Uses for duct tape

Yet one more use for duct tape. Convertible top.



And BTW, I'll be traveling to Texas tomorrow, so I'll probably not be posting much until Sunday or thereafter.

A failure of reason

Mountain Goat complains here

that the people of Idaho at the behest of a few politicians and people like Steven Thayn, told me and my family that, not only were we not good enough, we were so not good enough that the Idaho Constitution should be changed to reflect the fact that we would never be good enough.

MG says she took this personally because it affected her and her family personally, and that justifies her exposing Thayn's son's domestic abuse problem. That's a personal problem of the Thayn family. Thayn has placed family issues in play, so his family issues should also be in play. (Put another way, "Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.")

Anyway, the ever vigilant Adam has attempted to counter MG's argument here.

If we personalize politics, where does it end? I suppose I should take Carte Blanche with pro-choice politicians to go and visit county courthouses where they’ve lived and dig for dirt, and search for anyway I can to ruin their lives. The reason is that abortion is very personal to me. After all, every pro-abortion person is of the opinion that had my mother (who would never in a million years consider the thought) decided to have me killed that would be okay. Or, even a politician who raises my taxes. I could say, “You take money out of pocket, you cause me pain. I’ll cause you pain by finding out something embarrassing about you.” Heck, I think even smokers who can’t smoke in Bowling Alleys or nearly every restaurant in the state could take vengeance.

Adam doesn't directly refute MG's point about personalization. He doesn't say that MG's logic is flawed, he just posts up a few logical fallacies of his own in an obfuscation effort.

First, saying "where does it end" is employing the slippery slope argument; this step leads to all these others. Wrong. The second step does not follow inevitably from the first. Legislating that your family will have the permanent status as second class is not the same as supporting abortion rights. One effects behavior, the other is just an opinion. If we legislated that Adam's family must abort every other child, that would be an equivalent argument. It's a fallacious slippery slope argument, and it doesn't even meet the point head on. If the legislature passed an amendment that said African-Americans or Mormons would not be allowed to marry, is that the same as believing that women should be able to get a safe and legal abortion if necessary? Of course not.

Next, Adam misstates the pro choice position; classic straw man. Put up a phony argument, attribute it to the other side, then knock it down. Another fallacy. To paraphrase Adam, he says every "pro-abortion person" believes that it would be okay for Adam's mom to have had him killed. Of course, saying every is akin to saying never or always; hyperbole and overstatement. Also, many if not most and perhaps all pro-choice folks agree that abortion is a serious act to be used only when there are no other options.

Adam next equates imposing taxes and outlawing smoking with relegating a family to permanent second class status. Taxes are not levied based on a person's individual characteristics. You're not taxed on blond hair, or beards. The smoking argument would be equivalent only if the legislature ruled that smokers cannot get married.

Adam calls MG's response a "perceived personal afront." No, it's not just perceived. She actually cannot get a marriage license to marry her sweetheart.

To close, Adam refers to MG's Thayn posts as "hyper-personalized politics where reason was abandonned to embrace a politics of anger and emotion." I think Adam has, if not abandoned reason, certainly failed to employ reason in his effort to stick up for Thayn.

Governor Otter's Domestic Violence Policy

In a timely announcement, Gov Otter announced a new policy designed to assist victims of domestic violence. Given the news that Rep Steve "A Woman's Place is in the Home" Thayn's son was busted for domestic violence, the new policy just draws more attention to Thayn's embarrassment. This story was broken by the Mountain Goat Report, and a lively discussion ensued here. H/t to the Statesman for crediting MG with breaking the story.



But I digress. I'd like to see Gov Otter issue a policy with real teeth. Direct Fish and Game to write rules that prevent a person convicted of domestic violence from getting a hunting or fishing license for three years or so. Consider a rule that state employees convicted of domestic violence will be discharged upon conviction, or that they're not eligible for merit raises for three years. If Idaho really wants to support families, reducing domestic violence would be a good place to start, and policies with serious consequences can be a part of that.

Water curtailment can be a winning issue for Democrats

I was disappointed about the article I referred to in an earlier post because it seemed like such a missed opportunity. Water is a crucial issue, and Dems ought to lead on it. A one-time recharge of the aquifer, at taxpayer expense, is short sighted. It’s one-time and won’t fix the problem long-term. Idaho cannot do anything about supply - it can't make rain - but it can do something about demand.

In addition to the means I suggested to reduce demand, there are lots of others that would better use the appropriated money. One might be to buy farmland that is currently irrigated turn it into a park or wildlife preserve. Another could be to subsidize conservation measures; e.g., give a tax credit for installing low flow or dual flush toilets, or one to car washes that recycle water, in certain counties. Or perhaps fund an ad campaign asking people not to waste water by letting it run while brushing teeth, and similar painless measures.

