Imagine my shock and horror this morning, when I began to go about the normal Sunday morning routine, and discovered that it was 60 minutes later than we thought it was.
It took about 240 seconds for me to realize what had happened: My alarm clock (which we both use, as it has two alarm settings) had, thinking the old DST rules were still in effect, fell back one hour last night.
As my wife said, hurrying out the door, as she was now running very late, “time for a new alarm clock”.
This is particularly annoying as the changeover to the new DST was very disrtruptive to my industry, having a large cost in software upgrades and manhours to patch and update older systems, whose programmers had no inkling that COngress, in a fit of trying to show the people that they were trying to DO something about Energy Conservation, cost the economy a huge some of money.
To date, I cannot find a recored that anyone has calculate to the to the economy of the change to the new start/stop dates, but I am sure that there are many people (like me) and companieis that got over the first hump, and neglegted to make a permanent fix, so the total cost is still rising. An old Estimate is $500 Million, to $1 Billion dollars.
So, Congress is going to cost me another $40 today, for a new alarm clock.
And it will STILL be dark when I get up. Oh, and research seems to be coming up to speed with common sense. DST may be bad for you.
Oh, and there is still the possibility that DST may go back to the previous rules, (so I am keeping the old clock, just in case), becuase, according to the Act:
SEC 110 DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME(c) Report to Congress.–Not <<NOTE: 15 USC 260a note.>> later than 9 months after the effective date stated in subsection (b), (March 1, 2007 -ed.) the Secretary shall report to Congress on the impact of this section on energy consumption in the United States.
By my calculations, that is Nov 1, 2007. Though, considering that Congress is still working on Appropriations Bills that were due Oct 1st, I doubt they will get to this anytime soon.
From GOP.Gov:
Today, House Republicans offered a resolution censuring Rep. Fortney “Pete” Stark (D-CA) for accusing our troops of “blow[ing] up innocent people” and suggesting the President finds “amusement” in the injuries and deaths of our troops. Watch Rep. Stark’s comment in full here.
The censure resolution states:
“Resolved, that the Member from California, Mr. Stark, by his despicable conduct, has dishonored himself and brought discredit to the House and merits the censure of the House for the same.”
But today, 196 House Democrats voted to kill the resolution censuring Rep. Stark. (Vote #986, 10/23/07)
Disgusting. Even the San Francisco Chronicle thought Stark was out of line:
“A new low point … The Ugly Moment of the Week goes to Rep. Pete Stark, the Fremont Democrat who has made a career out of minimalist accomplishment and optimal bombast.”
But my point here is to note which Washington State Congress-critters voted to Censure Stark:
-Hastings
-McMorris-Rodgers
-Reichert
And those that REFUSED to censure his remarks:
-Baird - disappointing, thought not really surprising, after the beating he took over his comments that Iraq was turning around.
-Dicks - even more disappointing. Several US Navy installations in his district.
-Inslee - Sub Base Bangor, and Naval Undersea Warfare Center in his district.
-Larsen - Has Naval Station Everett and NAS Whidby Island in his district.
-McDermott - I am only surprised that it was Stark making the slur, not McDermott.
-Smith - This is the guy with Fort Lewis and McChord AFB in his district.
Note that the Washinton State Reps voted by strict Party line.
I’ll say it again - Disgusting. And the constituents of those voting against censure should remember these D’s supported Stark’s slurs next election cycle.
The Fred Thompson campaign has posted their Border Security and Immigration Reform Plan.
My favorite parts:
No Amnesty. Do not provide legal status to illegal aliens. Amnesty undermines U.S. law and policy, rewards bad behavior, and is unfair to the millions of immigrants who follow the law and are awaiting legal entry into the United States. In some cases, those law-abiding and aspiring immigrants have been waiting for several years.
Darn Skippy. If you cheated to get here, you GOTTA leave.
Attrition through Enforcement. Reduce the number of illegal aliens through increased enforcement against unauthorized alien workers and their employers. Without illegal employment opportunities available, fewer illegal aliens will attempt to enter the country, and many of those illegally in the country now likely will return home. Self-deportation can also be maximized by stepping up the enforcement levels of other existing immigration laws. This course of action offers a reasonable alternative to the false choices currently proposed to deal with the 12 million or more aliens already in the U.S. illegally: either arrest and deport them all, or give them all amnesty. Attrition through enforcement is a more reasonable and achievable solution, but this approach requires additional resources for enforcement and border security:
Cut off the jobs, and they will stop coming. Those here will leave.
