logictortured.com Blog

What is fair compensation?

Many people are not aware of this, but the radio industry does not have to pay musicians for the songs it plays. A deal was worked out in the very early days of radio wherein it was recognized that airplay on radio greatly increased sales of singles and albums. In fact, it was so lucrative to have your song played on the radio, that payola existed since the very beginning of radio wherein musicians and their agents would pay radio DJs and programmers for airplay.

So in the very beginning without any government interference, musicians wanted radio play, they saw radio play as advertising to sell their products, and they were willing to pay for it.

However, because music publishers and song writers do not directly benefit from airplay, stations do have to compensate them. So the performing musicians get free advertising and the song writers and publishers get a fair share.

This system has been in existence for several decades. Now the RIAA and its labels are pushing to make radio pay the labels, which hold the copyrights and recordings of the songs and the musicians who played the songs. These corporations and musicians are pushing for Performance Rights Act to be enacted into law.

TV physic promoter and part time musician Dionne Warwick has wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about the importance of Performance Rights Act. Let’s run through her arguments in favor of this legislation.

First Ms. Warsick claims to be “attacked” and “smeared” for supporting the act. Is that any basis for the act to be passed into law? Nope.

She next argues that “every time we buy a CD or download a song the artist is paid for their work.” Really? I wonder why Roger McGuinn of the Byrds claims he was never paid even a dime for the albums he sold. And I’m assuming Ms. Warsick is too busy looking into our future to have ever heard of P2P apps such as Napster (the original, of course) and BitTorrent.

Anyway, her point about earning money from selling her product is a red herring and offers nothing to the debate about whether the act should be passed and signed into law.

Next she claims that radio “exploits a legal loophole” that allows them to “play these artists songs without paying them for their work.” There’s a lot wrong with that. First, it is not a loophole. As explained above, it was not an unintentional accident. It was a deal worked out between the music industry and the radio industry to help both of them profit.

Second, she ignores the fact that artists are paid for their work: Songwriters. If she ever wrote a song, she’d know that. Because she hasn’t, I’ll cut her some slack.

And third, she’s ignoring the very obvious fact that her songs were played on the radio led to increased sales. She’s famous right now because radio played Burt’s songs into the ground in the 60s and 70s.

She changes gears and equates the Performance Rights Act with the civil rights movement. She even starts referring to the Act as the Civil Rights for Musicians Act. Mmmm… if comparing your enemy to Nazis to win an argument is Godwin’s Law, then maybe comparing your trivial cause to the civil rights movement should henceforth be known as Warwick’s Law.

She next argues that she wants artists to “receive fair pay for airplay.” But what she’s asking for is necessarily not fair. She wants compensation mandated by force of law. Exactly how is that fair?

Ms. Warwick, let’s make the system truly fair. First, let’s get rid of all laws against payola. Second, let artists, musicians, and radio stations bargain and contract for payment in good faith on a fair and open field.

If radio does not want to pay to play Warwick’s songs, she can ask radio stations to stop playing her songs, and she can then rejoice in her knowledge that she’s being fairly compensated. Being paid nothing for doing nothing seems like fair compensation to me.

To put it simply, allowing all parties to negotiate freely results in fairness. Mandating a biased result by government fiat is never fair.

Ms. Warwick changes gears again. She argues that the corporations behind radio make a lot of money. So her argument appears to be: People with money should give it to those who don’t. Which is complete BS. It simply does not matter how much or little radio stations earn. Fairness does not come by government fiat. The point is that if Ms. Warwick really wants fairness, she can negotiate in good faith for what she wants.

Next Warwick makes the following argument:

The struggling musicians who need the Civil Rights for Musicians Act don’t want a handout from Cathy Hughes or Clear Channel or the National Association of Broadcasters, which is the mouthpiece of big — largely white — corporate radio. They just want to be paid for their work.

You know, Ms. Warwick, you’re right. You don’t want a handout. You want the government to force radio stations to pay you to promote your music. That’s not a handout, that’s welfare.

Next Warwick again equates her crusade to “Rosa Parks bravery.” Apparently, writing opinion pieces for the Huffington Post is equivalent to risk being beaten by white supremacists.

And lastly, Ms. Warwick argues that she wants to ensure that artists are “paid for their labor.” However, in actuality, she does not. She was already paid for her labor. She was paid to sing on Burt’s songs. She was paid again when people bought her singles and LPs. She was paid yet again when people bought cassettes and CDs of her singing. She does not want to be paid for her labor, she wants the government to force radio stations to pay her for her advertising.