Some measures don’t require state funding. Pass a law that when washing a car by hand, the hose must have a self-shut off so that it just doesn't run while it's not used. Pass a law that reduces county funding if the county doesn’t have water conservation measures in place, such as requiring every-other day lawn sprinkling.

This could be a real opportunity for Dems to catch the attention of south Idaho farmers. They’re mad at the administration and ready to look at alternatives. Work in a serious manner to address the water curtailment problem. Help farmers now, and help Idaho in the future avoid problems like Georgia is having with its drought.

Update: I was thinking about the wildlife preserve idea I suggested, and it occurred to me that it in particular really holds an opportunity to erode the Republican base in Idaho. First, land and water conservation will appeal to the greenies and environmentalists that already tend to vote Dem, and could energize them. More importantly, conserving water and helping farmers could attract rural voters who currently vote pretty Red. Also, wildlife preserves that are open to hunting and fishing will appeal to that crowd, another typically Red group.

Appeal to the crowd

Idaho Dems have a message that would appeal to Idahoans, if they could get it across. Having a 3 person primary for the 1st district congressional against Bill Sali should help draw some attention, and provide opportunities to show Idaho voters that the Dems are a real, viable alternative.

The key word is opportunity. Dems have to present their message in a smart way, and today's Statesman showed them presenting that message in a pretty dumb way. Gov Otter wrote an opinion piece focusing on trying to help magic Valley farmers avoid water curtailments. In fact, the title was "Gov. Butch Otter: Plan may help eliminate future curtailment."

The Dem response was titled "Sens. David Langhorst and Kate Kelly:Water deal is against Idaho Constitution, notion of separation of powers." The Dems were complaining about the decision being made behind closed doors, but it didn't come across that way. It came across as the Dems being opposed to the effort to help out the farmers.

I don't like decisions being made by a few leading Republicans without public visibility, but c'mon, pick your battles a bit smarter, or at least sell them better. If the Dems want to oppose the Gov's plan and get more public input, the story could easily have been written to say something like, "Let the affected water users decide." Dems have been banging the "closed-door meetings" drum for years, and it has ZERO traction. Idahoan's don't give a rip, when it's presented that way.

Please, don't just oppose what Idaho Rs are doing; propose a positive alternative. People don't like paying farmers not to farm; it just seems wrong, and smacks of welfare. Instead propose using the $$ to develop low water use crops, or low interest loans for efficient irrigation systems. Or something. I'm just a dumb blogger hacking away at my keyboard and I could come up with at least a couple of ideas.

In this case the point that taxpayer $$ were being used to support just a few farmers is legit, but it's a loser in the Magic Valley, and anywhere that the Ag community is concerned about Ag. Opposing it on "technical" grounds just reinforces the poor image Idahoans have the Idaho Dems.

Thank God for Mississippi

In a Statesman story about the number of Idaho students who make it to college, Idaho once again shares the bottom of the stats ladder with good ole Mississippi.

Finney's group gave Idaho a "D" grade for college participation, a bottom-of-the-barrel ranking that the Gem State shares with Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina.

So often when I see state comparisons, Mississippi is about the only state between Idaho and dead last. So for keeping us out of last place, I say, "Thanks, Mississippi."

Remember when the Oklahoma license plates said "Oklahoma is OK"? It was kind of funny; the state's official line was that it was okay. Not great, or even good, but okay. I guess Idaho can say, "At least we're not Mississippi."

Ahead to the past

The Statesman reports today that Rep. Steve Thayn and the Idaho House of Representatives' Family Task Force are trying to figure out ways to keep mothers home with the kids. They acknowledge they using a 1950s family as a baseline, and apparently want to recreate that model.

Well, okay. Mothers staying home, voluntarily, to raise children while the father "brings home the bacon" is something that many people would support. The problem is, given our economic situation few families can afford to do this.

There are only 4 ways to resolve this. Increase wages, lower prices, subsidize the families, or reduce consumption. I'm pretty sure Thayn doesn't support raising the minimum wage. Initiatives to bring high paying jobs to Idaho seldom succeed on any scale, especially since one of the attractions to business here is the overall low prevailing wages.

Lowering prices just isn't going to happen. If the legislature ponied up some incentives to get an oil refinery built here it could perhaps lower gasoline prices, but that's almost silly to contemplate. In a national and global economy there just isn't much Idaho can to to lower prices enough to allow a mother to forgo an income.

