Hold the Mayo

February 20, 2012

Redefining the GOP

Acronyms are great. Not only do they make typing less work for the typing challenged and the lazy, they make it easier for the creatively minded to mock a given institution by decoding the acronym in words other than originally intended. Take for instance the GOP. It would be hell to have to repeatedly type Grand Old Party - and it would quickly sound absurd as well. It does however lend itself to new and inventive meanings.

Today GOP stands for Grandly Obtuse Party.

The One and his healthcare commissar, Kathleen Sebelious, announced that religious institutions outside of actual houses of worship would be compelled to pay for insurance providing employees with birth control and abortifacients. Things their religious beliefs hold as immoral. When there was strong objection to this, they deemed that such institutions would not have to pay for this coverage, but that insurance companies would have to provide the coverage for free. Pretty much everyone on the planet could see that this amounted to six of one or a half dozen of the other. So people continued to object to the violation of religious freedom.

Then the left, i.e. the administration and their media allies, sprung their trap and turned the issue into a debate about the morality of birth control. They began to shriek and wail the Republicans wanted to ban contraceptives. And the Grandly Obtuse Party fell for it and began discussing the morality of birth control.

The debate about the evisceration of the First Amendment is over and we are now discussing the morality of condoms and the pill. The Left has given the Right a can of paint and brush and the Right has obligingly painted themselves into a corner.

The left wants a debate about birth control. They do not want a debate about the Constitutional protection of the right to exercise one's faith freely. They know they will win the condom debate. They know they will lose the freedom debate.

They know if the issue remains focused on religious freedom before long some brilliant commentator will offer the paraphrase:

First they came for the religious freedom of the Catholics,

and I did not speak out because I wasn't a Catholic …

Conservatives need to escape the trap. They need to remind everyone that this is not a fight about birth control but a fight for individual liberty and a Constitutionally limited government.

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

Allow the destruction of freedom for one and you accept the destruction of liberty for all.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 11:43 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

February 15, 2012

Editing Jim Carney

At Hot Air this morning I read this quote from White House Press Secretary Jim Carney:

‘Let’s be clear about what’s at stake,’ said Carney. ‘The proposal being considered in the Senate applies to all employers — not just religious employers. And it isn’t limited to contraception. Any employer could restrict access to any service they say they object to. That is dangerous and it is wrong. Decisions about medical care should be made by a woman and her doctor, not a woman and her boss.’

I think it must just be a bad transcript. There is a lot missing. So I feel it is my obligation to fill in the gaps just to clarify the point he was trying to make.

‘Let’s be clear about what’s at stake,’ said Carney. ‘The proposal being considered in the Senate applies to all employers — not just religious employers. And it isn’t limited to contraception. Any employer could be free to restrict access to not pay for any service they say they object to and people would be free to decide if they wished to work for that employer or not. That Such Freedom is dangerous and it is wrong. Decisions about medical care should not be made by a woman and her doctor, not or a woman and her boss but by the President and the Director of Health and Human Services.’

I hope this helps to clarify the statement for the White House on this issue.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

TANSTAAFL

The headline is an acronym from the Robert Heinlein novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. It stands for "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" and its original meaning was that you can't get something for nothing.

As the tyranny of government interference in our lives continues to grow we learn the new meaning of TANSTAAFL.

The mother, who doesn’t wish to be identified at this time, says she made her daughter a lunch that contained a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips. A state inspector assessing the pre-K program at the school said the girl also needed a vegetable, so the inspector ordered a full school lunch tray for her. While the four-year-old was still allowed to eat her home lunch, the girl was forced to take a helping of chicken nuggets, milk, a fruit and a vegetable to supplement her sack lunch.

If as a parent I choose to send my child to school with two slices of cold pizza, a bag of Dorittos and a Kool-Aid it is none of the government's damned business. If I choose to provide my child a snack of carrot sticks or a Snickers Bar, it is none of the government's damned business.