Can you imagine if McDonalds tried to force through a law that every time NBC aired a McDonalds commercial, NBC had to pay McDonalds? Does that make any sense? Not really. But that’s exactly the law Ms. Warwick wants.

Share this:

R.e.s.p.e.c.t.

After the Dr. Henry Louis Gates story broke a couple of days ago, plenty of people started writing about their experiences with pricky cops. Such as this one from Mother Jones.

One of the problems I notice with many officers is that they really dislike being disrespected. Any deviation from kowtowing and a “yes sir” attitude will get you in trouble, tasered, or even arrested.

I think of a power as a sort of personality intensifier. A really good person will do really good things when given power. But when you give a prick power, you get a super-prick. He knows that nearly everything he does will be backed up by his boss, his fellow officers, and his union. So he lets that power grow to a point where he thinks he’s better than anyone else, and if you don’t recognize that, you’re in trouble.

Think about Dr. Gates’ situation. He was not arrested for breaking into his own house. He was arrested merely because he spoke disrespectfully to an officer and did not immediately and unquestioningly follow the officer’s commands. Mistakenly arresting a person for breaking into their own house actually makes more sense than the reason given for Dr. Gates’ arrest. That made no sense at all.

Here’s the problem with the officer’s attitude. Respect is not given by a badge. Respect is not given because someone let you carry a gun. Respect is not given from being employed, being elected, or wearing a robe. Respect is earned. And you earn it by treating people respectfully.

And here’s the real hard part about respect. Merely because someone disrespects you, does not give you the right to disrespect them back. You earn respect by treating everyone with respect, even those who are disrespecting you.

So even if someone is screaming at you. You still call them by their name and title. If you don’t know their names, you call them “sir” or “ma’am.”

And even when someone calls you a racist pig for wanting to see their ID. You still politely apologize for bothering them and explain why it’s all a part of your job.

When the person screaming realizes he’s the only one screaming and you are rational, calm, and polite, they’ll come to their senses. They’ll start treating you how you’re treating them. Respectfully.

I think the police know that treating people with respect gets better results. The whole good cop/bad cop trick depends on that very fact. Treat the suspect like shit. Then have someone else treat him very nice. Suddenly, the suspect is acting nice. And the police get the information they want.

I’m not saying an officer has to take abuse. I’m not saying an officer should place themselves in greater danger. What I’m saying is that escalating a dangerous situation with more aggression certainly will not make a bad situation better. And arresting someone merely because they disrespected you, only gives everyone a reason to call you a pig.

Share this:

The arrest of Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr.: Erroneous assumptions by both sides

The bizarre story of Harvard professor Dr. Henry Louis Gates Jr. is making the news. Why is it bizarre? Well, essentially he was arrested for breaking into his own house.

Dr. Gates is African American. He attempted to enter his own house, in a predominately white neighborhood, but the door was jammed. A neighbor saw a man trying to force entry into a house, so the police were called.

When the police arrived they found him in the house. A police officer asked to see Dr. Gates’ ID, to prove that he actually lived there. That offended Dr. Gates. He erroneously assumed that the officer only asked for the ID because he was black.

I lived in a house that was broken into. A guy busted in our front door, took some stuff and left. By the time the police got there he was long gone.

My roommate, who is white, was sleeping upstairs through all of this. He did not know anything had happened until the police busted into his room. With guns pulled and aimed they demanded his ID. Like Dr. Gates, my roommate also thought it was strange that the police would ask for his ID, when he clearly lived there. How many people commit burglaries in their pajamas?

However, it’s not that clear to the officer. Think about it. Do you want to be the cop who lets the burglar go merely because “He said he lived there.” No. You wouldn’t it. There is nothing stopping a burglar from running upstairs when the cops show up, putting on PJs, and pretending to live there.

So it’s standard procedure to ask for ID when there is a burglary and you find someone in the house. Heck, I wasn’t in the house when it happened. I came home when the police were there and yet they still asked for my ID too.

So Dr. Gates’ erroneous assumption was to automatically assume racism where none existed. Instead of yelling about racism and accusing the officer of being a racist, he should have simply got his ID, showed it to the officer, and sent him on his way. That’s what my friend did. That’s what I did.

However, I’m not saying it was all Dr. Gates’ fault. The erroneous assumption on the officer’s side was that he’s better than mere citizens. That we have to kowtow down to him. He does not think mere citizens have a right to contradict him, raise their voices, or express emotions. Officers like this see the thin blue line as black and white. You’re either one of us or you’re against us. Officers like this are the reason they’re called pigs.

