Why Luke Russert Should Be a TV News Pundit
Why? Beats me.
Because TV news (which I think can now be equated with Hollywood) is as incestuous as politics?
Austin Creates NYE Drunk Drivers
In 2008, Forbes ranked Austin as America’s Hardest Drinking City. A few months ago, Insurance.com said Austin has the ninth largest percentage of drivers with alcohol-related driving convictions in the nation.
We all know New Year’s Eve is the night many people ensure they start the new year with a massive hangover. I’ve done it many times. (Inauspicious as that may be.) Further, it’s the night that all the amateur drinkers come to town to celebrate, get sloshed and then drive back to Manor or Cedar Park or Kyle.
But what is the city doing to curb drunk driving on nights like tonight? They’re promising increased patrols, forcing mandatory blood draws on suspected drunk drivers and urging people to call for a free cab ride home from Austin Sober Ride.
What the city isn’t offering is extended public transportation options on CapMetro and isn’t going to run the MetroRail at all.
NEW YEAR’S EVE
Friday, December 31, 2010
Saturday Level Service
Night Owl Service will operate
No MetroRail, UT Service or E-Bus
Further, the first thing I heard on the news this morning is that Austin doesn’t have enough cabs to handle all the people who will likely be calling for service. They said to expect up to an hour or more wait (and anyone who’s tried to get a cab downtown at two in the morning on a regular night knows that’s an understatement).
“We don’t have enough cabs for the demand for New Year’s Eve,” said Gloria Souhami with Sober Ride. “I would say that it would be fair to expect maybe an hour… an hour and 15 minutes.”
I’d wager those calling Sober Ride will actually be waiting longer than those calling Yellow Cab themselves. Cabbies are more likely to get a tip from someone who has directly requested them than from people who are expecting a free ride home.
Now, I understand the whole concept of personal responsibility and making sure you have a designated driver. Unfortunately, many times — especially on holidays — respect for responsibility fails in the face of celebration.
And those calling for government to get out of our lives should remember that every once in a while an ounce of prevention can equal a pound or more of a loved one’s flesh.
So if Austin really wants fewer drunk drivers tonight, here are my (few) proposals:
- Extend public transportation, including MetroRail, service;
- Continue to advertise Sober Ride;
- Encourage designated drivers; and
- Allow Austin Police Department officers to take people home rather than just issuing tickets for Public Intoxication, following them to their cars and picking them up for driving drunk.
It’s better to prevent a possibly fatal crime than just enforce the law — especially when the law comes too late.
Myself? I’ll be at the Austin Symphony with my family. Sober. And hoping a drunk driver doesn’t hit us on our way there and/or back.
(Please feel free to add your proposals in the comments.)
What I Want for Christmas
Here are your options:
Buck Mark Practical URX: I like to be practical, you know.
Aeron Office Chair: And there's nothing more practical than an Aeron office chair . . . with a holster holding a Buck Mark.
Next Stop Is Vietnam - The War On Record, 1961-2008 (I have nothing witty to say about this.)
See? I’m not so hard to shop for.
(What’s that about champagne tastes on a beer budget?)
Quote
This is probably the best line I’ve read in quite some time:
[Larry King] wrote one tweet that was almost like a whole Lydia Davis
short story: “Irwin is a guy who comes to breakfast on occasion, and asks real questions that make us laugh. He is a retired businessman.”
– Jack Pendarvis, “Larry King and Lady Gaga Are the Same! And other signs of the coming apocalypse.” The Oxford American
, No. 70, The Future Issue.
Oh, and one more thing (on Obama’s capitulation on tax cuts)
Where the hell is the political acumen in “compromising” with the Republicans on this issue?
Let them go home to their constituents and say, “Yeah, we wanted to fuck Obama so much that we let your unemployment run out and tax cuts expire.”
I must be missing something here. There must be a larger plan. Like the Christians say about the Holocaust, it’s all in God’s plan — and we little ones just can’t even begin to understand it. That’s how I’m feeling right about now. W.T.F. is going on?
Look, I’ve worked in politics. I just don’t see how screwing the pooch on this gets us anywhere. You couldn’t even negotiate an expiration of the tax cuts for $500,000+ earners? Like those sons of bitches are really going to vote for or against you because you extended their tax cuts. Hell, even the poor-ass Tea Party Republicans hate you, and they’re a bunch of old farts and right-wing nutjobs who are (a) already receiving government money or (b) will never make enough to benefit from continuing high-earners’ tax “relief” (even if they could spell).
I give you props for passing the most significant health-care reforms in decades, but even then you lost your spine when it came to the public option.
Yeah, piss off the base to try to gain the center. Good job. Except that the base that money- and volunteer-bombed your ass into office is probably starting to wonder a little why they didn’t vote for Hillary. I know I sure am. Just a little.
I hope that commie pinko or brain-damaged prick filibuster this bill to death. I want to hear wailing in the chamber on Christmas eve as they talk about Santa Claus not liking deficits and Jesus, the camel and the pin. Dead, dead, dead. I want this bill in flames.
If Bush were in office and wanted these things, he’d have them by now. It’s time to sac up and eat the shit sandwich, Mr. President.
As usual, it’s all our fault and we have to fix it. (Updated)
From Foreign Policy:
Rarely has a publication been so close to the front lines of Mexico’s ongoing turmoil than El Diario, the 35-year-old daily newspaper published in one of the hubs of the violence, Ciudad Juárez. Three journalists have so far been murdered, their cases unsolved. On Dec. 7, the publication’s editor and publisher, Osvaldo Rodríguez Borunda, released this letter. Excerpts are published below, edited for space and clarity. [I've cut them even further.]
Originally conceived as a transitory part of the productive sector, which would eventually give way to the development of a national industrial sector, the maquiladora industry never made that qualitative jump. And, unfortunately for Juárez, it never progressed past being an industry of assembly for large U.S. companies. The maquiladora industry became a gold mine for a small number of local businessmen and unethical politicians who took advantage of its existence not only for their own monetary enrichment, but also in order to steer the growth of the city toward large tracts of land that they owned, leading to the disorderly and corrupt expansion of the city.
. . .
Certainly, the maquila sector brought an economic boom to the city, but this turned into a treasure for only a few and did not favor human and social development crucial for harmonious growth.
. . .
We are not accusing the military institution as such, but rather pointing out that for years, we in the media have publicized cases of military personnel, including officers, accused of collaborating with organized crime.
What is certain is that in México, and in particular in Ciudad Juárez, we are facing a situation that is so complicated that, over the last four years since President Felipe Calderón declared war on organized crime, both the police force and the military have demonstrated that they are not prepared to confront an enemy whose size and strength they knew little about.
. . .
Some North American journalists are of the opinion that if the U.S. Army were to intervene in México, the drug cartels could be stopped. Nothing could be further from the truth. If the U.S. military were to directly interfere in our national territory, it would give organized crime organizations the tools they need to convert their members into guerrillas. Criminals would be converted into soldiers, while their leaders could appeal to nationalism and to the historic yoke that the United States has held over México. This type of solution would be the most dangerous possible because our country would be totally devastated. It is not because of a false sense of nationalism that we are opposed to this alternative; rather, we simply do not believe that it would work.
No. The solution must come from México and from its society — though it’s clear that the U.S. government should participate, because the problem has two sides.
The measures adopted by both countries are insufficient. The United States has gotten involved by crafting programs such as the Mérida Initiative, with its rickety scope, and by pressuring the Mexican state to detain the heads of the various organized crime groups — without helping to fix the grave social problems this causes in our country. These measures actually do very little to decrease its internal market: the largest consumer market for drugs in the world. So long as the United States refuses to recognize that the majority of the problems can be found there, as can most of the solutions, it is highly doubtful that the scenario we now face in Mexico will change.
This is what consistently pisses me off about this issue (and I’m no hawk on the immigration debate either). It’s always the gringos’ fault.
What does the editor suggest we do? Close the assembly plants (laying off more Mexican workers to join the cartels), legalize drugs in the U.S., and solve their corrupt, unequal society? I have a suggestion: Do it yourselves. How far back does one have to go to find a not corrupt Mexican government? Certainly before the PRI. Oh, I know: A long fucking time.
Yes, “the solution must come from México and from its society.” No buts. No thoughs. That’s where it has to come from. The Mexican people have to hold their own politicians, armed forces, police force, postal service (for God’s sake!) accountable for their corruption. It isn’t something we can do for you.
So stop bitching and get to work — before we do have to send a real Army in.
*** UPDATE 12 DEC 2010:
From the Texas Tribune:
So much for the economic impact of headline-making violence. Despite being on track to exceed 3,000 homicides this year, Juárez has seen its manufacturing sector flourish, regaining since July 2009 a quarter of the jobs lost during the height of the recession. More than $42 billion in trade value moved through the ports that the city shares with El Paso last year, and that number should be higher in 2010. And the amount of of tractor-trailer traffic hauling goods through the region was 22 percent greater in the first six months of this year than it was in the same period last year
Yeah. So, nyah.
Aspirations/Assumptions
The Senate on Saturday rejected President Obama’s proposal to let tax rates rise for the highest-income Americans, as Republicans held firm in their push to continue all of the expiring Bush-era tax cuts.
Misty and I often discuss what we call “aspirational voting,” that is, that some people vote because they believe they will some day benefit from the policies supported by a certain politician or political party. This is obviously most true when it comes to the poor voting for Republicans, as shown by party members’ vote against extending tax cuts for those individuals below $200,000 (below $250,000 for families). They seem unwilling to allow any extension unless those making above those amounts also receive an extension. An alternative plan to only end the extension for those making over $1 million was also defeated by Republicans (and a few Democrats).
How does aspirational voting play into this (the same could be said for health-care reform)? Those Americans opposed to letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for citizens making the amounts noted above are obviously hoping (or, more likely, assuming) that they will some day earn over $200,000 a year and, thus, benefit from the tax cut.
There’s a simple solution for this, though. It doesn’t even really require math.
Just look at your current age and income. If you’re 40 and making $60,000 a year, do you think it likely you’ll hit the $200,000 mark any time in the near future? Ever? Unless your spouse is making $100,000 or more, I have to argue that it is unlikely. (And even if he or she is, you both have to make more than $250,000 to benefit from the tax cuts Democrats are willing to let expire.)
And here’s an even more sad fact:
If Congress does not act, the tax rates expire for everyone on Dec. 31, meaning an increase across the board. The rate in the lowest bracket would rise to 15 percent from 10 percent and in the highest bracket to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. [Emphasis mine.]
If the impasse continues, and all tax cuts expire, the lowest earners’ income taxes will rise to a greater extent than the wealthiests’ — 5 percent versus 4.6 percent.
I know this isn’t a pleasant way to look at this issue, but it is the best way, in my mind. Look at your age, look at your current income and consider how much you really think your income will increase by the time you die. I think a large portion of those supporting the Republicans’ efforts will find themselves on the wrong side of their own pocketbooks.
Continuing to continue a theme . . .
Thank you, Jon Stewart. You make my job so much easier.
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Gaypocalypse Now | ||||
|
||||
To continue a theme
John McCain is a liar and an idiot. He said he’d support the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as soon as the military leadership told him they agreed with such a move. Now he stands in the way of it.
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a leading Republican critic of ending the “don’t ask, don’t tell” law, dismissed a new Pentagon report on the issue Thursday and said Congress should not vote to change military personnel policy during a time of war.
Let’s be honest: John McCain will never find a good time to change a stupid policy.
At least the military leadership is a bit brighter than the senator from Arizona:
[Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm.] Mullen acknowledged some of McCain’s concerns, noting that some troops quoted in the report worry about having to bunk or shower with openly gay troops.
“We’ll deal with that,” Mullen said. “But I believe and history tells us that most of them will put aside personal proclivities for something larger than themselves and for each other.”
“There are some for whom this debate is all about gray areas,” Mullen said. “There is no gray area here. We treat each other with respect, or we find another place to work. Period. That’s why I also believe leadership will prove vital.”
Emerging as the Pentagon’s most forceful, emotional proponent for ending the law, Mullen said current policy “doesn’t make any sense to me,” because it requires troops to lie about their identity while serving for a military that values integrity.
[Secretary of Defense] Gates pressed senators to act this month to end the ban, warning that, “Those that choose not to act legislatively are rolling the dice that this policy will not be abruptly overturned by the courts.”
There’s a great Drive-By Truckers song about the late Alabama Gov. George Wallace burning in hell that I think we can now use in reference to John McCain:
And if it’s true that he wasn’t a [homophobe] and he just did all them things for the votes
I guess Hell’s just the place for kiss ass politicians who pander to assholes.
So throw another log on the fire, boys, [John McCain] is coming to stay
Fortunately, I don’t have to go any further, as Jon Stewart has already called bullshit on McCain:
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart: It Gets Worse PSA
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| It Gets Worse PSA | ||||
|
||||
So, two things, Sen. McCain: Apologize for giving us Sarah Palin and issue a letter of reprimand against yourself for unbecoming display of hypocrisy and idiocy.
John McCain needs to STFU
Until he apologizes to us for Sarah Palin.