You so often hear public officials who oppose such incidents of tyranny ascribe "well meaning" intentions and motivations to the tyrants. I've heard it said often in regard to the imposition of ObamaCare.

Every time you hear that you should call it what it is, Bullshit.

Anyone who believes that they have the power to make your choices for you and applies that power with the full coercive force of government does not have good intentions and is not well meaning.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 06:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

February 12, 2012

Obama's War

I have been following the Obama administration's decision to force religious institutions to provide insurance coverage that violates their fundamental beliefs. The initial edict was that such institutions must pay to provide this coverage to their employees. Then they decreed a "compromise" that said religious institutions don't have to pay for the coverage to which they have a moral objection but that the insurance companies must include that coverage for free. It's not really much of a compromise. It's kind of like saying if you don't like 2+2=4 then we'll go with 2x2 instead.

One of the most troubling aspects of the whole issue is the focus of the debate and criticism on "Obama's War on Religion," or more specifically "Obama's War on Catholics." This belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the situation. This is not Obama's war on religion or Catholics, this is the religious/Catholic front in Obama's War on the Constitution.

In his own words:

"The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, as least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted in the same way that, generally, the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted."

Obama added, "one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights movement, was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways, we still stuffer from that."

The President finds the Constitution that he swore to protect and defend a too restrictive collection of "negative liberties." Explaining quite succinctly the argument for Constitutionally limited government. he notes the Constitution says what the government can't do to you, and that is the point. It places "essential constraints" on the government. Constraints that Obama does not like.

If your goal was to eliminate the essential constraints of the Constitution so that the government was free to do whatever it wanted whenever it wanted, how would you do it?

A full frontal assault would generate a backlash that would make the Tea Party look like … a tea party. To borrow the President's budget metaphor you don't go after the Constitution with a chainsaw, you use a scalpel.

The wedge issue the administration has chosen is Sex. Positioned by the administration as access to preventive health measures. Birth control will prevent unwanted pregnancy and in the case of condoms prevent the spread of sexually transmitted disease. Who, aside from a few old-fashioned rigid religious believers, is against Safe Sex?

But safe sex is not the issue. And health is not the goal. The target is to draw a line through that clause of the First Amendment that reads, … or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Succeeding in that, destroys not just the First amendment, but blows a big hole in the essential constraints of the Constitution.

That is what the Obama administration is trying to accomplish.

That is what we must fight.

ABO 2012.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 09:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

February 05, 2012

Congress Shall Make No Law

I spent some time exploring a few atheist web sites curious to see what they had to say about the Obama administration forcing religious organizations to provide medical services they morally oppose.

The administration has issued a ruling that under ObamaCare all employers, including religious organizations, must provide health insurance that includes coverage for contraceptives and abortifacients.

The atheists, at least those who organize politically around their atheism, claim to be fighting to protect First Amendment rights. They focus (obsess?) on that clause of the the First Amendment that says the government shall not establish a religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…

They use that language as the basis for protesting and filing law suits against having the language "In God We Trust" on our money and the phrase "One Nation, Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. They want "freedom from religion" and are offended by any expression of any faith by any level of government.

Now the government is trampling the First Amendment protected right to freely practice religion.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The government is attempting to dictate the contents of faith and practice of religions organizations.

And from the atheists?

Silence.

If there is a politically organized group of people who should be outraged at this action, it should be these people.

They claim to be fighting for the Constitutionally protected freedom from a government imposed religion, but remain silent about a government infringement on the free practice of religion.

If you can fight with righteous indignation for one clause of the the First Amendment, then ignore the government trampling the very next clause, you are the worst kind of hypocrite there is, and a complete idiot with no understanding of the meaning of rights and freedom.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

February 04, 2012

Real Aching and Virtual Sailing

In non-political personal news my virtual yacht, the Hold the Mayo, has finished leg three of the Volvo Ocean Race Game. This was an interesting and challenging leg from Abu Dhabi to Sayna, China. There were a couple of large open water passages, which don't seem to be my strong suit and a couple of close to shore sections where I did much better.