What the officer should have done is politely explained why he needed the ID. He should have explained that it’s standard operating procedure and it’s done in all such situations. He should have said it in these terms:

I’m very sorry to bother you sir. But I’m here on a report of a break in. I notice the front door was broken into. So I’m just making sure you live here sir. I don’t want to be the officer who lets the burglar go free in the house on his mere words alone.

When Dr. Gates demanded the officer’s ID, the officer should have said,

Of course Dr. Gates. My name is XXX and my badge number is ###. If you have any problems with the performance of my duties today, please feel free to call my sergeant at ###-####. His name is XXX.

In other words, when Dr. Gates escalated the situation by getting angry, the officer was a complete prick to escalate it even more. He should have swallowed his pride and did his job: Protect and serve. He would have been seen as a great cop and the entire department’s reputation would have been raised accordingly. Now him and his department look like racist fucks and will likely be sued. Is anyone’s pride really worth that?

Update:

It appears I’m not the only one who’s blaming the arresting officer. The editor for the Dallas Morning View mirrored my thoughts exactly:

It’s clear the officers failed on what should be a primary core competency for them: How to de-escalate a highly charged situation.

A writer for the Washington Post has a piece about an incident where his home’s burglar alarm went off. The police arrived, and you guessed it, asked to see his ID. Without thinking about it, he provided it. The police checked the house for anyone and left after not finding anyone. He then contrasts his story with that of his neighbor across the street. When someone called suspecting a break-in on that house, the neighbor went ballistic and was nearly arrested when he was asked to present his ID.

The moral of the story: Being confrontational for no good reason doesn’t help. In my view that goes for both sides.

Share this:

OJ, why did you do it?

No, I’m not writing about why OJ murdered anyone. I’m writing about his kidnapping, et al convictions. I just read an article about how OJ is attempting to get bond while he appeals his convictions.

The facts according to OJ is that the victims had his valuable sports memorabilia and he went to get it. So assuming OJ is not lying, why did he do it? Instead of getting a bunch of toughs with guns to get his property back, why did he not simply call the police?

The easy answer is the $35 million civil judgment obtained by Nicole’s father Ron Goldman. If the police are involved, the Goldman’s might get wind of the valuable sports memorabilia and try to take them.

But I think it is much simpler than that. My guess is that the property was not stolen. My guess is that the property was hidden with friends who double crossed him. In other words, when Nicole’s dad obtained his judgment, rather than give up his sports memorabilia, he had some friends take it for him to hide it. However, what generally happens when you loan stuff to friends, the friends don’t give it back. A few years later you find your hedger for sale at a neighbor’s yard sale and you get pissed off.

That’s what I think happened to OJ. He was hanging out in Vegas when he gets word that some of his sports memorabilia is being sold. So instead of calmly calling the police, he gets pissed and storms the conference room where the sale is taking place. Just like the guy who storms his neighbor’s yard sale to get his hedger back.

Share this:

How not to answer a simple question

Joe Jackson, Michael Jackson’s father, was recently on Larry King Live. Larry asked a relatively simple question, “Were you an abusive father?” The response was as follows:

Let me handle this. The media keep hollering about saying that I beat Michael. That’s not true. You know what this beat started — beat started in the slavery days. Where they used to beat the slaves and then they used to torture them.

That’s where these beating started. These slave masters, and that’s where that come from. But, hey, there’s a lot of people in America, Larry, a lot of people in America spank their kids, you know? They say they don’t, they’re lying. They’re lying.

Now, Michael was never beaten by me, I’ve never beaten at all.

First is the immediate and bizarre “let me handle this.” Exactly who else was supposed to handle it? Did Palin write this for Joe? It sounds like the type of insane thing she’d say in an interview.

Next, he claims that the media says that he beat Michael. He claims it’s not true.

Next, he clarifies that by narrowly defining “beating” to include only slave masters beating slaves. Something it would have been impossible for him to do. So when he says its “not true” his clarification lets us know that he has never beat Michael in any slave master context, not in the context of the word “beat” actually used by people.

Next, he admits he did spank Michael. Of course he never comes out and says it. He merely argues that every parent does it, and because he’s a parent, it follows that he did it too. By the way Joe, I have a 6 year old girl and an 8 year old boy, and I can honestly say I’ve never spanked my kids for disciplinary reasons. And I’m not lying.

And finally he concludes by saying he never beat Michael, under the very narrow definition he gave earlier.

The clear and easy answer to King’s question would have been:

I spanked Michael.

But no. We get a red herring rant against slavery, we get a very narrow and subjective definition of an otherwise common word, and we get an admission couched in the phrase, “If everyone does it, it’s OK, right?”

