Navigation

Transit workers strike in New York, leaving millions stranded during the holidays.

Believe it or not, I am not going to address the transit strike directly, but rather talk about my own unpleasant experience with a union. You see, one week due to heavy rains and thunderstorms, the DFW Airport was closed for four hours. That means, essentially, that many flights had been delayed for four hours or more. I arrived at the airport two hours early, as usual, to make up for the inefficiencies of air travel. By the time my flight was officially delayed, I had already been waiting two hours, and we continued to wait for another three. Finally, we were given five minutes to board the flight because if we did not, then due to union rules the flight attendants would not be allowed to work. The flight was full, with around 200 people who were now being told they could not fly to their destination because of the rules concerning three workers.

Now, at what point is this supposed to foster sympathy for the unions? This happens to me time and again where something can't happen or is delayed because of union rules. We, the non-union folks, are supposed to believe that unions stand up for the working man. Of course, I have also watched a union reinstate a worker who was fired for incompetence, and rightfully so. Unions only care about unions. They don't care if their demands are economically feasible, they don't care if the customers end up paying for the union's demands. Labor unions were started with noble intentions, but anymore they remind me of some sort of legal extortion racket.

I continually hear calls for a technologists union. I am totally against this. If other unions are anything to go by, our field will shrink, people will be reluctant to hire anyone except for positions they absolutely need, customer service and satisfaction will drop like rocks, and the industries that rely on us the most will also struggle the most to be a success. Maybe I'm off base, but this is all I see produced by contemporary unions. If they want public support, maybe they should think about what the public perception of them is.

I'm going to file this under politics, but you're not going to find anything about Democrats or Republicans here. This is about a very special kind of politics, this is kind of the Special Olympics of politics, that is, forum politics.

See, very recently someone got mad and left in a tizzy at Gamers With Jobs. They were moderated and didn't like it. The moderation there didn't seem to like moderating them. I'm not privvy to the whole story and to be frank, I could give a rat's patoot as to what the details are. The point is that it is silliness in the extreme. The point is, this crap goes on all the time, and it's extremely eye-rolling. Not necessarily at Gamers With Jobs, where it is fairly rare, but rather all over the Internet. I don't really care if this individual leaves at all. Not because he's a jerk, not because I ever had a problem with them, but simply because he was there of his own volition anyway.

This is the reason why I never understand when people start some kind of protest in an internet community, if you don't like the rules then leave. Yes, I understand there might be people there you like, but if you can't stand how the community is run, the people who run the community, or the community itself then it's not worth visiting. If someplace causes me stress with no benefit, then I quit going to that place. Work causes me stress, but I get paid for it (plus I love what I do), so see that is worthwhile. There are many sites I do not visit simply because they have no benefit to me. The idea that anyplace should conform to my wishes is far more egocentric than I can manage at this point in my life. Granted, there are still many individuals who think it is all about them, so I guess I can see why they don't understand when a forum won't bow to their wishes.

The problem is that it's just not pragmatic. The larger a forum population, the greater its diversity will become. A community cannot be all things to all people, it must compromise if it is to find its identity. The reason why I continue to visit Gamers With Jobs is because this sort of thing is the exception and not the rule there.

At what point exactly though is anyone supposed to care about individual whims? No matter how unfair a place may be run, no matter how inconsistent the rules may be enforced, ultimately the individual who is unhappy makes the choice to leave or go. The great irony here is that no matter how many "I'm leaving" posts I've read over the years, the response tends to be the same. Far more people are going to jump on the side of the people who run the site than the person who is leaving, more often than not. Think about this logically, if everyone were unhappy there would be no need for anyone to post "I'm leaving", because everyone would already be gone. I do think it is a sort of hubris, as many people seem to think their dramatic departure will somehow make a statement and perhaps even inspire some sort of mass exodus. Disappointment quickly sets in as very few individuals are as important to the community as they believe themselves to be.

One of the reasons I don't do more political posts here is because, frankly, I've been real burned out on politics ever since the 2004 elections. I have no idealogical allies because I don't subscribe to any particular political philosophy. People are always trying to pigeonhole me though, and so I instantly become their ally or enemy based on a handful of statements, or because I supported an issue once. Then the same people who might have thought of me as an ally are none to thrilled to find that I don't necessarily agree with all of their talking points.

It's a crazy thought here, but I believe in forming my own opinions. I have a friend who I refer to as a "thinking liberal". See, the funny thing is that I hate to just refer to him as my "liberal friend", because the image that conjures up is sometimes negative in many people's minds. However, he is one of the few people I enjoy talking politics with because he can explain his position without rhetoric and is open to other points of view. He doesn't necessarily change his mind and I'm not saying he doesn't buy into some rhetoric (We're all guilty of that at some point though. Let's be honest here.) but I can have an engaging conversation with him on political matters and not feel the need to tear out my hair at any moment.

What really sucks about that is that this guy is the exception, not the rule. Politics have become the new religion for many.

The most distressing thing is not necessarily those that are close-minded, but rather the ones that are actually pretty intelligent until you start talking politics. The type of people who believe that if they belong to Party X, then everything Party Y does is bad and everything Party X does is justified. What is ironic is seeing how people's opinions have switched as administrations have. I see people who are intelligent, observant, and often even wise who still will do this the minute you bring politics into the picture.

On-line, where things tend to be very liberal except for in the political blogosphere, I have often been mistaken as a Bush supporter simply because I cannot condone the outright venom that people have for him. To be honest, what I support is his foreign policy, though I find it a bit lacking. He certainly has performed better in that area than people will give him credit. What ensures me that I have no ones support is that I think he is an incredibly weak domestic policy president. So, as you can see, neither liberals nor conservatives are going to think of me as a great pal anytime soon. The problem is, even in areas I think that he is weak, I am hesitant to chastise him, such is the venom of the people I encounter. I am afraid that I will provide fuel for their hatred, and I don't believe hate is a good basis for political belief. Indeed, I think many of the talking points post-2004 election did a great deal to distance Democrats from those that voted for Bush, making their ability to earn back those voters that much harder. If it were not for the Republicans steadfast insistence to shoot themselves in the foot, I would be quite worried about the 2006 elections. As it stands, maybe they'll be about equal. Only due to their missteps though, not because of any ability to relate to common Americans. I'm not convinced either side can do that anymore.

What this country does not need is a single party holding power. At the same time, the bi-partisan bickering is not healthy either. The people in power at the top enjoy the blind support. Members of both parties spend money with reckless abandon, comfortable in the knowledge the voters will continue to support them regardless. They rely on rhetoric and propaganda to bolster their campaigns. The whole system has become such a self-perpetuating joke, and it just continues because so many people believe it is the "other" side that is the problem.

Somehow, I just don't think this is what the Founding Fathers wanted.

When I first wrote this little nugget about the nature of Democracy, I was concerned I was being too harsh. As it turns out, after reading a Washington Post article about how Louisiana politicos want $250 BILLION to rebuild, I don't think I was harsh enough. Now we see the evidence of not only the dangers of having corrupt politicians in office, but how they can fleece American taxpayers. Actually, considering that I had previously mentioned their egregious use of Federal dollars before, the fleecing of the people across the US seems to be a long standing tradition for them.

Keeping in mind, this is $250 billion in addition to the roughly $62 billion the Federal Government has already committed to help rebuild. To be quite frank, the amount they want is far more money than anyone could possibly use. There is no other way to put it, this is sheer greed. A naked grab for dollars using the tragedy of a hurricane and the death of close to a thousand people. Even if they don't get the full amount, as the Post article points out, this may just be a bargaining point so they can squeeze at least a few billion from the Feds. Much like a lawyer might threaten to sue for millions and settle for a few hundred thousand. Perhaps this "polite response" should be the national response from the American people to the shameless politicians of Louisiana.

For perspective though, we're talking about all this money for a city that is likely to just be part of the Gulf of Mexico by 2050 or so.. It seems like everything based around New Orleans is just one bad idea after another.

Update -
More on the corruption in Louisiana.

Just spreading the word -

Porkbusters Website

Last week Tom Delay said something silly. When talking about possibly trimming the budget to help offset the cost of recovering from Hurricane Katrina he claimed that there was no fat to cut.

Now, c'mon, Tom. I've lived in the US too long not to know better than that.

There is an ongoing grassroots campaign to get Congressmen and Senators to give back or give up pork barrel projects. While some folks may argue what exactly is "pork", it's still not a bad idea to be scrutinizing where money is actually getting spent.

Sadly, the only person to commit anything so far is Nancy Pelosi, who has committed to giving back $70 million. That's right, Nancy Pelosi the shrill anti-war, anti-Bush Democrat is so far exhibiting the most fiscally conservative behavior.

I love irony.

And hey, I don't belong to a political party, but I'm also not terribly happy with either of the major ones right now. So if her behavior shames Republicans into acting on the principles they claim to believe in, all the better.

I want to be fair here after re-reading my post from two days ago. First of all, the topic is a little emotional for me because I did have family that lived there. I also have friends who are currently involved in some of the relief efforts, and the emotional drain that it has placed on them has bled over to our family. In short, it's a mess.

I think the amount of political opportunism that has sprung up as a result is, frankly, sickening. People blissfully ignoring how our country works and have launched into their Anti-Bush tirades, trying to exploit the victims of the hurricane to promote a political agenda. The irony here is that ever since 2000 these people have complained that Bush would try to attain more power, and yet when this crisis hits they have criticized him for not using power that he doesn't have and never attained. Furthermore, I think when people go into the frothing at the mouth rhetoric I think it tends to have the reverse effect that they are going for. You'd be surprised at how well that doesn't work among people who aren't like minded. It will get the other far-left Liberal moonbats in a tizzy, but tends to put-off moderates and just makes the conservatives defensive. It tends to make the thinking Liberals feel apologetic. I sympathize as a good friend of mine is a thinking Liberal and I actually enjoy talking to him about Bush. It's funny what you find you can actually agree on when you drop the rhetoric and have a real discussion. Moving on...

Now, that said, I think it's foolish if you look at the facts and give the Federal Government a complete pass. I do think the response at the local level has been pathetic and has cost thousands of lives. I think their interference with the Federal Government and Red Cross is criminal. Seriously, as in they need to be taken to court. Even so, since the Federal Government has been allowed to finally become involved the result is utter chaos. I worked in government before, and it's often frustrating to see that no matter how dire a person's circumstances are, many people in government just don't care. Since I specifically worked in law enforcement, I am talking about matters of life and death. Your average clerks and many low-level judges simply couldn't give a flip, as well as a surprising amount of actual law enforcement officials. I often wonder how these people ended up working in a part of the government where life-and-death situations are routine.

I like Bush's foreign policy for the most part. I'm a little frustrated at the blind eye he turns towards Saudi Arabia and the Palestinians, but for the most part he seems to have an honest and clear picture of the world that is not clouded by idealism. He also isn't trying to please a bunch of countries that aren't going to like us anyway. The French hated us under Clinton to, they just are more verbal about it under Bush. I promise you that if John Kerry had won the election, the French would have gone on hating us. That's just the way it is and Americans should not worry about it too much because they only way to fix it would be to reduce our country to their level of impotence. Something I am not too keen on myself.

Again, with that clarified, the reason why I damn near voted for John Kerry in 2004 is simply because I am wholly unimpressed with Bush's domestic performance. Not that the country has gone to hell in a handbasket, but I simply don't believe that he understands the politics of compassion. Yes, when the economy goes south and we're on the road to recovery, people are going to be out of work and will remain so until things get better. I think just ignoring their plight and turning a blind eye to companies being bad corporate citizens is not the way to go. A lot of companies cleaned up their acts before Sarbanes-Oxley took effect. Why? Because they feared the regulation. Shoot, just by turning a critical eye in Corporate America's direction Clinton was able to show influence on them. How much can a president really do? Not much. However, the President can make them nervous. I'll never forget who George Bush (the 1st one) came on TV during Desert Storm and decried the price gougers at the gas pumps and said quite bluntly there was no reason for gas to be so high. The price of gas dropped the next day. Call them on the carpet and they will respond.

George W. Bush believes in being as hands off as possible, unless your last name is Schiavo apparently. It's not a bad theory, but the problem is that no involvement often means that a lot of people have to suffer in the meantime. Yes it would have looked bad if he had overrode a female governor who belonged to the opposition party and just marched into Louisiana. Except that he would have been a hero to most of the country had he done so. The naysayers would have been drowned out by the show of support for decisive action. Except that decisive action wasn't there. I will happily concede that he was trying to be proper. The problem these damnable politicians don't understand is that sometimes you have to make a decision on your own without a committee present. Of all people I thought GW could do that. Apparently it only works for him when dealing with foreign powers. Again, when it comes to domestic matters he is not his most effective.

Furthermore, we have known FEMA is a joke for awhile. They have never responded quickly or efficiently to a disaster. So now that we have one of the worst natural disasters in US history, the sheer level of inefficiency has been laid bare for all to see. Folks, this is the Federal Government in action, and I shudder to think that this level of monolithic response is not limited to FEMA. The only national agencies I trust to be able to mobolize on anything en masse are the Armed Forces, and they were largely told to stay put while the powers that be haggled over who was top dog.

The cost of this inefficiency and indecisiveness is measured in lives. Yes, they were incompetent at the local level and that cost lives as well. Be that as it may, despite the comments I made yesterday I am well aware that ball dropping has taken place at many levels. Of course, that is just it, many people have screwed up. To lay this at Bush's feet and say it's all his fault is to ignore much of what we know of the disaster. Even so, his performance is not to be lauded either. It was, at very best, mediocre.

I always felt that Clinton was strong domestically, but his foreign policy was horrid. Now we have Bush who I think is strong in dealing with foreign affairs, but is weak domestically. Would it be so much to ask for a President that can do both?

I'm not a big fan of the National Review, mostly because it tends to be too conservative for my liking. All the same, Jim Geraghty says some things I've been thinking about for awhile..

Right before I read his article I had typed up a pretty scathing commentary about the New Orleans Police Department and their role in the looting and general inaction in the aftermath of the Hurricane. Depending on which report you've read, anywhere between 20% to 70% of the police force just up and quit after the hurricane. Now there are some dedicated public safety professionals! Can you imagine what it would have been like on September 11, 2001 if the police and firefighters had simply said "No way I'm going in there! I quit!" It was certainly an option. The firefighters who died that day put their lives on the line voluntarily. Sure we expect them to do crazy and heroic things, but no one is holding a gun to their heads.

Corruption at all levels of government has been a long-standing tradition in New Orleans. People just sort of winked and smiled and accepted that it was just going to always be that way. Instead of demanding better candidates and voting out politicians who were not doing their duty (which would send a clear message to similar successors, "Do your job or else!") the citizens of New Orleans took it as a sort of status quo.

So now that a disaster has hit their city, they have suffered more than other areas. Has anyone wondered why other areas have recovered so quickly. Granted, New Orleans was not built in an ideal location, although that to should be evaluated. Government officials in Mississippi and Alabama have already begun the process of restoration. We are still evacuating people in Louisiana. Yet despite the fact that only one area really seems to be suffering, many are quick to lay the blame at the feet of the Federal Government in general and at George W. Bush specifically. The problem is that to do so is to ignore the functional and prepared local governments that were hit by the exact same storm and are on the road to recovery. New Orleans is the exception, not the rule.

Even considering New Orleans somewhat unique geography, you still have to wonder what they have been spending federal dollars on. In this Washington Post article (hat tip to Instapundit) they highlight the pork barrel projects done by the state with federal dollars. Nevermind that we've known the leevees were in need of upgrade and repair for some time. It is not the Federal government's concern how things work at the local level, they simply don't have the manpower. They can give money to the local government's, but to monitor whether New Orleans needed a new canal lock versus better flood control is a decision that should and does reside within the realm of local authority.

Worse, the ineptitude continues. On the Red Cross FAQ page they answer the question of why they are not in New Orleans right now.

In particular there is this gem -


"The state Homeland Security Department had requested--and continues to request--that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city. "


I emphasized that this was the state HSD and not the federal version. In other words, it is the Louisiana Homeland Security Department telling the Red Cross not to come.

Brilliant move, Governor Blanco. We don't want to encourage people to stay, but you have no means to help them leave. Exactly what are those people supposed to do?

So while a corrupt and inept government was seen as a natural part of New Orleans life, we now have a very solid example of why this is not an acceptable arrangement. When a disaster strikes, the people who make the life and death decisions must be counted on. The consequences have been demonstrated to be deadly.

The problem with playing the blame game is that all too often the first person to start pointing fingers is often the one at fault. In this case if you want to get down to the root of the problem, you'll find that the voters of Louisiana have managed to put in place a government that simply does not work, cannot act, and is frozen by incompetence at all levels. The very people screaming for help and outraged that none has come were the people responsible for voting in the public officials that have killed so many with their indecision and poor judgement.

A lot of people took offense at the "Vote or Die" campaign done in 2004, mostly because it was anti-Bush. All the same, that motto seems to have become morbidly true. How you vote, or don't vote, could very well determine if you live or die. Yet somehow I doubt this is a lesson that the general public will learn anytime soon.

Addendum -

Holy Cow! Even after I wrote this I found yet another story. Looks like Louisiana Government's worst nightmare is coming true. People are starting to notice their incompetence.

Louisiana Officials Could Lose the Katrina Blame Game

Official Christopher Walken for President Website

Yeah it's a hoax. But c'mon! The concept is hilarious. Imagine a president who gets things done on the world stage just because the rest of the UN is creeped out by him.

I don't usually get political because there are so many other sites that do it better than I ever could. All the same, now that we know a Supreme Court Justice is actually retiring (O'Connor), the political jockeying is beginning in earnest. Considering how bad the rhetoric was when there was just the threat of a judge retiring, I imagine the blowhards will reach hurricane force long before anyone is actually nominated.

Politically speaking I am agnostic. At least in public I claim not to have a party. To be honest I am actually a closet Democrat who is greatly disappointed in what the Democrats have become. I am not going to get into that now. Unfortunately, there is little solace in the Republican party, who have been quick to abandon Federalism and their principles in a naked grab for power. In short, both of the major parties have shown that serving the American public is not their first priority. In fact, I'm not sure it's even in the top ten.

Much of the ongoing, and current, rhetoric, has revolved around what statutes and standards a judge should uphold. While I certainly expect an elected official to vote the way I want them to, the purpose of a judge is not to be held to the same standards as their party. For example, conservatives want Roe vs. Wade overturned and liberals want it upheld. Either side wants a judge that will rule in their favor, and so they are searching for someone with a pre-determined stance on the issue.

The very thought terrifies me. Not that I don't have an opinion on the case but I have a real problem with choosing a judge on the basis that I want him to have the same opinion. This seems like a bad thing to me. I would think that what we want is someone who will impartially look at a statute or ruling and apply the law to it properly. I want someone who, if they are for or against Roe vs. Wade, will still look at relevant laws and precedents and be willing to go against their personal opinion because they cannot find a legal reason to uphold their own opinion.

The call has gone out from both sides - "No Moderates!". Of course, this is because anyone without a predetermined political agenda is dangerous. People forget though that Supreme Court appointees have often gone contrary to the party that appoint them. All the same, I want the Supreme Court to be the ruling body on what is fair and right under the law. I don't want them making decisions based on national consensus or what they feel in their hearts. The law is not about personal preference. Quite frankly I think the people wanting to appoint a judge to protect their own vested interests should be ashamed for trying to make the system into something it was not intended.

And I could give a damn which party they belong to.

More full disclosure. In my short time on this planet (31 years) I have belonged to the Democratic, Republican, and Liberatarian parties. I am currently an independent. I didn't become an independent to feel superior or show how much more cognizant I am compared to those that do claim a party affiliation. I have friends on either side of the political spectrum and I tend to be the only one in the group that tends to be a bit of an objectionist. I don't really care about political agendas. Any problem I have with a politician will have nothing to do with their party. In other words I'm not going to stand against something just because the Republicans or Democrats are for it.

Over at Blackfive he is discussing the situation at Guantanamo Bay. There are a lot of people out there now upset with what we're doing at Guantanamo, and I really have to wonder why. Essentially, these are prisoners of war. People we have pulled off of battlefields and regions of conflict. The difference is, unlike previous military actions, very few of these people belong to an actual military unit. Ironically, despite the somewhat odd circumstances they are being held in, they are treated quite well. Let me tell you as a former jailer, these guys have it better than criminals locked up for far lesser charges. Yet it is being called a "Gulag"?

It is difficult for me to surmise if the motivation for this accusation is borne of -
1. Political opposition and opportunism
2. Lack of understand and historical perspective of what a Gulag is
3. Ignorance and/or incompetence
4. A combination of any or all of the above

I'll be blunt, the accusations are ridiculous. The prisoners have it pretty good and I take exception to their definition of what "torture" is. As Blackfive pointed out, we might humiliate someone, while the enemy has no qualms about cutting off someone's head while they're still alive. We're exposing stories about the Koran accidentally getting some urine on it while the enemy is blowing up civilians. I just don't see how we're the least bit comparable.

Don't get me wrong either. I am against what happened at Abu Ghraib. Not because I feel sorry for the prisoners, but because we don't do things like that. At the same time, it does not make us "on their level". Not even close.