I did fairly well sailing out of the Persian Gulf. Exiting the Gulf of Oman I was in the 5,000s and very happy. It didn't last as I chose a more northerly route across the Arabian Sea and by the time I past the turning mark at the southern tip if Sri Lanka I was up around 20,000, and not very happy. (Even though that represented a comeback from being as high as 32,000)

The passage across the Bay of Bengal was pretty straight forward. In fact I set of heading of 90° and left it there all the way across until I had to maneuver to pass the rounding mark at the top of the Malacca Straight. in about 12,000th place.

As usual I did much better sailing in the narrow passage between Indonesia and Malaysia. By the time I exited the bottom of the straight I had fought my way back to the high 8,000s.

I continued to do well sailing up the coast of Vietnam and crossed the finish line in 7,818th place. There are currently 177,866 boats in the race so I greatly exceeded my goal of finishing in the top 10%. I have to wait for the other 170,000 boats to finish (or they declare the race over) to find out what my overall rank is. After the first two legs I am 5,033.

As for the real aching mentioned in the headline, we enrolled the boy child in a Taekwondo program. To help make it more fun for him, and to provide more motivation, we signed up for the parent and child class. This morning was our first class. There are two different movie quotes that can sum up the experience. On the way to the class it was from Star Wars: "I've got a bad feeling about this." On the way home it was Lethal Weapon. Not because I learned some mad ninja skills on the first day, but because: "I'm getting to old for this shit."

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 11:48 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

January 28, 2012

The Problem With Romney

I have repeated it often, but I'll say it again. I don't like any of the current Republican candidates for President, but I like them all better than the socialist in the White House today.

Of all the GOP candidates, I have particular disdain for Mitt Romney the reason for which was perfectly encapsulated in the most recent of the endless series of primary debates.

Rick Santorum, about whom I remain utterly apathetic, went hard after Romney for RomneyCare and its individual mandate. I like that Santorum went after this issue. It should be a huge red flag (with a hammer and sickle?) for every conservative voter who thinks of Romney as "electable."

Santorum gets to heart of what I have said about Romney all along:

"Think about what that means going up against Barack Obama ... You are going to claim [about the Affordable Care Act], ‘Well, it doesn’t work and we should repeal.’ And he’s going to say, ‘Wait a minute, governor. You said it works well in Massachusetts.’ Folks—we can’t give this issue away in this election. It is about fundamental freedom ... It’s going to be on your ballot as to whether there should be a government mandate here in Florida. According to Governor Romney, that’s OK.”

Here's a video of the exchange.

The problem with Romney:

"First of all it's not worth getting angry about."

Apparently Mitt doesn't view government mandated heath insurance as an issue of fundamental freedom. Apparently he doesn't see de facto government control of the entire healthcare and health insurance industries as an issue of fundamental freedom. Apparently he's just fine with all that. Apparently he has missed that whole thing we call the Tea Party which consists of a very large number of voters who are very angry about ObamaCare and its erosion of liberty.

He opposes and pledges to repeal ObamaCare because it plays well in a speech. Not because he has any philosophical or moral opposition to the idea of ObamaCare. His argument in this response that 98% of the people in Massachusetts already had insurance so not much changed is a meaningless dodge of the issue.

First of all if 98% of the state's population had insurance, why enact legislation that infringes the liberty of all, to deal with the 2%?

But most importantly, Mr. Romney, it is not a matter of math and percentages. It is a matter of Individual Liberty. And if you don't see that as something worthy of getting angry about, you're no better than the man you seek to replace.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

January 20, 2012

What if The GOP Loses?

In the wake of the Tea Party limited government wave in the 2010 election the GOP primaries are a bit of a disappointment.

Romney is a supporter and advocate of government run healthcare. That he thinks, for now, it should be the states running healthcare and not the federal government is a difference without a distinction. And I say for "for now" because the man seems entirely bereft of core principles.

