Friday, February 06, 2009

Stimulus?

For the record: I am in favor of one-time spending as stimulus for the economy. I do not think that the Republican plan of lots of tax cuts would be nearly as effective.

That said... this plan is so bloated with pure pork, it's obscene and Obama should be ashamed to be trumpeting this as a "the nation faces imminent collapse unless we pass this" bill.

To every Democrat who was upset with Bush for his WMD argument in Iraq, behold your new president making the same sort of argument here. This may not cost American lives, but it will cost far, far more than the war in Iraq, especially if this is allowed to be the tone of a "never let a crisis go to waste" administration.

Monday, February 02, 2009

Super Bowl and Movies

There should have been an official review of the fumble by Kurt Warner. The official take is this: "As the Steelers ran the last play, Michaels said the booth officials had confirmed that it was a fumble." The problem is, it's not up to the booth officials to make that call - they simply have to decide if it's questionable enough for the referee on the field to review the play. It certainly was questionable, so the referee should have been given the chance to make the call. Booth officials only make decisions like that in college, not in the NFL.

On Friday night, I went to go see Taken. It's an action flick in the "talented but inactive government agent goes on a rampage because of some personal injury done to him by the bad guys" theme. It was an excellent movie, though. The lead actor was believable (as an average-looking man, he's more believable than someone like Dwayne Johnson as a spy), the motivation was believable, there were a couple of unexpected twists, and the movie highlighted something that is a real world problem, affecting millions of people.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Fair Pay and Guantanamo

My fundamental problem with the Fair Pay Bill recently signed into law by the new President is this:

In forcing employers who are sued for pay discrimination to prove that a difference in pay was entirely job-related, it codifies a presumption of guilt instead of a presumption of innocence.

It is, though in a different arena, the same fundamental problem that existed at Guantanamo Bay: we will assume you are terrorists, and treat you as such (granted, in Guantanamo you were even less likely to get a chance to try to prove your innocence).

Discrimination is bad. Discrimination is hard to prove. And assuming that any difference in pay is due to intentional discrimination is offensive. Towards the end of my first full-time job, I was making $12.50 an hour in a position of significant responsibility. I admit to being a little miffed when I discovered that someone else who worked there was making $2.50 an hour more for less - from my perspective - work.

Was it discrimination? NO! I, simply, was not aggressive in asking for higher pay. But if the situation were reversed and the girl were to sue because she was making less money, the company would have to prove that one job was more valuable than the other, or they'd be held liable under this new law for discriminating.

I really don't like it when the government says "prove to me you're not discriminating, or you're going to be found guilty." The positive spin you will hear about the bill is "it makes it easier to win pay discrimination lawsuits." This is true, but it does that by legally abolishing the presumption of innocence, and that - to me - is wrong.

Edit: A belated note - this diatribe is based on a description of the bill that I read yesterday. I can't find anything today that describes the contents of the bill as anything more than a deadline-extension. That, in my book, is acceptable. I'm just noting that it's entirely possible that I'm completely off base here. It certainly wouldn't be the first time...

Monday, January 26, 2009

I agree with Jim Rogers

Normally, just about everything the Chancellor of the Nevada System of Higher Education rankles me, and I very rarely agree with it at all. But last Friday, he said this:

"The state of K-16 education in Nevada is where the public, that is you there, has allowed it to sink. Your only relationship with the education system is to ship your unprepared kids to school, not with the expectation of success, but with the demand that an education system – inadequately funded – develop and/or repair children that you as a parent did not prepare," he said. "It is the public – that means you – that has created this disaster of a public education system."

I don't agree with even this whole statement, as I think that calling it "K-16 education" continues an unhealthy obsession with sending kids to college, as he's lumping "higher" education in with "normal" education as though they are both basic needs.

I agree, however, that the expectation of many parents that it is the schools' job to educate and prepare their children - without any parental involvement - is the primary cause of the problems that schools face. The solution, however, in my mind is different from Jim's.

Jim would say "if you have this expectation, provide more money to the system." I would say "parents should get more involved, and we might well improve without any funding changes to the schools."

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Martian Sunset

For your viewing pleasure: a sunset, seen from Mars. It looks odd - besides the total abundance of any signs of life - but I couldn't put my finger on it for a while. Then I realized it...

The colors are backwards. The blue sky i s around the setting sun, while the red sky is up in the air.

See Explanation.  Clicking on the picture will download  the highest resolution version available.

Friday, January 09, 2009

Gibbons & Pay Cuts

Since I'm a state employee and my sister is a teacher, I have a personal stake in Governor Gibbons' plan to try to cut all state employees' salaries by 6%. I'm not too fond of it, but I've expected a freeze, and a cut in the face of Nevada's budget issues is not particularly surprising.

What I don't like is the false alternative being presented: layoffs or pay cuts. There's another option, and its one being used in California - unpaid mandatory days off. If the Governor wants to cut labor costs, then it's fair to expect less services. A 6% pay cut equates to 15 unpaid days off in the year for me.