Is it any wonder that Michael turned out insane? God, with a dad like Joe I actually feel sorry for MJ.

Share this:

Do companies do anything anymore?

I read the Consumerist nearly everyday. It’s a website devoted to consumer issues. If you’ve been wronged by a company, you can write in and complain. After your problem gets national exposure the company usually backs down and fixes your problem.

There are a lot of complaints about companies such as AT&T and Comcast. In reading through those types of complaints, I’ve figured out the gist of the problem. Despite what people think, Comcast is not a cable TV provider and AT&T is not a DSL provider. They are both marketing companies.

By that I mean their main focus is on marketing services and getting people to sign long term contracts. The day to day hum drum stuff like taking service calls, installation, and sending techs to repair your line, are outsourced.

Think about it, Comcast doesn’t employ a single person to help out in tech support. Why? Because Comcast is not in the tech support business. AT&T does not employ anyone to come out and install your DSL line. Why? Because AT&T is not in the DSL installation business.

So the problem these companies have, and the reason they are almost universally reviled, is that they’re run by their marketing departments. (Companies used to have marketing departments to help sell their products. Now companies contract with outsourcing companies to give their marketing departments something to sell.)

The problem with all this is that the marketing department does not care if someone has a problem with their DSL. All they care about is whether the person signed a two year contract for DSL service. Once the contract is signed, the marketing department’s obligation is done. If a customer has a problem, the “solution” is to let him cancel and make him pay the early termination fee.

So it’s not as if the companies are turning a blind eye to customer problems. That’s what most people think. “When is Comcast going to start caring about its customers?” The problem is that these companies no longer have any eye on the customer after the contract is signed. Any eyes on providing the services sold, helping customers, and on repairing the services sold have been outsourced. Out of sight out of mind.

To better explain this, imagine your local Comcast building as a microcosm of the much larger Comcast. Imagine a meeting with the boss, the marketing/sales guy, the installation chick, the tech guy, and the help girl.

The marketing/sales guy would have ideas about how to get customers to sign up. The installation chick would be there and chime in about how many techs she’d need to install an x amount of new customers. The tech guy would talk about what sort of technology, hardware, software, and upgrades would be required. The help girl would talk about how many of those new customers would need help and what sort of support would be required to help them.

Now imagine that same meeting with only the boss and the marketing/sales guy. Does that make the problem clear enough?

Update – 7-25-09:

Read this woman’s story of Verizon’s attempt at installing FIOS! Well, Verizon never installed it of course, utterly incompetent contractors did. A hurricane would have been less of a disaster. And it perfectly explains what I’m talking about.

What’s most interesting is that Verizon does not even provide FIOS services, their own product! That has been outsourced to a company called Frontier Communications.

I can’t help but wonder what Frontier Communications actually does. Is it yet another marketing/sales company outsourcing to other companies to have real work performed? Is there a never ending chain of marketing/sales companies all outsourcing with each other to avoid ever having to do real work? Maybe all of Corporate America ™ is nothing more than an Amway-like multi-level-marketing scam.

Update – 9-3-09:

I came across this post on Tech Dirt about how Netflix has refunded money to its customers without even a single customer asking for a refund.

This proves my point exactly. Netflix is not a mere marketing company. Netflix owns its entire operation (other than the United States Postal Service, of course). So it still cares about the service it provides and the customers it serves.

Update – 9-8-09:

Apparently Sprint cannot even market its own phone!

Update – 9-15-09:

Comcast is advertising a high Def NFL channel in Chicago which it cannot offer due to technological reasons. Why be bothered figuring out what you can actually deliver when it’s so much easier to promise everything, right?

Verizon is unable to provide an actual working DVR to its customers who pay for such devices.

Update – 9-17-09:

Bad news. This “do nothing” disease is spreading to the hotel industry. Hyatt is now outsourcing its cleaning staff.

Update – 9-30-09:

AT&T sells a guy a 3 mbps DSL Pro service. The guy pays for it for three months. He finally calls to complain about the slow performance when he’s informed that despite selling him the Pro service and charging for the Pro service, AT&T does not offer the Pro service in his area.

Update – 10-12-09:

Yet another example. Here’s Verizon refusing to honor the price agreed upon for their services. The customer and the sales guy entered into a signed contract that the TV, phone, and internet service would be no more than $77.99 a month for the first year. Of course the bills received were double that.

Verizon blames the salesman for promising more services than he should have at that price. Exactly how does that happen? Seriously! Verizon advertised a triple play service for $77.99 per month for a year. The customers wanted it and Verizon’s salesman sold it. Suddenly Verizon doubles the price?