Gingrich is an unprincipled, ethically and morally challenged bombast who though he occasionally makes sense, just as often leaves me scratching my head asking WTF? He also likes government solutions to everything, as long as they're his government solutions.

Rick Santorum is a party politician. That is all he is. He is not a leader. He is not a thinker. He is a politician. In my book that makes him slime.

Crazy old Ron Paul? I like his fiscal policy of don't spend any money you don't have. Unfortunately that same idea is the core of his foreign policy and it leads him to some outright looney positions. Positions that seem to be based entirely on short-term budget savings, but with no reference to what those policies might mean in the real world.

Republicans have managed to narrow the field down to this entirely uninspiring foresome, along the way reminding me of why I am not card carrying member of the Republican Party.

To borrow phrase from another GOP also ran, here's my unconventional endorsement. I unabashedly and whole heartedly support whomever the GOP nominates to run against The One.

I will support Romney despite RomneyCare. I will support Gingrich despite everything. I will support the party politician Rick Santorum. I will support Crazy Old Ron Paul despite his misguided isolationism.

There is simply too much at stake. Another four years of an administration that rules with complete disdain for its subjects and utter disregard for the Constitution is something from which we as a nation might never recover.

If The One wins reelection there will be no chance of repealing the federal takeover of healthcare.

If the example of Kelo v New London is any indication we cannot necessarily rely on the Supreme Court to uphold the Constitution and protect individual liberty from the rapaciousness of government's quest for power.

ObamaCare includes not only the liberty killing "individual mandate" but panels of government bureaucrats whose job will be to review healthcare treatments and determine if they are cost effective. Government will be involved with, if not directly making, every healthcare decision for every individual in the country.

Those individuals, all of us, will have no say in who is making those decisions. The One has clearly shown his complete disregard for the advice and consent authority of the Senate. The Constitution clearly states that one house of the Congress cannot be in recess without the consent of the other. The House of Representatives did not consent to a Senate recess over the Christmas and New Year holidays, therefore Constitutionally the Senate was not in recess. The One decided that since that interfered with his wishes he would simply ignore the law and the Constitution and make "Recess Appointments." The Constitution be damned he will have his way.

We cannot survive four more years of a lawless and unconstitutional government.

I don't have a high level of confidence that electing any of the current GOP hopefuls would result in reducing the scope and reach of the federal government. I would be pleasently surprised if they managed to stop its growth. Much more likely we will see what we always see, that once elected their need to go along to get along will result in merely a slowing of the rate of government expansion.

A second term for The One, however, would mean full steam ahead and don't look back at "what it once was like in America when men were free."

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:06 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

January 07, 2012

Virtually Sailing Around the World

Leg two of the Virtual Volvo Ocean race is complete. Cape Town South Africa to Abu Dhabi.

At times I was feeling poorly about my prospects. It is hard sometimes to pick a strategy and stick to it while your position in the fleet keeps getting worse and worse. But there is a valuable lesson to be learned in keeping to a long-term plan instead of going for the quick easy short term gain. Still, doubt creeps in when you see yourself fall to 48,000th place!

I stopped looking at leg rank and forced myself to focus on the weather, both current and forecast. THe point was not to be as close to the lead as possible sailing past Madagascar, but to be as close as possible to the lead at the finish line.

I knew for the start of the whole virtual adventure that winning a leg was probably not in the cards. I don't have the time to do nothing but virtually sail around the world. I wanted to finish as many legs as possible and the whole even in the top 10%. It's a goal that keeps getting easier, in part because more people keep joining the race!

My finish in Abu Dhabi? 9,089 with a total of 164,478 boats competing.

My current standing after two legs: 14,594. I'd love to get this number under 10k.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

December 31, 2011

Another Year Older and Deeper In Debt

The year is over. I just had a birthday. That means it's time for quiet reflection and evaluation.

Or not.

With very little fanfare and an appalling lack of public awareness, let alone outrage, the public debt of the United States recently exceeded the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. Let that sink in for a moment. The national debt is now larger than the value of every good and service produced in the nation.