Why is it fair? It preserves pay rates which are comparable to the private sector. It spreads the burden around the whole state, as there's a 6% reduction in services to go along with the 6% reduction in pay. It doesn't amount to more work (as in our department, we're absolutely buried with work at the moment) for less pay, it is simply less hours being worked - a situation shared in the private sector by some 8 million Americans right now.

6% off the top is "tough luck." 6% unpaid time off at least trades cash for leisure. That there's fewer clerks at the DMV, or the welfare office, or working a a time in the NHP, or the like is a consequence. To save labor costs in the long run, you need to cut services - not just reduce pay.

Sick Day Poem

Evidently, there's a controversy brewing in the UK about the website for a cold remedy, which the UK Federation of Small Businesses calls "outrageous." Having been hit by both a brief bout of what felt like stomach flu last Friday and a head cold this last Wednesday, this feels particularly timely to me.

A gem from the "e-mails to let your coworkers know you're out sick" section of the Benylin website:

I’m sick and have gone away
To get into bed and TAKE A BENYLIN® DAY.
I’m sneezing and wheezing and blowing snot,
So an auto reply is what you’ve got!

Tuesday, January 06, 2009

Unions and Wages

Among industrialized countries, some are more unionized than others. What do you think the relationship is between % of qorkforce unionized and % of national income earned by labor?

Make a guess, and then check out this blog.

I found the results interesting.

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

2008

Thus ends 2008. The final "event" has passed, with UNC leaving Lawlor Events Center still undefeated. All that is left is to await the dawn of the new year, and reflect on the old. As with every year 2008 had its share of joys and sorrows. Of the latter, I don't care to elaborate, because that's rarely as cathartic as I think it will be when I'm logging my diatribe. But this post is to reflect on the former.

  • Coram Deo moved into an elementary school. I admit, I had enjoyed having Sunday mornings off, but I could see no great reason that we had to do one or the other. Since others wanted to move, I accepted. It is still exciting to see a church of over a hundered, and remember the first time we met, and had only 12 or 13 people.
  • Several friends and family members had new children. For some, like Steve & Becky, it was their first. For others, it wasn't. But always, it's exciting to see new, young people adding to the ever-changing portrait of what "in the image of God" looks like.
  • I got promoted at work. It's still not worn off - the fact that somehow I'm now a supervisor. It's a continuous novelty to see statistics that come out of our unit in the news. I'm used to having opinions. It's strange to see what they look like with the weight of authority.
  • Some good friends moved away, while others moved back to town. I'm terrible at keeping in touch with people who move away, so I'm glad to have some good friends back in town.
  • After beginning the process in late 2007, I paid off my credit card. It feels wonderful not to have that burden of debt hanging around my neck constantly.
  • The circle of friends I hang out with regularly has expanded. Of my Friday night friends, two got married this year, and I was able to enjoy watching my favorite NBC Monday Night shows with some guys from church.
  • No grief I experienced overcame me. Even though we who are "more than conquerors" sometimes feel like merely survivors - be it conquest of survival, here I am. For all the times I have declared that I am at the end of my rope, when I find those last threads slipping out of my grasp, I fall into grace.
  • The finances at Coram Deo, while slim, have sustained us. We had no church branching off to send members to us. We had a small loan from our denomination. And we had some generous gifts, from people with and without much to spare. From gifts of several thousand dollars to gifts that weren't even a single dollar, people gave. Given the current economy, I would regularly see gifts form people who I knew had lost ther jobs. For them, each gift was an act of faith. And each time, it was an encouragement to me to see that faith put into action.
What does 2009 hold? I don't know. But here it comes: 365 days to use. Once gone, they will never return. The economy will probably be lousy. People won't have jobs, and there will be real hurting in the world. Children will starve in foregin countries, and be beaten by their parents here at home. There will be abuse, rape, and murder. Terrible, unspeakable things will happen. And in the midst of it all, the gospel will spread. People will find hope where it was not expected. Love that never makes the news will spread from person to person. The church will be built, and the gates of hell itself still won't be able to withstand it. In the midst of darkness, there will be light.

That is what I expect in 2009. The ambush of love, popping up where it is least expected and most needed.

Friday, December 19, 2008

Obama: I'm imprressed so far

And this story is just part of the reason why.

That he'd invite Mr. Warren is a minor surprise. That the backlash against him for doing so would be so swift is, in retrospect, not so surprising - it's the "you owe us for electing you, now walk the line we tell you to walk."

Obama's reply can be summarized, simply, as "no."

I like that. Part of politics is reaching out to the people you disagree with on some issues because you have other things in common. It is possible for good men to disagree, and politics recently seems to be heading the opposite direction - a self reinforcing ever-harsher circle of animosity and distrust.

Read the criticisms of Obama's choice; their idea is that allowing a man like Mr. Warren a place of honor at Obama's historic moment suggests that they will then have no place at Obama's table. Clearly, Obama disagrees with Warren about this, but that logic has no place in the rhetoric.

That Obama is rejecting such rhetoric is a good sign. That he is doing so early, and asserting his indepencence immediately is a good sign that this is something that will feature prominently in his administration, and I find that very encouraging.