Update – 10-14-09:

Comcast was more than willing to take a customer’s money, but could not be bothered with honoring its rebate. Of course the task of actually doing what was promised was outsourced, with disastrous results.

Update – 10-15-09:

The sole business model of 1-800-Flowers is delivering flowers to a specific location at a specific time. Apparently, that doesn’t actually happen because 1-800-Flowers does not actually do anything like that, instead it outsources doing deliveries to businesses that are closed or that no longer even exist. Seriously.

Update – 3-02-10: Apparently, Time Warner cable cannot provide the HD service it sells.

Update – 9-03-10:
AT&T cannot provide the DSL it sold the customer.

I love this comment from that link:

I had almost the exact same experience years ago signing up for Verizon DSL. The order would simply be cancelled. Eventually, after several tries I got them to tell me that the sales dept had no idea if the equipment in the area could handle a new customer, and if there wasn’t room for another the order would get cancelled.

This is exactly what I’ve been talking about. It’s all about sales without any idea or plan on how to deliver.

Update – 9-07-10:

AT&T sales people apparently lie to customers to get more sales and higher omissions.

Update – 1-12-11:

Someone from Comcast called a guy and offered him a plan. He accepted it. He never got it. When he called about the plan, he was told they never offered the plan. He kept calling back until someone finally told him what was really going on….

I finally got someone and once again explained my predicament. Here I was finally given an answer to my question of who the hell was calling me. It was a satellite office. Comcast apparently outsources upgrade-calling to smaller companies. These companies offer deals that Comcast doesn’t and supposedly can’t replicate.

Update – 4-14-11: A guy bought a mattress and box spring set from a Sears store and paid for delivery. After two months and 13 attempts later, Sears has been unable to make the delivery.

What’s Sears’ excuse? A Sears’ spokesman stated,

I do know to resolve the issue, Sears worked with several outside vendors.

Think about that. The guy bought a mattress set from a specific store. “Couple” mean two. “Few” means about three. So “several” means at the very least, four. Why did Sears need at least four third party vendors involved? One for the warehouse and one for the delivery. That’s two. Who are the other two?

Sears might save a little bit of money not doing anything, but it’s certainly getting bad press about it. Check out the Consumerist.com for more information about how Sears treat their customers like shit.

Update – 11-30-11:

I got the machine (Asus G73 gaming laptop PC) 1.5 years ago, 6 months ago sent it in for overheating, got it back and the HDD was installed backwards. And not screwed in. 20 phone calls later, I get a “Oh, yeah, we outsource our services and they screwed up, not us” kind of answer.

Update – 1-06-12:
Apparently, even opinions are being outsourced nowadays.

Share this:

Was Palin’s resignation speech as rambling and incoherent as claimed?

I keep reading from pundits who claim that Palin’s resignation speech was rambling, incoherent, and incomprehensible. I decided to give it a read and see for myself.

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing’s more important to me than our beloved Alaska.

The very next paragraph:

People who know me know that besides faith and family, nothing’s more important to me than our beloved Alaska.

She goes through a list of her accomplishments in office. I find the inclusion of this one bizarre:

We took government out of the dairy business and put it back into private-sector hands – where it should be.

Was milk de-regulation seriously a major political issue and problem in Alaska? Really? Wow.

And we made common sense conservative choices to eliminate personal luxuries like the jet, the chef, the junkets… the entourage.

But yet in one of the many ethics violations she was made to pay back money the state paid for her kids’ travel arraignments. Plus there’s the other issue where the state was paying her for living in her own home.

I am proud to take credit… for hiring the right people!

Which is bizarre as most people realize she tends to appoint highly unqualified cronies and friends.

Political operatives descended on Alaska last August, digging for dirt. The ethics law I championed became their weapon of choice. Over the past nine months I’ve been accused of all sorts of frivolous ethics violations – such as holding a fish in a photograph, wearing a jacket with a logo on it, and answering reporters’ questions.

The myth (lie) that these ethics violations came from outsiders is completely untrue. Except for one, they all were brought by Alaskans. And the one that wasn’t deals with the $150,000 she spent on clothes during her campaign. She never disputed that.

the State has wasted THOUSANDS of hours of YOUR time and shelled out some two million of YOUR dollars to respond to “opposition research”

Once again, this myth (lie) about the ethics investigations is not true. First, it was only $286,000. Second, most of it involved scandals which were alleged prior to selection as McCain’s running mate, e.g., troopergate. And yet another article explains how these investigations didn’t cost the state any money at all, merely hours paying employees. And because they would have been paid regardless, it didn’t cost the state anything.