Upset yet?

The President is about to ask the Congress to increase the U.S. debt limit by $1.2 trillion, raising the "limit" $16.4 trillion. Congress is expected to approve this increase. And even if in a rare spasm of fiscal sanity they vote down the increase, the President has the authority to veto their disapproval.

Angry yet?

The Socialist solution to this is to raise taxes on the wealthy. They argue that if the wealthy pay their "Fair Share" the problem will be solved. Not quite. If the federal government seized every penny of wealth from those on the Forbes 400 list of the richest Americans the $1.5 trillion they got would do little more than cover that debt limit increase.

Dismayed yet?

When Congress gets around to budget issues, this is how it goes. (I'm using made up numbers.) The left wants to increase spending by 6%. The right says "no way" and proposes increasing spending by only 3%. The left screams and howls about how the uncaring right is slashing government and how people will suffer. They then reach a bipartisan agreement to increase spending by 4.5% with a promise to reduce spending in the future. The right crows about how much they "saved" and the left continues to howl about how much people will suffer from the draconian spending cuts. THEY DO NOT CUT SPENDING. EVER.

Angry yet?

A debt is an obligation to pay. How are we going to pay back the $15 trillion we currently owe if we're about to up that limit to $16.4 trillion? The answer is we can't. Certainly not as long as we continue to pile up massive annual deficits. The only options we have are to massively inflate the currency and pay our creditors with worthless dollars, or just simply not pay. Cutting spending to a level at which we can begin to buy back the debt is not something we as a nation appear to be willing to contemplate.

Consider your own life. What would happen if you decided that you were going to pay your mortgage or your car loan with Monopoly money or just not pay at all. Your creditors would come after you and seize the assets. One of our largest foreign creditors is Communist China. A nuclear power that recently launched it's first aircraft carrier. We owe them $1.16 trillion. OPEC nations, on whom we remain dependent for energy, currently hold a combined $229.8 billion in U.S. government securities. How do you think they will react when we stiff them on that debt?

Worried Yet?

As a nation we have been riding the gravy train of government social welfare systems for decades. We're quickly running out of track, and the derailment will not be pretty.

Do you care?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 10:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

December 17, 2011

Dim Bulbs Of Government

I have seen some celebration of the Congress passing an omnibus spending bill containing a rider which temporarily defunds enforcement of the lightbulb ban.

The passing of another stop-gap massive spending bill that probably no member of Congress knows the contents of us hardly a cause for any sort of celebration. If they had let the government shut down for a while, I would have drunk a toast in their honor. The fact that Congress is so inept and so incapable of legislating that they repeatedly find themselves in in these do or die legislative crises is beyond deplorable.

Regarding the light bulb situation, my response amounts to So F'n What.

Full disclosure I don't have any 100 watt lightbulbs in my house. Though I may still have a couple in the garage. They're great in that sort of utility situation but for general lighting in the house I'd rather use 2 or 3 60 watt bulbs than a single 100. You get as much or more light spread more evenly around the room.

For me the issue is not about the practical impact of not having a particular light bulb on the market. It is about the fact that I am not free to make that choice. I am aware that there are compact florescent bulbs available for me to purchase. I know that even though they cost more they are allegedly more efficient and have a longer lifespan. Over time the savings on my electric bill should at least make up for the higher cost. Allegedly.

I have had some CFLs in the past. I dislike them immensely. I don't like waiting for them to come to full brightness and once they get there, the quality of the light is ugly. I have had them. I have used them. I do not like them.

Thus I choose to use incandescent bulbs. I choose them because I like them better. They come on at full strength and and, even if it's just from years of conditioning, I like the light they give off. They don't last as long but they are relatively inexpensive to replace.

The most meaningful phrase in all of that lighting discussion is "I choose to use." I am, for a little while longer apparently, free to choose what sort of lightbulb I use in my home.

