Archive for: December 2006

It’s not that I have anything better to do, but I’m not going to post for a little while longer. I’m outta school and outta work, and I really just don’t feel like posting. I really need to start getting stuff ready for the wedding anyway.

I thought I had posted this earlier, but Wordpress decided not to publish it. Merry Christmas to you and your family. Of course, if you’re a religious Jewish friend, Happy Hanakkah — even though it’s over now, I originally tried to post this on the last day. If you’re Muslim friend, I guess I’ll catch you around Ramadan. If any Hindus live in Alabama, I guess Happy Sankranti, friend.

I think this is a good reflection of modern Christianity in America. Guess the author in the comments. No cheating!

Give us this day our daily bread. Oh sure.
Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us. Nobody better trespass against me.
I’ll tell you that.
Blessed are the meek.
Blessed are the merciful.
You mean we can’t use torture?
Blessed are the peacemakers.
Jane Fonda?
Love your enemies - Arabs?
Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.
The hell I can’t! Look at the Reverend Pat Robertson.
And He is as happy as a pig in shit.

I might be slow to respond to comments after tommorrow. Merry Christmahaunakwanzika, everybody.

I’ve had it. I don’t watch your stupid channel for any reason except to see what’s on the other, real stations. I don’t want to see people who have such a low opinion of themselves that they have to make themselves look like celebrities to get a sense of self-worth. In fact, it makes me sick to watch that stupid show. And don’t even get me started on the apparently hours long coverage of Tom Cruise’s wedding. But fine. I can live with that crap. I just turn it on mute.

But now you’re really starting to cross the line. You’ve gotten so high-and-mighty about how great your stupid, half-screen programming is that you’ve periodically stoppped showing me what’s coming on TV at all. I was really confused when I turned it on the TV Guide Channel to see the whole screen taken up by some dumb show I didn’t even watch. There was no scrolling list of stations and shows — it was like a regular channel.

You’re not a regular channel, okay guys? Just like your pathetic, celebrity look-a-like show, you’re trying real hard to be something you’re not. It’s okay. People like you for who you are. You tell everyone what’s on, and you even color-code different types of movies now. I know I know, everyone kinda wants to be a sexy TNT or a well-respected staple like NBC. But that’s not you. You’ve gotta learn to love yourself for who you are. When you start trying to be someone else, it just looks cheap and the people who really like you start thinking you’re a douchebag wanna-be. Be yourself, guys — you’ve got alot to offer. I like you more when you’re just trying to be you. And actually, I can’t stand it when you’re pretending to be one of the “famous” channels.

Now tell me what channel I can find a Law and Order on at 1AM. I know there’s one somewhere.

Apparently, newsmakers are too busy buying Christmas gifts to make much news in this state. Although it kinda sucks in that I have a shortage of blog material, it does give me an opportunity to talk bad about my university and a recent move they made in purchasing some property.

The president of the University of Alabama, Robert Witt, apparently has a bold vision of a new strip near the campus on University Blvd. As of now, there are a string of bars, a convenient store for beer and cigarettes, as well as some decent but cheap restraunts for students. The university owns two big blocks of land off the strip where a grocery store and a few non-drinking places sit. It’s really quite nice. Within walking distance, students can go drink coffee, get a variety of food, buy cigarettes and beer, or stop in for a drink.

Well that’s about to change, at least a little (psst — it’s the drinking). One of the staples of the strip was a place called The Booth. I don’t really bar hop on the strip, but I hear it was a great place. It’s been there since 1981, but the owners were told earlier in the year that their lease wouldn’t be renewed. No real explanation except to say that the building was being bought — by secret buyers. No one was saying who it was going to be.

Obviously the first thought was the university. There have been rumors for a long time that UA was going to do whatever it could to move bars away from campus. Apparently, they figure it’s better for drunk college students to have to drive back to campus (we have virtually no public transportation). Or maybe on Friday night after taking 4 midterms in a week the students will say to themselves, “Well, I can’t walk to a bar, so maybe I’ll engage in some productive behavior and volunteer to help kids while wearing a UA sweater for the cameras.” When asked about the university’s involvement, Witt and the university staff gave this answer:

“As far as I know, the building hasn’t even been sold,” Witt said.[…]

Associate Vice President for Auxiliary Services Gina Johnson, whose office deals with the University’s property management, said she doesn’t know who is buying the building.