It may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: “Sit down and shut up”, but that’s the worthless, easy path; that’s a quitter’s way out.

Avoiding the “quitters’ way out” by quitting your position is pretty bizarre.

I’ve never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this – to make a difference… to HELP people. So I choose, for my State and my family, more “freedom” to progress, all the way around… so that Alaska may progress… I will not seek re-election as Governor.

She’s right. Millions of people help without holding office. The question is why she thinks she can help more by resigning from her office. She doesn’t answer that.

And so as I thought about this announcement that I wouldn’t run for re-election and what it means for Alaska, I thought about how much fun some governors have as lame ducks…

Here we have her talk of being a lame duck. I’ve discussed this before. Her reelection was almost certainly a lock. Therefore if she was a lame duck, it was not imposed on her, but was chosen by her. She did not have to be a lame duck. She could have finished out her term, got reelected, and finished out that term. But she choose not to do that.

All we know is that she did not want a second term. So we can infer from that she resigned mid term because she didn’t want to do that either. We all have quit jobs merely because we didn’t want them. Why didn’t Palin say that? “I’m quitting because I don’t want to do this anymore. Good bye.” Would being clear have been so hard?

many just accept that lame duck status, hit the road, draw the paycheck, and “milk it”.

I’ve determined it’s best to transfer the authority of governor to Lieutenant Governor Parnell

So instead of her milking the system and wasting money, she wants someone else to do it for her. That doesn’t save anyone any money. Parnell is still drawing a governor’s paycheck. And under Palin’s definition of lame duck, Parnell is one too. Should he resign too? Would that be the mavericky thing to do?

Life is too short to compromise time and resources…

My choice is to take a stand and effect change – not hit our heads against the wall and watch valuable state time and money, millions of your dollars, go down the drain in this new environment. Rather, we know we can effect positive change outside government at this moment in time, on another scale, and actually make a difference for our priorities – and so we will, for Alaskans and for Americans.

I’ve written previously about how GOPers are quitting office in droves exactly because of this. They do not want to compromise. Rather than try and do real work, it’s easier to quit, pick up your toys, and go home… because those mean Democrats have taken over the playground.

And I know when it’s time to pass the ball – for victory.

No, your sports analogy is not quite right. You’re not passing the ball for victory. You’re quitting the team. Whether or not your team ends up winning is irrelevant.

I have given my reasons candidly and truthfully

Wait a minute. She gave reasons for her resignation? I’d better re-read and double check. Nope, I see no reasons given.

I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor.

What millions? Is she referring to her children’s travel costs that she billed to the state? Or is she talking about per diem she billed to the state for living in her own home? I’m confused. Exactly why are these mysterious millions of dollars being spent?

Want me to make a positive difference and fight for ALL our children’s future from OUTSIDE the Governor’s office?

That’s all well and good, but she doesn’t explain why she cannot do the same fight as governor. Is it about her refusal to compromise?

we can ALL learn from our selfless Troops… they’re bold, they don’t give up… May we ALL learn from them!

Once again, it’s quite bizarre to praise resolve and “not giving up” in a speech about quitting. And under her theory, shouldn’t these soldiers fight from outside the confines of being a solider? Maybe they too should quit and start killing whatever enemy they see. That’d be mavericky, for sure.

I am doing what’s best for Alaska. I’ve explained why…

Once again, I’m pretty sure I didn’t miss anything.

But I have given my reasons… no more “politics as usual”

Sarah… “no more politics as usual” is not a reason, it’s a slogan.

And it is my promise to you that I will always be standing by, ready to assist.

Once again, if she is willing to assist, why isn’t she willing to work as governor? This was never explained.

In the end, I don’t think her speech was as bad as some people have claimed it is. But I’ll agree that she never gave any real reason as to why she quit. The closest she did was that she did not want to run for reelection. So the best reason we can infer is that she quit because she doesn’t want to be governor. If that’s good enough excuse for a former 7-11 employee, should we expect anything more from Palin?

Share this:

Palin Defender!

Yet another Palin post. Will it ever end? I certainly hope so.

Today’s defense of Palin comes from Matthew Continetti, who interestingly enough, is writing a book defending Palin. I’m curious how someone could defend Palin, so I can’t help but go through Matthew’s main points:

some in the media turned rumors…. Had she been a member of the Alaska Independence Party? Did she believe that dinosaurs were around a couple thousand years ago? — into established facts.

If there was any confusion about these two “facts” about Palin, you can only blame her.

First, why was she so vague about her membership in the AIP? If the AIP is a bad thing, why didn’t she come out against it? If its purpose of removing Alaska from the US was a good thing, why didn’t she defend it? Instead she hemmed and hawed and basically said nothing of any real meaning.

