenue" to prop up their wasteful and utterly ineffective government. Misplaced priorities? Buffalo? Naaah. Let us keep building Security Cameras that will build us a "bridge to the future" (thanks Slick Willy) and ensure that our city will thrive well into the 21st Century. Don't these idiots know that sooner rather than later, there won't be a tax base left to nickel and dime, annoy, and generally take the piss out of?

Here's some comedy to temper the madness -

Indeed, because if you don't laugh you might cry. Or in the case of the City of Buffalo, you might die.

tinypliny writes at 07:20:45 06/20/08 - Comment #36317: Chippewa Hoochie. ehehe.

jenks writes at 11:13:29 06/20/08 - Comment #36288: and chico- no no no. buffalo won't pony up for more cops until we "pay them like our life depends on it."
god I hate those stickers.
Freaking cops. I would pay perhaps doctors/nurses/ambulance drivers/mercyflight pilots/etc like my life depends on it- but not cops.

Ever since I learned that they have this union-assured health insurance "rider" that covers cosmetic surgery (i.e. free hair transplants and breast implants for all cops and teachers) I have been fed up with them. I guess in an effort to fix budget woes the county suggested maybe NOT subsidizing this unnecessary 'health care' but the union got all involved and threatened to strike blah blah blah. Yeah, way to "help people", state employees.

Ok while I'm ranting-
I had a patient the other day who is TWENTY.
And she has had: a nose job. Breast implants. And an abortion.
(likely in that order.)
And before I saw her, I had formed this image in my mind...
fake-tanned, straightened hair, back tattoo, slutty little top... I had this total little chippewa hoochie in my mind.
And lo and behold when I got there to see her I was 100 PERCENT correct.

ok, rant off. Sorry for getting so off topic.

jenks writes at 11:06:47 06/20/08 - Comment #36287: bahahaha, love the YMCA thing.

I had a little road rage episode yesterday.... I was driving down richmond at like 6am. No cars on the road. Some jackass pulls up on my right at a red light. As if he were turning right. But instead guns it when the light turns green, to get in front of me. Oh no.... now it's on. So I totally fly past him and pass him illegally to get back in front.
But then comes a red light.
And not only does he not stop- he passes me, on the right, runs the light, flicks me off, honks his horn, etc etc.

I followed him down richmond onto allen and he turned right on elmwood. There was a cop parked outside Towne, I was SO tempted to go tattle on the guy. Somehow he really pissed me off. i don't like being passed, I don't like being passed on the RIGHT, and I especially don't like when that passing involves running a red light. Grr.

joshua writes at 09:38:55 06/20/08 - Comment #36282: (e:felly) - I have to admit to something. Yesterday on the way home from work a guy in a new Mercedes did that very thing to me on Elmwood, so in retaliation I cut him off at the next light. It was the first time I've ever done it, and (e:jason) much prefers it to my typical methods of expressing my road rage. The guy deserved it!

My hypothesis is that most people who pull up on the right side aren't Buffalo residents and don't really know the deal.

fellyconnelly writes at 07:54:19 06/20/08 - Comment #36278: this pisses me off. Period.

Another thing that upsets me is people who pull up to the right side of you at a light only to peal out in front of you when the light goes green.

chico writes at 09:17:12 06/19/08 - Comment #36267: Great rant. I share your disgust. If the city wants to enforce laws more frequently, how about ponying up for a few more beat cops? Cameras and automatic tickets for traffic violations -- *shudder*

metalpeter writes at 06:07:29 06/19/08 - Comment #36253: I do think that the camera Idea is a good Idea. The problem is that it is coming from the lets get money and ticket people way of thinking instead of lets save lives and one way to do it is by putting cameras in. If that was the case what they would do is put traffic cameras on lights that were focused on stop signs. I can't tell you how many times drives come up to a stop sign and don't stop or roll through it. I have been going to cross a street and see a car going and known that with how fast they are going that they won't stop for me or if they try to I could get hit and it isn't supposed to be that way so if safety is what they want watch corners with out lights. But what happens when something else happens at a light say jay walking, drive by, someone smoking weed, or walking with an open container could those traffic cameras be used to try and catch that person? What would happen then?

janelle writes at 03:53:50 06/19/08 - Comment #36247: I fully supported lights on cameras in Philadelphia. Running red lights was absolutely an epidemic in that city. People would honk their horns at ya, if you didn't run the red! And people got hurt and it messed up pedestrian traffic.

But in Buffalo...I don't see the need. I rarely ever see people running red lights. So I'd have to agree that it's a money grab, but I'm not sure it's going to pay off the cost of the equipment.

To add to the fun, here's this article from Buffalo News about the behind the scenes manipulation of a politician to benefit his friend who manufactures the cameras: :::link:::

Permalink: Buffalo_Security_Cameras_Pt_2395863.html
Words: 476

06/17/08 01:35 - 58ºF - ID#44690

Living Out Loud

Today all counties in the State of California are issuing marriage licenses to gay men and lesbians who wish to legally wed.

These ladies are 87 years old and 84 years old, respectively. The length of their relationship is actually longer than that of my grandparents, who were together for 52 years prior to my grandpa's passing. The pursuit of happiness, with few exceptions, should not have limitations. Yet, we live in an America where some people have to wait until they are 87 years old before they can legally marry. And why?

I can barely force back the tears when I see a picture of a couple in their 80's who have had to wait 55 years to fully live their lives out loud. I can't fathom it... I really can't. It rips me apart... this shouldn't be. In America we need to think very carefully about the denial of happiness to others and the consequences of doing so. In my opinion it makes a mockery of our country and its laws, to say the least. Some suggest that comparing gay rights of today and civil rights of the 1960's is wholly inappropriate. I suggest this - if we have rights that some people are excluded from, we have no rights to be proud of at all.

I see this event as a major exercise in freedom. Seeing the smiling faces of the people who have finally been granted this right shows that in more way than one they have been set free. That is something to be celebrated.

Permalink: Living_Out_Loud.html
Words: 257

06/11/08 11:42 - 71ºF - ID#44617

M*A*S*H Bash

(e:jason) and I are also sorry that we couldn't make the get-together - we had a long standing appointment at a golf course with our father that required us to be in Jamestown on Saturday. We missed his birthday so we made it out to hang with him. It was good to see Dad, seeing as we rarely make it back to good ol' J-Vegas. We also visited Grandma, who is still coping with the fact that people think she is funny... as if its a bad thing.

On Friday though, gratuitous fun was had by all at the M*A*S*H Bash. It was my first time attending, and all in all its your standard carnival-style tent with food, a stage with a band, free wine and beer, cigars and lots of people. It was staged, if you didn't notice it, at the Red Cross building on Delaware. I think I should have ate before I drank - it got ugly and my friend had a camera to document it all. Here are some of the more publicly acceptable images.

My brother, myself, my buddy JV and our friend Anne, a former Buffalonian who was visiting from NYC. I was very impressed with her willingness to smoke a stogie with us - she didn't even give it a second thought. She golfs as well so I suspect that she's been around enough golf events to have learned to appreciate fine tobacco. I shouldn't have been so surprised.

My brother and I - as you can see its still daylight but I'm already too drunk to keep my eyes open. (e:jason) was amused.

At Gordon's towards the end of the night. Me, Anne and one of the girls JV and I played darts against. I don't recall this particular picture being taken, and as you can see at this point I probably wasn't taking much into consideration at all. JV told me that I came up with a "classic line" before I left - I'm a bit terrified to find out exactly what I said, to be honest!

lilho writes at 03:22:55 06/17/08 - Comment #36166: oh to be a twinsie!

joshua writes at 08:58:57 06/12/08 - Comment #35959: Pete - I remember the incident you're talking about, and I do remember that you said something controversial, but I can't remember what that was. I don't think I could have said anything *that* bad... I really would have remembered if I said something off the cuff. What worries me is the fact that JV feels that it can't be repeated through electronic means...

(e:paul) - I'd recommend it. Its for a really good cause, and they do have other activities (auctions, items you can buy for a donation, etc.). It was very crowded this year but I didn't mind it - it was easy enough to get to the wine. Its a theme party - people dress up in pseudo-military clothes, but its not mandatory and I'd say half the people there were not in costume. It just happened to be that the shirt I was wearing that day, I bought at Uncle Sam's because I liked it. I fit in naturally, lol.

paul writes at 11:01:28 06/11/08 - Comment #35956: I think I want to go next year.

pakalenik writes at 10:37:40 06/11/08 - Comment #35954: Joshua, Joshua,

I'm sure it wasn't anything too terrible that you said. It couldn't be any worse than anything that was said in college. Heck I'm willing to bet I said worse stuff, while I was sober, to one of two Heathers.....wow. I must have had some thing for females with that name. I'm sure the one wouldn't even remember me, if you know who I mean. Haha!

jason writes at 03:06:35 06/11/08 - Comment #35945: Oh yeah, the site is niagarawineauction dot com in case anyone wanted to actually see what I am referring to. Eheh.

jason writes at 03:05:12 06/11/08 - Comment #35944: I'm glad you enjoyed the M*A*S*H Bash.

Did you know that THIS WEEKEND is the Niagara Wine Auction?? I wonder if home boy is getting tickets. This time it isn't hosted by the bloated Ghostbuster, but instead some "famous" Canuck singer called Jann Arden.

Saturday is the Garden Party. Last year it was so much fun. Of course, this event wasn't made for you or me, no no no, it is for the movers and shakers of society (per the site). There are hints of elitism (see that red carpet on the site?), and the mercenaries will be out in force, but there is too much amazingly good food and drink to care.