Red-Light Cameras

Red light cameras: Do they really help reduce accidents and fatalities? Who knows? Yet another story fails to mention ALL the data that may help decide.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/traffic/study%3A-red-light-cameras-save-lives

OK, there are fewer fatalities in the cities and time frames that were studied. Were their fewer accidents too? Were there more accidents or was it about the same? The article doesn't tell us. Could fewer fatalities be related to better quality cars with side air-bags that protect the occupants better? Could be; but the article doesn't tell us. Is there an increase in rear-end accidents because somebody suddenly stops hard at a yellow light for fear of getting caught on a red? The one guy alludes to that but the article doesn't share any data with us one way or the other.

They claim the red light cameras save money; how? We spend money on the cameras, monitoring, and maintenance. Did the cameras replace officers and save us money? Or, do we still have the officers and the new red-light camera expense too? How about if the officers we're already paying just do their job and write some tickets. In Austin, I've seen first-hand where people have run red-lights right in front of APD and they did not go after them. I've even waved and pointed for them to do so but they just drive away. That's an enforcement issue and not a reason for invasion of privacy civil rights violating red-light cameras.

 

Texas Voter ID Bill

Why would anybody have an issue with showing ID when they go vote? I don't recall ever NOT showing ID.

http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/politics/senate-poised-to-pass-voter-id-today

They say it'll affect the poor and the elderly. How? Why do they not already have ID? You can't get along in this society without ID at some point. And, saying it's too expensive is a LIE. A state issued ID card is $16 and it's good for 4 years (in TX anyway). I've found more change than that at our neighborhood self-serve car wash on my nightly walks. I made almost $20 last year walking 4-5 days a week all year and finding change left behind on the vacuums and car wash bays. So, if you need money for your ID card then "take a hike".

They claim it'll "disenfranchise voters". How about the LEGAL voters that have been "disenfranchised" by illegal votes all these years? Example:

If 100 people vote on something then each vote is worth 1% of the total voters. But, if 10 of those people shouldn't have voted because they're ineligible for some reason (felon, dead or French) then the legal votes are diluted by 10%. The 90 legal votes should've carried a weight of 1.1% each but because of the illegal voters they're only worth 1%. Aren't the LEGAL voters being disenfranchised at that point?

They claim requiring ID at the polls will cost the state $2M. That's mostly for advertising to inform people before the next election that they need to get an ID card. It's not any "real" cost since poll workers are generally unpaid volunteers. They'd recover some of that money just with people forking over their cash for a state issued ID card anyway. Besides, isn't $2M to ensure Democracy is fair and non-fraudulent worth it?

Pelosi’s Number 2

Awww, the naïve liberal left in Congress are just so darn cute. They're as dumb as a rock but as cute as a Koala. They actually elected Pelosi to be their house minority leader. She claims "…she knows how to lead Democrats out of the political wilderness". Since she's the one who led them into the "political wilderness" I hope she left some bread crumbs to find their way out.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20023123-503544.html

I agree with Heath Shuler, who ran against her, that they "…can't take back the majority without a change in leadership". In business, sports, military and most other endeavors in the world, when a leader takes your organization from a position of power down to a position of weakness those leaders are replaced. You don't stick with the ones who led you down the path to ruin. Again, here's the old saying, "when you find yourself in a hole; stop digging".

Shuler also highlighted the main reason the Democrats lost so many seats in the last election when he explained the problem with the house minority leader vote when he commented "it's very frustrating when I see everyone voting in bloc in light of the American people's desire for bipartisan solutions." The Democrats didn't listen to the American people and 60 of them lost their jobs (another 6 in the Senate lost their jobs too). The same thing will happen to the current Congress in 2012 too if they (both parties) continue to not listen to the American people.

 

We Now Have the Perfect Government

With a split Congress both parties will either have to work together or die. The people have voted for change for the third election cycle in a row (2006, 2008 and 2010). The American people have once again said "hey, you're not listening. We don't like how D.C. is doing things".

It's probably best that Harry Reid won too. This way he either gets to redeem himself or he'll be the lasting symbol of the Democrats 2010 failure which will trigger more change in 2012. Keep in mind; the Senators running for re-election in 2012 are from the Senate class of 2006 which is mostly Democrats following their sweeping victories. If things don't improve by 2012 another Voter Revolution may ensue leaving a heavy Republican majority in the Senate.

This will work out best for the American people if both parties embrace their unique opportunities:

1. If the Republican House proposes fair legislation that the Democrat Senate can pass the Democrat President will have to sign it.
   
2. If the Republican House keeps sending far-right agenda legislation at the Democrat Senate they won't pass it and the Democrats will have a reason to point fingers at the Republican in 2012 and retain the White House.
   
3. If the Republican House sends fair legislation to the Democrat Senate and they don't pass it the Republicans will be able to point fingers at the Democrats and increase their chances of winning the White House in 2012
   
4. If the Republican House proposes fair legislation that the Democrat Senate can pass but the Democrat President Vetoes it the Republican's can point fingers at the Democrats and increase their chances of winning the White House in 2012.
   

If scenario 1 above is followed the American people will be the winners and Obama will probably be a two-term President. That's the best case Scenario for all of us.

The good thing is that neither party can be the "Party of NO" and remain in power in 2012.

French Retirement Protest

Once again a Government takes the wrong path to a resolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-11633178

Increasing the retirement age will increase unemployment as the older citizens affected by it will hang on to their jobs longer. Thus, there's an increase in unemployment as the younger citizens are entering the job market. The benefit is only a temporary blip for two years while taxes are collected and not paid out for two years. After that, they're back in the same boat again. Then, they'll be talking about increasing the retirement age again just like they are here in the U.S. It's only a short-term solution that only moves the problem into the future.

What they (and all Governments) need to do is eliminate the "nice to have's" they could afford during a booming economy but can't afford during a failing economy. That's similar to families cutting back on vacations, movies, and name brand foods when things get tough. When things get better they can enjoy the "nice to have's" again.

 

 

NPR Unjustly Fires Juan Williams

Seriously? They fired Juan Williams for this?

Link to CNN story

Who doesn't get a little nervous around people who are clearly different than everyone else around them and/or people they're use to? When I'm on my walks in the evening and there's a crowd of teenagers in the park I'm a lot more cautious and keep my eye on them. When I make a wrong turn and find myself in a neighborhood where I clearly don't fit in I get a little nervous…and they are watching me too by the way because I don't fit in there. When I'm on a plane and see a lady with a baby get on I get nervous that they're going to sit next to me. And yes, when I see people walking around in Muslim "garb" I keep an eye on them too. But I also keep an eye on tattooed biker-types dressed in leather and chains, grungy over-pierced teenagers, and anyone still wearing a "members only" jacket. This is natural and normal human behavior.

I take it that Juan Williams was too much of a centrist for NPR and not far left enough. I've always like him on Fox because he does lean to the left. He gives a truer perspective than the lefties and righties. They fired him for making a remark that millions have made. I've been on planes where I've heard the same thing as someone steps on in Muslim "garb". Fire him for something "real" if he's done something but this is ridiculous. It's funny how "liberals" really aren't that liberal. Liberals seem to be less tolerant than the far right conservatives they enjoy attacking.

Congo Barbaric Savagery

Why aren't the U.N. and the world sending troops to the Congo to stop this mess? Of all the places that need help why is this still going on?

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/africa/10/19/congo.rapes/

This type of barbaric savagery is why many people in the past (as well as some today) felt it was OK to enslave the African people. The thinking was that the African people had been on the planet just as long, if not longer, than everyone else. Yet, they had not evolved to the same degree as everyone else. Thus, they would not evolve and it was OK to enslave them. I'm not condoning it, I'm just explaining some history of the warped thinking of the times.

This continued barbaric behavior in the Congo, Rwanda, Somali and other African nations does make you wonder though. Why have they still not progressed in a more civilized manner like most of the rest of the planet? Also, why is the rest of the planet allowing them to continue to behave this way? The planet has fought two World Wars to stop barbaric behavior. Countries have been invaded and taken over to stop barbaric behavior. Why is nothing being done about these African nations?

The U.N. should be doing something about this atrocity. The Congo has been at war continuously since 1996 (2 civil wars and 2 sub-conflicts). That'd be the Clinton, Bush and now Obama administrations. None have pushed the U.N. to stop it. In the last 14 years I'm sure the U.N. could've done something if they truly wanted to. But, these humans must not be worth enough to the rest of the planet. There's no oil and they're in no position to be buying Japanese video game consoles, German cars, French wine or U.S. electronics built in China. If they were good consumers with plenty of cash they'd probably be rescued by now. If they were an oppressed people with plenty of oil reserves they'd probably be rescued by now. But, darn the bad luck; they have no oil and no cash to be good "global economy" consumers. Thus, nobody, not even the U.N. is doing anything substantial enough to make a difference. Once again the U.N. is a worthless P.O.S.