Second, as a Christian(TM) she certainly believes in a literal Bible, and as such, believes that this earth is only about 6,000 years old. Accordingly, she must believe that dinosaurs existed only a couple of thousands of years ago. However, if this is not true. Then why did she not clearly say so? Did she not want to risk pissing off the religious right?

To me it does not matter what she believes in relation to the age of the earth. Either way it reflects poorly on her. If she believes in science, then she lacks the character to stand up for her beliefs against the religious right. If, on the other hand, she disagrees with science, she’s ignorant and closed minded.

One lousy interview with Katie Couric didn’t help.

But Matthew is ignoring why there was only “one lousy interview.” Because Palin refused to be interviewed.

Here’s an analogy. I’m shitty at anything involving athletics. So if I played tennis only one time, I could not honestly say, “Well, I only had one lousy game, give me a break.” That’d be a complete misrepresentation and and outright lie.

Something about Sarah Palin riles people up.

How would you feel if you were well qualified for a promotion but was passed over by someone completely lacking in experience? You’d be pissed.

That’s how some people feel about Palin. She’s unqualified. She wallows in her ignorance and wears it like a badge. She criticizes anyone who actually has knowledge about important topics as being elitists. And yet she honestly thinks she should lead the free world?!

If you don’t understand why people get riled up about Palin’s political aspirations, you’re not trying hard enough.

The Anchorage Daily News counts 18 ethics complaints filed against Palin.

And yet all but one was filed by Alaskans. This isn’t a vast liberal smear campaign against Palin, this is her own people tired of her BS.

(Letterman) later apologized, saying he intended for the joke to be about Palin’s 18-year-old daughter, Bristol. As if that would make it any more tasteful.

If you’re old enough to be a parent, you’re old enough to take a joke. Enough said.

Palin did nothing to deserve the acrimonious venom that has been flung at her non-stop since she first appeared onstage with McCain.

You’re right. Palin did nothing, but that’s only because she’s so great at doing nothing. It’s much easier to walk up on stage and have adoring fans fawn over you rather than actually do something. Is it any wonder that Palin is a former beauty contestant?

Palin is impulsive.

Yep, you’ve got that right.

Her charisma is such that she does not need to hold an office to command attention or wield influence

People will certainly pay attention to her. But think of it this way. I know another MILF who has millions of adoring fans, who can fill stadiums, and is beloved by slack-jawed yokels. Her name is Brittany Spears. So being paid attention to is hardly worthy of any praise.

Influence? How will she influence? By talking to her core base of supporters who already completely believe everything she believes? Maybe you should look “influence” up in the dictionary, because what Palin does is not influence.

Palin herself may not know her next move.

I’d completely agree with that. Since we already both agree that she’s impulsive.

though it will be much easier for her to build a national organization now that she has no professional ties to Alaska

I’m going to love watching her build a national organization talking to the already converted. If she ever learns to communicate and is actually able to convert people to her point of view, maybe her national organization will finally be built. Until then, her “organization” consists of the religious right who could not even win their own party’s primary.

Whatever she does will be noticed, that’s for sure.

Once again, I completely agree. As everything she does tends to be completely bat shit crazy. If you think about it, she’s practically the Michael Jackson of politics. Except MJ sold millions of record and was highly successful. While Palin could not even finish a single term of her office. So she’s actually more like the bat-shit-crazy-guy of politics, except she’s not a guy.

We will be hearing from Palin, and from the Palin-haters, for a long while to come.

It might make you feel better in deluding yourself that people’s negative opinion of Palin is based on something irrational such as hate. But that’s not the case. I don’t know anyone who hates Palin. I do know that I’d be afraid to have her finger on the button. And I’ll openly admit that I find her unintentional bat-shit-crazy shtick to be hilarious. But hate, no. Pity, maybe.

I’ll just add thing, if Matthew’s book is anything like this article, it’s worthless crap.

Share this:

How low can the Right go?

I’ve been writing a lot about the sorry decline of the GOP. In fact, a couple of days ago I argued that the party was actually dead.

I don’t really want to obsess about the GOP and religious right nuts, but with crap like this being published, I have no other choice.

I’m talking about former SNLer Victoria Jackson. She wrote an opinion piece about Obama’s health care plan.

First, despite what Jackson says, Democrats are not the only group pushing for universal health care. Republican Richard M. Nixon proposed a similar plan way back in 1974.

And it should be noted that big business favors building factories in Canada because it saves massive costs on employee healthcare.