Well how amazing that it was revealed this week that the university has indeed purchased the building and ran The Booth away from campus. It’s also pretty convenient that they waited until Christmas break to release the news when most students were away from Tuscaloosa. Are we talking about a state university here or the NSA? What’s up with all the half-answers and sly talk from a frickin’ publicly-funded university? I also just really resent the notion that the school has to own a 5 mile radius around campus and design it to fit their sense of moral superiority. Is this why Witt wanted my tuition raised by 8.5%? So he could deny 21-year old students the convenience of a nearby pub?

If there was one thing I learned from my religious indoctrination and the Left Behind series, it’s that the anti-Christ’s birth will emulate the birth of Jesus, but somehow it’ll be dirtier. Maybe reptillian.

Flora, a pregnant Komodo dragon living in a British zoo, is expecting eight babies in what scientists said on Wednesday could be a Christmas virgin birth.Flora has never mated, or even mixed, with a male dragon, and fertilized all the eggs herself, a process culminating in parthenogenesis, or virgin birth.

If they hatch on Christmas Day and one of the babies eats the other 7 and aborbs their souls to learn to speak, I might start going to church. The lizard also lives in Europe, so that makes sense somehow. Doesn’t everyone expect the antichrist will come from the “secular” European Union?

Remind me never to live in Hale County. Earlier this week Vanessa Hill, who was rightfully elected mayor, was finally sworn into office a year after the election. Her opponent, Johnnie Washington, had been determined by a Circuit Court in January to have illegally won the election. The court named Hill as the mayor, but Washington remained in office until last Friday when the Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision.

Now, their Mayor Pro Tem Valeda Paige (which I guess is like Assistant mayor or something) is also being removed from office after being convicted with felony welfare fraud in the same Circuit Court. The amount of the theft was $8,758, and state law mandates that she is automatically removed from office. Apparently, she had received over a hundred thousand dollars from a legal settlement which made her ineligible for the government aid she continued receiving. She would have had to lie about the amount of assets she held.

I’ve never been to Greensboro, and Miss Melissa’s in Moundville is probably the only reason I would go to Hale County. I had to work in parts of Hale County last summer. It’s probably nice if you like swamps, old slave cemetaries, invicible bugs or Indian mounds. Oh, and there’s sulfar-flavored spring water around every corner.

I guess I’m glad that Alabama is being recognized by someone for raising the income tax threshold above the oppressive level it was at before. But part of me is asking, “Who in the hell is the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy?”

“Because it concentrated tax relief at the bottom, Alabama’s tax changes, however modest, delivered more help to working families in that state than the rubber stamp tax cuts, skewed to favor wealthy taxpayers, that are too often seen on the federal level,” the New York group wrote on its Web site.

So our tax policy is better than Evil Lord Bush’s handouts to the rich? Okay…

We haven’t talked about the arsonists in a while, but the three pled guilty to the federal charges yesterday. They face around 7 years in prison for the federal charges. Local district attornies are already saying they want them to face state charges as well. Two of the boys, Matthew Cloyd and Ben Moseley, were together for all 9 arsons. Russell Debusk was involved only in the first five.

I’ve heard numbers as high as 8 years for each church. That seems a little extreme, but don’t understimate Alabama’s ability to deliver righteous retribution.

Umm… yeah right. Before I even get to how this is not going to happen, I would first like to address this comment:

Mitchell, a candidate for the position, said there are several ways to divide the term and alternate service that would allow a variety of candidates — black and white — to serve during the next four years.

What year is this? If Mitchell is suggesting a political compromise that would allow for a black pro tem, then I just don’t know what to say. If he’s saying that a more frequent pro tem election would give a higher probability of haivng a black pro tem (which is mathematically consistent), then I still don’t know what to say. If Mitchell feels a black senator should be pro tem, then why doesn’t he push for him instead of running himself?

But besides all that, there is just no way there will be a pro tem sharing power next year. There are three frontrunners for pro tem now that Lowell Barron is out — Jim Pruett, Wendell Mitchell, and Hinton Mitchem, all Democrats. The Republicans vote in bloc as a party rule, so a fractured Democratic Party gives them considerable pull. The idea is that all this division within the Democratic Party will lead to a compromise where the pro tem shares power so that multiple cliques in the Democratic Party can be represented. Not going to happen. Enough Pruett Democrats would coalition with the Republicans to avoid that.

Right now the Democrats are trying to see if they have a majority from their own party that are willing to agree on a pro tem. If that doesn’t happen, then a majority from a Republican-Democrat coalition will agree on a pro tem (who will be a Democrat). Either way, a Democrat is in power, so I really don’t see why they would try to compromise on some sort of strange shared-power deal. The worst-case scenario for the potential deal makers is that you have a divided Democratic Party in the Senate (exists anyway) with Democrats from the “other clique” in charge. The Republicans, on the other side of the coin, are going to be happy to have any say-so in the process, so they really have no reason (or power) to “make a deal.”

What’s most likely to happen is that one clique within the Democratic Party will have greater political clout and will entice enough other Democrats to vote their way to get their choice for pro tem. In return, a committee chair or two will be given back. Maybe I’m just being cynical, but I can’t see the alpha dog sharing the throne, although he may trade political favors to get there himself. That’s really the kicker to me. Why would anyone wheel and deal so that he can share this powerful position? Jeff Vreeland explains this better than I can apparently:

This sounds like a rumor that is being floated by someone who wants to have power - but understand there is a small chance of this happening.

And I wonder who that person could be?

No surprises here — the teacher’s union wants teachers to make more money. The concern, of course, is that the AEA has so much clout that their political pull may mean more than the merits of the request. The average pay for a teacher in Alabama is $42,600, which is up after successful lobbying by the AEA over the last few years.

I’ll be the last person to say that teacher’s don’t deserve to be well paid. In fact, it’s tragic that primary and secondary education is often below a middle-class profession. Entry level jobs are below the average expected salary for similar degress. Teacher’s aren’t poor, but given how highly we claim to regard them, they aren’t well compensated. (Same argument for firefighters and policemen).

But the truth is that we can’t afford to pay teachers what they are worth under the current system. We need to alter the system. It doesn’t have to be done overnight, but this state should really invest in some novel approaches toward education. A school voucher program would be a nice start. Perhaps we can take the advice of the Governor’s Commission on Quality Teaching and create incentive pay programs for teachers. I’d also like to see recruiting programs that would offer financial assistance toward graduate degrees so that we can attract more qualified applicants.

The last thing we need to do is continue raising teacher pay 5 or 6 percent every year without evaluating what we’re getting back from these salaries.

Little Miss Demon Eyes herself. The blinds in the background were “altered” by her so that she could see outside.

We got Spooky a “Meow” ornament for her first Christmas.

All this talk about payday lending in Alabama has me at odds with myself. Several recent developments have spawned the media’s interest in Alabama’s payday lending.

• Congress recently limited interest on consumer lending to military personnel to 36%
• An Alabama Circuit Court ruled title loans unconstitutional in August
• Artur Davis hosted a consumer workshop decrying predatory lending this month
• Lowell Barron recently announced he would cut his business ties with a cash advance chain

The major proposal I’ve heard has been to bring cash advance and title loan lenders under the same laws as Small Loans Act, which caps interest at 36%, which is still pretty considerable even for a high risk, unsecured loan.

I simply can’t deny that there is no reasonable scenario where a loan with 40% interest is beneficial to the borrower, much less a 456% interest rate that the law now effectively allows. But you can’t deny that prohibiting any loan with a higher interest rate is denying two parties freedom of contract. You’re saying I can’t enter into a financial arrangement with a business under certain terms that the business and I might find mutually agreeable. And maybe I’m not in a reasonable scenario. Maybe something unreasonable is happening to me and I find it acceptable to pay the 456% interest for a short-term loan. But I’m not allowed to accept enter into such an arrangment because you created a law to protect people who weren’t properly looking after their own financial interests.

Maybe a happy compromise would be to make it easy for abused parties to sue predatory lenders who were taking advantage of borrowers. At that point I’m out of my paygrade, though. I know that legislation can affect the practice of litigation, but I don’t know how.

• The Alablawg links to this post with Payday/Title Loans 

I was hoping for a Democratic takeover of the Congress, and I got my wish. I’m no fan of the Democratic Party, but it was well past time to slap the GOP across the face. As soon as the Democrats were definitely going to take the Senate, however, I said to myself, “Now it’s time for them to embarass me.” The biggest criticism of the Democrats, I think, is that they are a party of great speakers (both Clintons, Obama), but they lack the ability to take decisive action. They talk a big talk about individual rights, but then they vote for the Patriot Act. They impress us with some oratory on C-SPAN about the dangers of mixing politics in religion, but then they hop out of their socks at an invitation from Jerry Falwell. In short, they come across as a party of BSers and political opportunists.

But then something amazing happened regarding one of my biggest pet peeves — pork spending. Incoming House Appropriations Committee chairman Dave Obey (D), made this statement.

There are some people who have fouled the nest by their abuse of the process. We need to reform the process by which earmarks are provided before we provide any additional earmarks. So we are suspending them for this fiscal year.

Translation: No more pork until we reform the process that allows for pork to seep into these bills. For days, I’ve seen some clamoring by Republicans about this. That’s because Republicans, put into the majority more than a decade ago on promises of fiscal responsibility, have presided over the most incredible period of fiscal irresponsibility in the nation’s history.

So I’ve seen some claims that they’re not really talking about removing all earmarks. But no, really, they are. They have said that some projects that are in progress should be completed, but these projects will not be funded by earmarks. The entire Congress (or committee) will actually have to vote on the amendment to include the spending (i.e. “the way it’s supposed to be”).

At least that’s what they’ve said so far. These are Democrats, and while they’ve earned their pay this month, time will tell. I’m rooting for them, though.

So now we hear that President Bush, who has signed 58,652 earmarks into law without even threatening a single veto against the increasingly pork-heavy bills, has suddenly decided to champion earmarking.

“My administration will soon lay out a series of reforms that will help make earmarks more transparent, that will hold the members who propose earmarks more accountable, and that will help reduce the number of earmarks inserted into large spending bills,” Bush said.

Part of me wants to call him a jackass. I mean, he waits until his rubber-stamp Congress is out of power until he decides to do something? Bush had a Congress that could have seriously cut federal spending, but instead he used it to rubber-stamp a war and the suspension of habeas corpus. SOB.

But hey, the past is the past. If the two parties are going to start fighting over who has the more restrictive ban on earmarking, we (the taxpayers) win for a change.

If you’re interested in controlling the federal spending habits of our Congresscritters, I suggest Citizens Against Government Waste.

Steven Taylor of Poliblogger has been blowing my mind with some quotes from Newt Gingrich. Here’s how bad it is — it makes Hillary look like a desirable alternative. First this:

In an interview, Gingrich said it is possible to distinguish between terrorists and others when looking to fight threatening expression.

“If you give me any signal in the age of terrorism that you’re a terrorist, I’d say the burden of proof was on you,” Gingrich said.

And then this gem from Meet the Press, where he advocates internet censorship (you know, like they have in China):

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You close down any Web site that is jihadist.

MR. RUSSERT: But who makes that judgment?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: Look, I—you can appoint three federal judges if you want to and say, “Review this stuff and tell us which ones to close down.” I would just like to have them be federal judges who’ve served in combat.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned, however, that with carte blanche, that the government could move in and say, “This mosque is closed, this Web site is shut down”?

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: No. You have—you have more censorship in the McCain-Feingold bill, which blocks the right of free speech about American campaigns than you have from the FBI closing down jihadists. We’ve already limited the First Amendment right of free speech by a set of rules that are stunningly absurd. In California, you can raise soft money to run negative commercials attacking your opponent through the state party and you cannot raise soft money to run a positive commercial on behalf of your own candidate. That’s California state law. It’s stunningly stupid and a clear infringement of free speech.

I don’t have the stomach to comment on this POS (although I have yelled at him through my computer screen). Dr. Taylor breaks it down some on his blog, though.

By a US Army captain:

How to Win^[pdf]

It sounds like a pretty good idea, but I’ll personally be happy with any plan that hasn’t proven to be a miserable failure for years so far. Oh yeah — and no sound bites. If a plan can be reduced to a sound bite, I don’t want it.

Finally, over half of Alabama says the war in Iraq is not worth fighting. In a survey of 427 adult residents, 52% said it was not worth fighting while 39% said it was. Last month it was split 47/47.

While it’s still below the national average, it’s quite a milestone.

I’m a little inconsistent on how I feel about sin taxes — I like them. I think we should tax tobacco and alcohol at a reasonable rate. Most people agree that these two should be used in moderation if at all, and the state has to get money from somewhere. It’s the perfect tax in my opinion — a nonessential good which can be harmful. I certainly don’t think the government should force people not to smoke or drink, but adding a tax to it is great in my opinion.

Phillip Rawls at the AP disagrees with me. I don’t know if he’s a smoker or what, but he see the cigarette tax as a hypocrisy.

It’s the ultimate mixed message: Alabama government spends money to encourage people not to smoke, but it relies heavily on cigarette taxes to fund prisons, mental health centers and other important functions of government.

That prospective is that the government should be expected to encourage smoking since more cigarette buyers means more tax revenue. I can be pretty anti-government, but I don’t expect the Alabama government to act like a for-profit corporation and seek to maximize revenue. Governments typically tax things we don’t like (cigarettes and alcohol) and give tax breaks for things we do like (hybrid cars, family homes). Does the federal tax break on hybrid cars mean that Washington wants us to buy less bybrids since they will lose tax revenue if we do? No, it means they want us to burn less gas. Rawls is assigning profit motives to the government which, so far, they do not have.