Families could cut back on cable TV, cell phones, internet access, up to date computers, and other non-essentials to save money, and live like people did in the 1950s. This actually can work. Unfortunately, few people want to return to that life. Cars in the '50s had metal dashboards and no seat belts, but cost around $1,000. Cars now can save your life in a wreck, but cost $20,000. Which would you choose for your kids, mom? And again, how does government convince people to live, by today's standards, such a Spartan lifestyle?

Last, subsidies. Rep. Thayn, did you support Bill Sali's vote to defeat the S-CHIP bill? Would you support expanding the food stamp program? About about Aid to Families with Dependant Children? Did you support Gov Risch's property tax relief and the matching 1 cent sale tax increase the negated it? Given the political philosophy of Idaho Republicans, subsidies are right out.

As the Bard might have commented:

[Thayn's] but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more: it is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

Voting in a small town

I went to usual place to vote last night and was told that my precinct was not voting there for this election. They explained that since it was a city election, and county voters would be voting, they didn't want to overwhelm the voting place so they added new voting places. Hmmm, less voters, more voting stations. Ooookay. Oh, and I was the only voter in the room at the time.

They gave me directions to the new place; the 7th Day Adventist Church, right across the street from the Fire Station. Here is the Fire Station.



Here is the Church. That people vote there isn't readily apparent. Looks pretty dark.



Look at the left middle of the pic; see the sign that says "Vote"? I circled it.



Here is the door into the voting area. Again, not real will lit.



Here is the door with car headlights shining on it.



Behind the door is the Church's gymnasium, complete with basketball hoops and the paint on the floor for a basketball court. Half court line, free throw line, etc. Oddly, the floor was carpeted and the court lines were painted on the carpet. I wonder how well the ball bounces on the carpet. Seems like it would change the game a bit. Maybe that's just a 7th Day Adventist thing.

I voted by drawing an inked X in the boxes of my candidates (only one of whom won) and folded over the paper ballot. Once again, I was the only voter in the building.

I returned after voting to take the pictures, and about 8:03 an Ada County Sheriff drove up and escorted some poll worker through the by-then locked door. High security for paper ballots.

Please, Police Officer

Please spare me from a brain aneurysm, and start enforcing traffic laws.

In the last two weeks I've seen two multiple car accidents on Meridian road. I saw a four-car wreck a couple of weeks ago, and yesterday a two, or three, or four car pile up. It was hard to tell, what with all the ambulances and what not.

Both accidents were on straight stretches, and clearly both were because the drivers were following too closely. I see it literally constantly in my commute. Literally constantly. If there are more than three other cars on the road, at least one is tailgating another.

I work hard to leave an appropriate distance in front of me, but it isn't easy. So many people will change lanes right into a small space. If a person's car will fit between two others, people don't seem to hesitate to change lanes into it. 65 mph, and change lanes into a space that then has less than a car length in front and behind the vehicle. Pretty often I see that maneuver, then I see the lane-changer hit the brakes, causing the person behind to slam on the brakes.

What really spikes my blood pressure is when I see police officers on the road. Almost daily I see an officer with a radar detector, trying to get speeders. While waiting for someone going too fast, they let any number of people fly by less than a car length behind the person in front. I've seen them driving with tailgaters all around them. I've seen them being tailgated. I've never seen them pull over a tailgater.

Once there's an accident, traffic backs way up, cars start wasting gasoline by idling, people are late for work, and of course people are often injured. So, please, police officer, start enforcing this law. Do a few directed patrols, raise awareness, at least try to make it a little better. Please, before I stroke out.

Weblog Awards

Mountain Goat Report and The Stupid Shall Be Punished are both Weblog Awards Finalists. MG's got links here so you can go vote. Lets help out our southern Idaho blogosphere and vote early and often (once a day).

Product placement in the Statesman?

In today's Statesman, the new "Bee" movie in which Jerry Seinfeld does the voice of the main character is prominently featured. Not only is it on the front page, just below the Statesman's name (I think that's called the masthead), it is the entire top half of the Life section, and the entire cover of the Scene insert. In each case the paper sports a picture of the Bee.

I know that McClatchey is hurting for revenue, but have they resorted to product placement? How else do you explain such a blatant promotion of a soon to be released movie?

Product placement in a newspaper would seem to be a real breach of trust by the paper. The reader wouldn't know if the paper is reporting news, or just shilling. Because of this, I doubt that the Statesman got paid off to promote the movie. Still, I'd like to know, was the Statesman ordered from on high to feature the movie as it did? Was it a local decision? What were they thinking?