Enforce Existing Federal Laws. Enforce the laws Congress has already enacted to prevent illegal aliens from unlawfully benefiting from their presence in the country:
- Deny discretionary Federal education grants as appropriate to public universities that violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens without also offering identical benefits to United States citizens, regardless of whether or not they live in the state, as required by 8 USC 1623.
- Deny discretionary Federal grants as appropriate to states and local governments that violate federal law by offering public benefits to illegal aliens, as prohibited by 8 USC 1621(a).
If your Community/City/State/Whatever refuses to follow the Federal Immigration rules, you don’t get the Federal money.
The United States is a nation of immigrants. We must continue to welcome immigrants and foreign workers who come to our country legally, giving priority to those who can advance the nation’s interests and common good. Immigrants and foreign workers who play by the rules need to be rewarded with faster and less burdensome service, not delays that last years. Advancing the following initiatives will require close cooperation between all levels of government, the business community, and concerned citizens:
- English As Official Language. Make English the official language of the United States to promote assimilation and legal immigrants’ success, and require English proficiency in order for any foreign person to be granted lawful permanent resident status.
- Freedom from Political Oppression. Preserve U.S. laws and policies to ensure that the United States remains a beacon and a haven for persons fleeing political oppression, while assuring appropriate admission standards are maintained.
- Service to Country. Place those foreign persons who are lawfully present in the country and who serve honorably in the Armed Forces of the United States on a faster, surer track to U.S. citizenship.
Point for Fred in my book.
Checked Rudy’s website. Nothing on Immigration; Minus TWO Points. Romney has a Video clip from a “town hall” meeting. One point against Mitt for not putting it in print. Mike Huckabee has some points, and a clip - only 1/2 a point, for lack of specifics.
Didn’t bother to check on McCain - he is as unelectable as Hillary, so I don’t really care.
So, my current rankings (which I just started, so these are the base numbers):
Fred Thompson: 1
Rudy Giuliani: -2
Mitt Romney: -1
Mike Huckabee: .5
Anyone that has read any of my posts should realize that I am a small government/low tax kind of guy.
That said, I am also a heavy road user, and frustrated driver.
So, I was really on the fence over Prop 1, which would be the biggest single tax increase in US history, but promises several road improvements, along with rail and other transit projects.
I finally fell off the fence this weekend, and landed squarely on the NO side.
The tipping point came after I read two pieces in the News Tribune this weekend, here, and here.
In the final analysis, what disturbed my equilibrium was this glaring piece of information:
NONE OF THE PROJECTS IN THE PIERCE COUNTY EVEN START CONSTRUCTION THIS DECADE, AND ONLY ONE IN S. KING CO. STARTS BEFORE 2009. Only Three complete before 2020!
This includes the extension of Hwy. 167 to I-5, and the Cross Base Hwy (which may or may not happen) that wouldn’t begin until 2018/2020 and constrcution would not be complete until 2023/2024!
Even the Light Rail extensions would not open until 2027!
In the final analysis. this project cost far too much, over far too long a timeframe. It is a wonderful Grand Scheme to overhaul transportation in Puget Sound, and if we could flip a switch and make it happen, that would be wonderful. But we don’t live in such a Utopia, and resources need to be placed where they can be used to fix the worst problems NOW.
If the Washington DOT is not up to the job, maybe we should find some private companies who would be willing to do the work.
EHJR 4204 is the proposal to amend the Washington state Constitution to elminiate the Supermajority rules for School Levy votes.
Under current law, school levies MUST pass by at least 60% of total votes cast, or, when the total votes cast is 40% or less than in the last general election, 24% of votes cast in the last election (60% of 40%) in the disctrict.
This essentially means that Property Owners, who directly pay Property Taxes, which the School Levies are part of, have some insulation and protection against frivilous increases in their taxes.
The Columbian had a very nice piece on the Pros and Cons of this proposed amendment:
Cons:
» The supermajority rule for tax measures was set higher to protect property owners, who more directly pay levies. So was the minimum-voter turnout standard this amendment would eliminate. Simple majority, and loss of the voter turnout minimum, ultimately means taxpayers will pay more.
» School districts hold non-November levy elections, when voter awareness and turnout is low, to gain more favorable odds. The supermajority is a necessary counterbalance.
» The supermajority rule holds schools districts to higher standards and requires them to be more accountable to voters. Simple majority weakens districts’ incentive to perform well.
» Schools could adapt their budget cycles to November levy elections without dire consequences.
» Few school levies fail beyond a second attempt, even with supermajority rules. When they do, it’s only because of major disconnect with the public that requires attention.