And I’ll also point out that every Canadian I’ve met (and I’ve met quite a few because I live near the US/Canadian border) hates Canada’s healthcare system. So I have little doubt that there are legitimate problems with universal healthcare.

However, Jackson does not raise any legitimate problems with Obama’s plan. She attacks Obama’s plan not based on reason, but upon ignorance and hatred. She starts off saying,

You see, evil doesn’t just show up. It disguises itself as something nice; so you’ll let it in. It tricks you.

Murdering babies is called Pro-Choice. Unfair Censorship is called The Fairness Doctrine. Outlandish Taxes and the Death of Freedom is called Cap & Trade.

It’s not enough for her to attack Obama’s plan. Nope, she has to attack a whole litany of left wing issues.

Next she makes the extremely ridiculous claim, completely out of her ass, that liberals do not “actually care about sick, poor people.”

With those two premises set, that everything liberals support is wrong and that liberals do not care about the sick or the poor. She asks, then why do liberals want universal healthcare? The answer. “Euthanasia!”

Yep, that’s it. Liberals (including Nixon and corporations such as Toyota) want universal healthcare so “Obama… can legally kill Grandmas.” I’m not making this up!

Without missing a beat Jackson lays down her trump card: Godwin’s law. Yep, she compares Obama’s healthcare plan to Hitler’s murder of 6 million people.

Then she recites a conversation she had with a small business owner where it is claimed as fact that “our country just turned Socialist.” Really. Jackson really thinks that we’re suddenly a Socialist country. What legislation was passed which caused this? Was it Obama’s pure force of will?

Does Jackson even remember that our economy crashed prior to Obama being president?! Yes, the economy crashed after eight years of Republican control! What proceeded those eight years? Eight years under Clinton of the highest economic growth this country has ever experienced.

So we have eight great years under a Democrat. After eight years under a Republican our economy is wasted. Bet yet all of this is somehow Obama’s fault. I really want someone to explain that too me, because I’m perplexed beyond fricken belief.

I’m sure she’s referring (at least in part) to Obama’s “taking over” of the financial and automotive sectors. So let me get this straight. The financial and automotive industries ran themselves into the ground. They were able to do this because the prior Republican administration provided absolutely no oversight. So these sectors come to the government and ask for our money to save them. Because we’re talking about our money, Obama puts conditions on the money. GM agrees to the conditions, Ford says no, and yet somehow, this is socialistic. Did she forget that Bush signed over about 700 billion dollars of our money (about $2,631 from every man, woman, and child) to the financial sector before he left office with absolutely no strings attached? He simply took our money and gave it to the very same people who lost it, and that was a good thing Miss Jackson?

And of course there’s the problem with the poor automobile dealers who were shut down. I’ve already wrote about their plight and why I have no sympathy for them. If you choose to live by government fiat, you should be willing to die by government fiat.

Anyway, Jackson concludes her diatribe by claiming that “ignorance is bliss.” She should know.

Share this:

Sarah "the lame duck quitting" Palin

Sarah Palin now claims that she resigned from office because she was a lame duck. She did not want to “milk” that status. She said most politicians “say it’s a paycheck, it’s a paycheck and I get to travel around. No, that’s politics as usual.”

Let’s think about that. From what I’ve read, Palin’s reelection as governor was a lock. So under what bizarre “Palin logic” did she consider herself a “lame duck”?

Lame duck generally means “an elected official or group continuing to hold political office during the period between the election and the inauguration of a successor.” It’s usually applied to presidents who are finishing their second terms, because they are unable to run for a third term. To put it another way, a lame duck is a politician without any power because someone new will soon be taking over.

But in Palin’s situation no one else was taking over. She had 18 months left on her term plus she was the front runner for the next term. So how was she a lame duck? I haven’t a clue.

Apparently, under Palin’s bizarre world view, the first day a politician is sworn into office, he or she immediately becomes a lame duck. And also apparently, the proper thing to do in that circumstance is to resign from office the second day.

To Palin, the point of governance is not the hum-drum day-to-day act of being a public servant, making decisions and helping real people. Nope, the point of governance is being elected and nothing else. All that other stuff from the time of being sworn in and resigning the next day is a pure waste of time.

This was summed up perfectly by Bruce Reed from the Slate:

Palin’s resignation is a symptom of what’s crippling the Republican Party of late: Governing has become an unwelcome distraction.

And it should be noted, that Palin’s “selfish act” in refusing to take a lame duck salary for the next 18 months is pure nonsense. Someone will have to take over for her. That someone will be paid. So regardless of Palin’s action, the money will be spent. Her action does not save the citizens of Alaska any money.

Share this: