Tag: administrative nonsense

Fear is the mind killer

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

It’s a quote from Dune, I highly recommend reading the books or watching the films.  Fear is the name of the game in politics anymore.  See that guy over there, he’s going to take away something valuable to you, and the only way to protect it is to vote for me.  It’s played by both sides of the aisle, and the application of fear in campaigns is well know, well documents, and flat-out nonsensical at times.

Why do I bring this up?  Fear goes both ways.  We’re afraid of the pending failure of our government to be able to pay its bills, so the President and the dutiful denizens of the left in congress roll out additional taxes and new spending to engage the economy in what could be the most over-estimated recovery that has yet to happen.

Meanwhile there is the argument from the President that the Deficit is going down (as a side now, each projected pseudo-budget that has been touted out for the last five years has been a ‘deficit-reducing’ budget) and yet we’ve tacked on $6 trillion to the national debt.  So, there’s our fear.  We’re deep in the hole and we need money.  So, how do we get this money.  We limit how much goes into Roth IRA’s.  It’s a short story put up by The Hill pointing out that the super wealthy have been squirreling away money in Roth IRAs, which they can’t touch until they’re 59 and a half without some heavy penalties, and in a desperate attempt to raise some additional coin, the government thinks that the amount of dough saved in those accounts shouldn’t exceed a specified amount.

I understand the logic.  There’s money there, and, after pouring through more pages of the IRS website than I care to do ever again, it turns out you pay an excise tax of 6% on excessive donations, and early withdrawals are taxed at rate, and then 10% more on top (again if withdrawn before you are 59 and a half).  So, in all that, there’s money.  How much money?  I’m not certain the numbers are solid, but according to the article from The Hill roughly $9 billion over the next decade.  Yup, over the next decade they’d square away 0.005% of last year’s deficit.

Solid plan there.

Nominally, it’s going to take work, and I hope to god they’re working on it because right now I don’t think it’d pay for the paper it’s being printed on.

The other side of the sword is the delivery method.  Like I said, we’re talking about fear here, and the need to make people afraid.  Why are we talking about this?  Because it’s scary.  Because the Government is going after our retirement savings, or so the Drudge Report would have you believe.

If you hit the Drudge Report over the weekend you would have seen the hyperlink to “Obama budget targets retirement accounts…”.  Rolling off the recent move by the EU to soak the owners of money laden accounts in the national bank of Cyprus, there is an expectation of the government in the United States doing something similar to ward off a fiscal boogeyman (don’t get me wrong, we have serious money problems) but to snag 40-60% of the value of all accounts that hold more than $100,000…can’t happen, won’t happen, and will break the financial system faster than the housing bubble of 2008.

Now, rank and file readers aren’t expecting this.  Most folks are pretty certain that their money is safe, and it is.  The Cyprus situation was a state run and controlled bank, we don’t have that in the US. We have a fed that feeds into banks, but those accounts are ours, and the money comes out of the hides of the bank, not out of Uncle Sam.  However, it’s still a scary thought.  It’s in red, of all colors, against all the black text.  It’s important.  It’s also inaccurate based on the text of the article linked.  Not wholly inaccurate, but omits the focus on the wealthy aspect of the donors being targeted.

So, boogeymen abound on both sides, and what do we have.  People worried that their retirement funds are now the target of a government siege on savings to slake their ever-growing thirst for funds to toss at social projects, and politicians who are offering weak tea solutions to monumental budgetary issues.  This is not a good-get.  This isn’t even a good story.  It’s about as bottom of the barrel as you can get when it comes to dialogue.  There is no genuine interest in doing what is right, just in making sure that someone is scare, and what they are hoping is that someone is you.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

A curious note was passed my way regarding a recent court decision to prohibit the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors from holding a pre-meeting prayer that included the name Jesus.  Couple that with the knee-jerk reaction from some state representatives in North Carolina who submitted a resolution to establish a state religion, and it’s another spin on the ‘religious freedom’ movement.