» Special elections outside of November should remain just that — special — and not be used for routine budget needs. What’s more, simple majority lets the Legislature off the hook for basic funding the state should provide equally to all districts and students.
Pro:
>> The supermajority unjustly rewards a minority who vote “No” and non-voters. All votes should count equally, and, Simple majority determines all elective offices — local, state and federal — and most tax measures, such as those for jails and sports stadiums. School levies should be no different.
While these two points are Democratic, they are counter to our Republican form of government. They allow the tryanny of the mob (one half, plus ONE) to rule. Instead of trying to make it easier to pass School Levy taxes, all other tax increases should use the existing rules, as a minimum, to ensure engagement by a plurality of the people, and confirm the need, or community desire, for the tax increases.
>> Modern vote-by-mail ensures all registered voters are aware of school elections. It’s not the 1930s anymore. Most districts run levies at the same time to split election costs; advertising and media coverage makes elections hard to ignore.
Ignorance of the election is not as much of the problem (though I would argue the point, as Junk Mail, SPAM, and the flight of viewers from Local TV and Newspapers had lessened, not increased, the level of awareness of community), and adding yet another task to people (property owners) who are already information overloaded and time crunched, by having special elections at changing and inconvenient times, in what seems to be an effort to keep participation to a minimum.
>> .November levy elections won’t work, because districts set annual budgets in summer and need to know revenue figures by then. Also, county property valuations are updated only at year’s end, making levy rate estimates months ahead of time more problematic.
As noted in the Cons, this is simply an accounting and scheduling issue, not a problem.
>> School resources are stressed and students suffer when districts with majority support are forced to re-run levies to reach the artificially high supermajority standard.
This one takes the Hypocrisy award. One of the main supporters of this measure is the Teachers Union, whose concern for the Children was made clear to me, in their illegal strike at the start of the chool year in Bethel SD, forcing the School District to take funds from Copier reapair/replacement, to make up for increases to teacher pay and compensation.
If you cant convince 60% of voters in an election that you need the money, and will use it wisely, then you need to take another look at your track record, and proposal.
>> Washington schools are chronically underfunded by the state, making local levies ever more critical. State per-pupil funding and class size rank near the bottom in national ratings.
The key to this item is The State. If the State isnt doing it’s share in meeting it’s constitutional mandate, then we need to hold the state Legislature accountable. Making it easier to punish local property owners by raising their property taxes to compensate for the State Governments inaction is killing your Ox for food for a short time, instead of using him to plow the fields to grow food as you need it.
—————————
In my opinion, EHJR 4204 is nothing less than an attempt to “game” the system. Special Interests (WEA & other Unions, Politicians) will band together with well meaning folks (PTA, etc) and schedule obscure out of the way elections, to maximize turnout of their voters, while trying to minimize the turnout of voters that believe that just throwing money at a situation is not always the answer.
The only real answer to the problem, is complete privatization of the schools. But of course, that will not happen, as their are too many special interests feeding at the trough of Education. Too bad they are the ones intercepting much of that per student spending before it gets to the kids.
Yes, I know thats two more presidential terms away, but the guy just won the Governorship in Louisiana, and I figure he is going to take at least one full term there.
See-Dubya has a great piece on Jindal’s win over at Michelle Malkin’s place.
And who should he have for Veep? My pick would be currently serving Governor of Alaska (and potential Senator), Sarah Palin.
From time to time, I run across a Blog provides a great perspective, and a very high proportion of great posts. It is not just enough to suggest one or two posts from these sites for recommended reading. I think they should be be on everyone’s personal blog list.
So, every once in awhile I will refer such a blog for your considersation.
The first is Coming Anarchy.
From their Welcome:
Welcome to the Robert D. Kaplan-inspired site where “Curzon”, “Younghusband” and “Chirol” blog on issues of world affairs and politics.
Three recent posts there that everyone should read:
Technology lessons from the Iraq war
Maturing Japanese foriegn policy analysis
Which Came First: The Nation or the State?
And a whole lot more good stuff before that. One of my motto’s is that you should try to learn somthing new every day. It’s pretty easy, with sites like Coming Anarchy around.
I had never heard of State Rep. Chirs Hurst, Democrat from Enumclaw, until this morning, when I ran across an opinion piece he wrote in the News Tribune. Not too surprsing, since I am not one of his constituents, and from glancing at his bio, he seems to be a pretty solid guy - by which I mean I doubt someone with his background would be prone to making silly airhead statements, like so many of his party bretheren do.
His piece in the News Tribune did not disappoint. In fact, I felt compelled to post this, and state is public, for all to see, that I AGREE with him.
Using high-paid mercenaries insults American troops
How would you feel if you showed up to work and your boss hired someone who was paid 10 times your salary to do similar work? Then the next day you found that your new co-worker started killing customers, and the rules for you and him were different. He just gets sent home.
This is the very question many of our soldiers are asking as it relates to contracting out military functions to firms like Blackwater USA.
I have wondered about the massive number of mercenaries employed in this conflict. I am not opposed to the use of Mercenaries, or Private Security Firms, or whatever euphmism they might prefer. I think that there is a time and a place for employing such forces, when the use of a nations military is not appropriate, or politically possible, to accomplish a necessary goal.
What I AM opposed to is the use of these forces in the same theater of operations, doing fundamentally the same jobs, as our active duty forces. Indeed, as Rep. Hurst points out, employing these mercenary forces cheapens the sacrifice of our professional military, and demeans them.
Looking at human history and the associated military conflicts, mercenaries and privateers are nothing new. However, from a historical perspective, it should also be noted that there is a direct correlation between the use of mercenaries and the decline of a civilization.
Historically (Wikepedia has a nice piece on this), mercenaries have been employed for numerous reasons. Since in most ancient cultures, the vast majority of citizens were farmers, and a professional military was an expensive luxury, Mercenaries formed a sizable percentage of the armies of Pharoah, Xerxes, and most other rulers, when needed. Mercenaries have existed in most cultures and countries, in one form or another.
In our own history, the Hessian soliders that George Washington defeated at Trenton NJ (after crossing the Delware), were Mercenaries, in the service of England. The Continental Congress, with only 31 ships, issued Letters of Marque to Privateers, authorizing them to attack British shipping. Indeed, to this day, Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress.
The use of private “soldiers” in combat zones degrades the image and morale of our troops. Using our hard-earned tax dollars to pay them is an insult and slap in the face to those serving in our military who took an oath to defend our constitutional freedoms.
This is not a desperate war of national defense - it is a war to liberate a people. There is no excuse for the use of Mercenaries in these circumstances. If the American people are not willing to shoulder the burden to do what needs to be done, then the use of Mercenaries not only demeans our soldiers, but their mission as well. And it is an indictment of our people, that we are comfortable with the suffering of others, just as long as we have our HD TV, and the newest IPod, and get to play WoW or the newest versin of Halo.
It is morally imperative that we stop using mercenaries and only use military personnel who have actually taken an oath to defend our Constitution. Furthermore, no contractor of any kind should be paid more than an American soldier serving in combat.
Supporting our troops begins with not demeaning them. They shouldn’t be forced to work alongside mercenaries and be insulted by the wages paid to these people who have no sworn allegiance or moral obligation, as our soldiers do.
Indeed, I support universal conscription for all support functions of the Military (and go ahead and rool in the Peace Corps and Public Health Service, if you like). No one appreciates something that they haven’t worked for. And while Freedom isn’t Free, far too many of our fellows get a free ride, due to the blood, sweat, and tears of those who hear the call, and serve not only the nation, but their brothers and sisters in other lands as well.
State Rep. Chris Hurst, D-Enumclaw, has a son serving his third Army deployment in Iraq; a nephew was killed there.
Courtesy of the BBC:
A Buddhism student, who experienced first-hand the events of the last two weeks at a Buddhist monastery in Burma, describes the recent unrest.
They knew that there is no point in asking the generals for freedom. They knew that they don’t have guns and can’t beat the army. All they wanted to do was show the world what their situation is and that they are prepared to die.
Too bad Burma doesn’t have a Second Amendment. And for all the Ghandi fans out there, a lesson that Passive Resistance only works on a government that is susceptible to public sentiment.
But when they hear that support for the demonstrations is dwindling and time passes by without help from anyone, they lose hope. They are getting disillusioned and eventually they’ll give up.
Which will make the American left happy. Then they can get back into the News Cycle, demanding that we abandon the Iraqis to the tender mercies of the Burmese Junta’s spiritual brethern in Iraq.
And, for a parting shot, this from the Daily Mail:
Thousands of protesters are dead and the bodies of hundreds of executed monks have been dumped in the jungle, a former intelligence officer for Burma’s ruling junta has revealed.
The most senior official to defect so far, Hla Win, said: “Many more people have been killed in recent days than you’ve heard about. The bodies can be counted in several thousand.”
And the silence from the American Left remains deafening…