Going back to Virgina first, The article regarding the court decision can be found here and the ACLU has it’s own take here.  In short, the County Board of Supervisors had deviated from the religious neutral prayer that most government organizations insist upon at the beginning of meetings for a clearly identifiable Christian one.  This raised the hackles of one Mrs. Barbara Hudson, and she informed the Board that what they were doing was unconstitutional…which it is.  The board more or less told her to shove off, and, true to form, the ACLU became involved.  Mediation failed, and ‘lo the Judiciary is brought in to lay the smack down.

A similar incident occurred in North Carolina, in the district the that is represented by the state congressman that presented the resolution.  The judicial response to the prayer is what inspired these two representatives, one of which wears the tea party badge with honor, to file this amazingly unconstitutional piece of legislation.

The ground level I’m getting to is this: They were informed that it was unconstitutional, and when informed of such they didn’t bother to research their position nor did they take it under consideration.  They blew the challenge off for self-indignant or self-righteous reasons, failed to come to a compromise in court mandated mediation (a simple acquiescence would have sufficed), and in the end cost the taxpayers significant time and energy better spent addressing the issues of their respective county as well as the thousands, if not millions, of dollars in legal fees that will be assessed after the dust has finally settled.

The need, not desire but flat-out need, to invoke God at public government events also makes me wonder, as I have many times before, about the personal relationship with God that the believers are suppose to have, but seem very eager to show off in public.  My understanding was that it was a deeply personal, one-on-one kind of relationship.  One that cannot be impressed upon by the government, and, through that same clause, cannot be impressed upon others.

The comments on other articles claiming this is another attack on religious freedom by the Judiciary, the resolution goes on to itemize how these decisions are just that, but here’s the thing; the government, any government beholden to the Constitution of the United States America, cannot endorse any religion. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution overrides state Constitutions and local legislatures.  Its not an attack on religion when those affected are asking that the rules that apply to the situation be enforced accordingly.  Somewhere along the line those who are pushing for “religious freedom” forgot what it was about.

The Representatives from North Carolina, short on civics lessons or long on sleeping in class, fail to realize that the federal government does have a say in what the states do.  The power of the states lies in their people and the states capacity to represent themselves at the federal level.  They rage about judicial oversight with regards to these, and many other social matters (and religion is a social matter), but fail to recall that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches are to balance each other.  Should the legislative, or we’ll say the most representative body of the electorate, get a wild hair up it’s ass, it is up to the Judiciary (since the executive cannot directly interfere on state affairs) to apply the law as it is interpreted.

Does that mean that the “majority” might get a black eye supporting specific causes, yes.  I’d point to school integration, inter-racial marriage, interstate commerce, property rights, voting rights, freedom of speech, and several thousand other decisions made by the Judicial branch that have in some respects hindered the majority from being a collective dick to a select group of people, but also protecting the body politic from those in both the state and federal realms from doing long-lasting harm.

There isn’t a gun being held to their heads saying that they must worship Allah, Amaterasu, or Cthulhu because there are explicit protections prohibiting the government from enforcing a state religion. That protection, however, does not guarantee that a specific religion will remain in the majority over the existence of a nation, or that the majority religion receives any special privileges or protections because it has the most, or most influential, followers.  It appears that those that normally decry religious freedom forget that the government is designed to protect not only those practicing a religion from government interference, but also to protect those of us who don’t share their beliefs from being steamrolled by the them.

The ever growing elephant in the room

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

What is $474.15 Billion dollars?

The fiscal cliff looms in the distance like a funnel cloud on the hard-packed plains of Texas.  The key difference is we can avoid that wicked looking mess coming our way.  Functionally, this is a historic opportunity, wrapped in gilt and handed to the parties with the same bows and trappings of the holiday preceding the impending fluster cluck that is about to go down.  That gift; a moment to finally stop bullshitting and come together to get this nation on a path to a balanced budget, an aim at reducing the national debt, and reigning in the last decade and change of madcap spending that has gone on.

Those hoping for this know better.  The only thing we, the American public, will get out of this deal is coal in our stockings which will be summarily taken away because it is neither green nor ours to use as an energy resource.

The New York Times has a fantastic Infographic available to the public where you can see firsthand what grew, what shrank, and what is owed to who and where.  I will be frank, if the President or Congress is serious about cutting the deficit and balancing the budget then all the programs they swore to protect must share in some of the bloodletting.

Medicare and Medicaid account for nearly one-third of the budget by itself.  Toss Social Security into the mix and over half the budget is consumed by these two programs alone.  Defense spending.  It rings in, for the first time, lower than the cost of Social Security, and is quickly being outpaced by the interest on the national debt.

This brings me to my beginning question; what is $474.15 billion dollars?  That number is what is owed in interest on the national debt.

It is staggering to look at, and,  mind you, that is the interest.  Not some credit card minimum where part of what you pay hits the principle and we will ever so slowly knock it down.  Nay good reader, this is pure interest without a dime set to the principle.  I’ll be honest, that would be the first number I would be set to tackle for that number will be what kills us.

If the President’s moratorium on discretionary spending (which would freeze the large majority of defense spending but leave social security and Medicare/Medicaid alone) goes through then we’ve only slowed the train down, but it will chug along.  Mayhaps you can knock out some of that principle.  Hold back the rising tides, but the moratorium cannot last forever, and if it is not adapted to, the glut of costs that will come cascading down and crush any gains made.

So, while our elected officials piddle away the hours playing games of imaginary chicken and peek-a-boo with the press, handing out reports of  “nothing to see here” we are getting buried.  The interest grows, and will eclipse the costs of social security and Medicare/Medicaid if left untouched, all the while pledges are being made to not raise taxes on anyone and no programs will be cut.  Looking at the reality on paper/webpage and listening to the news brings two conclusions to mind.  Either those in power want this world to burn for the sake of petty feuds and broken ideologies, or they are, much to our chagrin, monumentally clueless as to what they have brought down upon all of us.  It will come to a day when that cost, just to cover the interest being made on the debt, will choke us out, and we will be forced to cut to maintain or default.  Best to do them now, with flexibility and foresight on our side than a later time when we must cut because there is no other option.  When a monthly social security check is short $21 a month for living expenses versus hundreds of dollars short because there isn’t any money left to paid those who are owed.  Petty promises and pledges won’t mean a damn thing then, and, to be frank, shouldn’t mean a damn thing now.

Escalation of force and your friendly neighborhood SWAT team

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

Stories like this one are becoming more common in the news.  Swatting, or the act of placing a fake phone call from a VoIP hone or internet server to emergency providers indicating that there is a shooting/violent crime/ general mayhem going down at a particular address. Everyone from Politicians to kids playing video games have been surprised to see teams of fully armored, automatic weapon toting law enforcement officers knocking down their doors, causing thousands of dollars of damage and wasting police time and funds chasing down ghost leads with the most militant branches of their organizations.

I want to make something clear before I continue, I have nothing against SWAT teams.  I respect what they do, and recognize that they should be called into the most dire of situations.  What I do have a problem with is the escalating frequency with which they are being sent out to enforce mundane legal activities.

From serving warrants to handling armed 79-year-old ladies the rank and file police duties are quickly getting picked up by SWAT teams across the country.  The horrify notion that the military is selling off extra hardware to police departments doesn’t bode well.  Especially when those same police departments turn around and sell it off to, as the article from the Sacramento Bee puts it, “pad their budgets”.

There is a need for the SWAT teams in cities across America, but there appear to be a greater need for restraint in their deployment.  If the basic assessments are being accomplished, and it is duly warranted that an escalation to a para-military level is required, then by all means send in the SWAT team.  If the department didn’t bother to check the residence or call the house, and proceeded to break down a door, flash-bang innocent civilians, and then physically treat them like common criminals, then, frankly, someone needs to lose their job.

Stop frothing at the mouth for a moment and realize the long game moments

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

My stomach fell out when the decision on Thursday rolled down.  I was a staunch believer that any variation of the individual mandate was a legal faux pa and had to be struck down.  Then I read the Roberts decision and was illuminated to an entirely new way of operating in the government.  I was seeing, for the first time, not a decision based on party politics or personal interest.  No, I saw a straight out of myth ruling based on pure constitutional reasoning. Okay, there may have been some political wranglings in there, and I am thrilled that other pundits and writers like Michael Medved and Paul Begala were quick to point out the true victory for Republicans in the bill.

At the root of the Roberts decisions, aside from defining the mandate as a tax and throwing the life of the bill back into the hands of Congress which may very well fall into Republican hands in November, there was this little gem:

2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the
Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.
(a) The Constitution grants Congress the power to “regulate Commerce.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3 (emphasis added). The power to regulate commerce presupposes the existence of commercial activity to be regulated. This Court’s precedent reflects this understanding: As expansive as this Court’s cases construing the scope of the commerce power have been, they uniformly describe the power as reaching “activity.” E.g., United States v. Lopez, 514 U. S. 549, 560. The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by
purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. (link)

Roberts effectively stopped the government from mandating that a lack of participation in a specific filed of commerce amounted to having a direct impact on interstate commerce.  In writing the decision this way he took the congressional, and largely Democratic, insistence to tell Americans what to do with their money, even when they are not spending it, and locked it away in that nasty little box known as ‘unconstitutional’.

Labeling the mandate as a tax was something the President was specific about avoiding during the creation and vote on the bill.  Even after it was enacted they President and Democratic members of congress were adamant that it was not a tax, but when they went to the line the only legal way to argue it, and to save any resemblance of the mandate, was to label it just that. However, in doing so it lost that shiny aspect of a social program that could be administered by an Executive Branch organization, and was put back in the hands of Congress.

Lastly, there is the matter of the tax itself.  I’ve seen the posts on social websites and heard my conservative friends gnash their teeth and scream to the heavens about how individual liberty is dead, how freedom is no longer found in the United States, and I chuckle.  The issue will be revised. CNN pointed out, not 30 minutes after the decision was made, that the tax can only be challenged, by law, after it has gone into effect.  That means in January of 2014, the first year the penalties, excuse me, Taxes are in place, there will be another lawsuit, another challenge, and another Supreme Court decision,

Chief Justice Roberts looked to the future on this decision, and he ruled, not as a conservative or a liberal, but as any judge should.  He put the balls back in their respective courts, taking the power to create taxes away from the executive and giving it back to the legislative, and told the nation that the President would not be playing with that ball anymore.  At least, not in that capacity.

UPDATE: A site I frequently visit (www.neveryetmelted.com) has a fantastic article on this and links to several other articles.  I’d strongly recommend bookmarking it if you get a chance.

Doth mother know you weareth her drapes?

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

I thought the quote from the Avengers was appropriate here.

Two sides in Wisconsin, genuinely believing they are working for the greater good but coming from wildly different directions, engaged in a full scale brouhaha to make their point known.  I’m still not certain as to who would wear the tights, but I call dibs on the Iron Man suit.

Fashion jokes aside, the fight was largely pointless, and  the essence of american voters, played by Captain America in this little production, stopped the fight between two petulant powerhouses.  In the end vox populi spoke loud and clear, and Gov. Walker remains in place for two more years, but has lost his majority in the State Senate.

The day-after recovery is over, the analysis is done, and we found out that 38% of voters who supported Walker came from homes that have at least one member in a union.  We found out that while roughly $75 million was spent on this campaign, walker trudging up $30 million of that on his own through Super PAC donors, the real story remains that the turnout, percentage-wise, was almost identical to the election two years prior, even with a higher voter turnout.

I’m tired of the Citizens United decision being touted as the evil grandaddy and reason everyone is winning.  I call BS.  You can throw millions at a campaign and if the message sucks, or the candidate is less than stellar, looking at you Gingrich and Santorum, you will accomplish next to nothing except transferring wealth from donors to local businesses.

The issue with the Walker recall was that he did exactly what he said he was going to do.  The politically connected unions and loyal opposition were taken aback when an elected official decides to follow through on campaign promises.  Were those promises heavy handed?  Some can argue as much, but these are desperate times, and the voters selected desperate measures, and thus they were delivered after much bally who and childish shenanigans by the State Senators unhappy with the legislation.

So, in response to a governor who did what he swore he would do, despite some of the blatantly childish political behavior I have seen in my life, and the result was a nationally supported recall.  I don’t mean that the entire nation supported the recall, but that interests well outside the borders of Wisconsin became involved.  It was no longer about just about a losing side’s dissatisfaction with being thrown out of office and then having to suffer the political fallout that comes from failing to represent the people rather than representing the interests that fill the campaign coffers.

An extended hiatus and forthcoming apologies followed by vitriol


It is not enough to do good; one must do it the right way.
John Viscount Morley, of Blackburn

oldjeffersonianLeave a comment

So, I’ve been gone for a bit.  School, as it turns out, is a little more arduous than expected this semester.  Planning is now coming together, and I should have my acts in order now.  Apologies to those who have read what little I’ve written and found interest.  My intention was never to leave you wanting, or to wander off into the dark expanses of the internet to never be seen again.  In a shorter phrase, “shit happened”.  Now,  on to more pressing/interesting matters.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/189844/did_a_school_use_webcams_to_spy_on_students_at_home.html

So, the remote desktop feature, something available on pretty much every Mac computer and, in several unique cases, was used to locate missing or stolen hardware, was apparently used to observe a student in his home.  The laptops are school issued, but, according to ever report I’ve seen on the matter, there is nothing in the contract the parents and students sign regarding off-campus observation.

So, now we have a young man who was approached by an Assistant Principal on a matter in which he was apparently doing something she did not approve of.  This would venture two questions:1) how long were they observing him doing whatever it is they are displeased with, and 2) were they informed that he was doing something illicit or did they just magically turn the webcam on to find him in a compromising position or role?

The second is statistically improbable, and the first implies a hideous revelation about how long those who have been abusing this technology have been at the game.  I believe the parents concerns are warranted regarding the possibility of students being observed in compromising positions or possibly, as one article put it, in “states of undress”.  Now the FBI is investigating and there are records of 42 remote access actions to recover 28 missing laptops.  The number of unrecorded webcam activations could be in the low hundreds.

To be frank, a question needs must raised about the intellectual capacity of the Principal and Superintendent on the matter.  As the invasive capacity of technology grows, the inclusion of technology into the educational environment must come at the pace of educating those who will be responsible for said technology.  The remote desktop feature could have been modified to exclude the webcam, as well as not relying on the webcam at all.  Rather, utilization the webcam as an anti-theft and item recover device work on the principles that the laptop is online, and that the offending individual hasn’t left it in a bag or similar carrying case.

No, software like Lo-Jack, designed specifically for the purpose of locating stolen equipment, was not used to my knowledge.  Furthermore, Lo-Jack only sends out communication signals daily unless the school reports the item stolen, then every 15 minute updates are issued until the laptop is recovered.  The use of the webcam as a device by which they ‘locate’ goods is a half-ass excuse at best since most stolen laptops, I imagine, are going to be closed off, and possibly active.  Lo-Jack will tell you where a laptop is if it is connected to the internet.  A webcam on a shut laptop will give you a black screen that tells you jack all about your position.

The simple fact that they managed to recover 28 of 42 reported missing laptops speaks to the level of responsibility and due diligence of a student to not forget their laptop at home rather than to track a thief.

Lastly, while the school feels it is necessary to ‘track down’ thieves that might try to lift their property, it is not their job to hunt down thieves and brigands.  A computer goes missing, a report to the police is generated, and then, and only then, is the webcam activated to locate the equipment.  Anyone operating outside the realms of their job as an information technician or as an administrator of an educational facility should be sacked on the spot.  Leave the law enforcement to those who wear the badges.