If we accept as a matter of course the loss of the freedom to choose the lightbulb we wish to use, then where is the limit to how much liberty the government can take from us?

This temporary delay of the lightbulb ban is both meaningless and venal. Either the federal government has the authority to regulate and control our lives to the point where they are dictating what lightbulb we must use or they don't. Where are the members of Congress who will stand up for individual liberty and put a stop to this?

Congress achieved nothing with this stay of execution for the incandescent bulb. As usual the liberty and freedom of individual Americans was used as a political bargaining chip. We are supposed to be grateful to them for this temporary easing of the government boot to our necks. To hell with that. And to hell them.

And there's this.

I had a further thought on the practical implications of the postponement of the the lightbulb ban but since I really wanted to frame the issue in terms of government eliminating our freedom to make even the most basic choices in our lives I'm putting it in the extended entry below.

more...

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:10 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

December 11, 2011

How Not to Solve a Government Created Problem

Why is it that whenever the government creates a problem their solution always involves more government?

The answer is really very simply and really quite monstrous in its evil. The more they can inject government into your life the more deeply and thoroughly they can control your life.

Recently at New York's Kennedy Airport an 85 year old woman was subject to what amounts to a strip search. This is the result of a "security" system that treats everyone as an equally dangerous potential terrorist threat. Personally I wouldn't feel the least bit threatened if airport security wave 85 year old Alice Zimmerman through the least stringent security possible and offered her a cup of tea.

But in the interest of appearing politically correct any person traveling through an airport is treated as equally suspect. The result is intrusive searches of senior citizens and pat-downs of small children.

But have no fear. Two brave public servants have stepped forward with a proposal to deal with this scourge. And their solution to an out of control trampling on individual liberty and dignity government agency? You guessed it. More Government.

U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer and state Sen. Michael Gianaris of Queens want the Transportation Security Administration to create the position at all airports.

Great idea. Instead of doing anything about the problem let's create yet another layer of government to act as a go between and protect the public from the previous failed level of government.

Sometimes they make it really hard to be an optimist.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 05:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

December 10, 2011

Primary Redundancy

I didn't do a search, so I can't provide links to back up this assertion, but I have a sense that I have written the same post in some form during every other presidential primary season or election since I started this blog on August 30, 2003.

The essence of the thought can be captured in the expression "None of The Above."

There is not a single person currently running for the office of President about whom I could say, "I want that person to be President."

There is absolutely no one in the GOP Primary that I am rooting for to win. I think every one of them would probably suck at being President and in the end if they accomplished anything it would still be in doing more harm than good.

That said, I think all of them would suck less than the current office holder simply because it is impossible to conceive of a president more inimicable to the idea of individual liberty, free markets and limited government. Any of the GOP candidates would probably have a better harm to good ratio. But if that doesn't sound like a glowing endorsement that's because it wasn't meant to be.

There is no way out. There is no viable political alternative. We as a nation, at least those who bother to participate, will have to choose between The One and whomever the GOP chooses to nominate. Current polling shows relatively close races between The One and the two leading GOP contenders. When the sitting president has polling numbers for approval and job performance that are worse than those of Jimmy Carter and the best the opposition front runners can manage is close to a statistical tie that says a lot about the quality of the opposition candidates.

The election of The One as the first black U.S. President (OK half back but I'll give it to him) was indeed a historic event. History will no doubt also record him as one of the biggest Oval Office failures in the nation. The GOP primary this year should basically be a contest to see who replaces The One. That it looks like there will be a significant electoral contest in the general election is beyond disappointing. It's disgusting.

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:58 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

December 08, 2011

OMFG NOOoooooo

Do you get a queezy uneasy feeling when you contemplate a GOP choice between Gingrich and Romney? Then here's a thought that should send you screaming into the night.

Gingrich has said he would consider Romney on his short list for possible V.P.

There are not words adequate to describe how awful an idea that would be.

Via: Hot Air

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 07:39 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

December 03, 2011

A Race to the Race

Congratulations to Telefonica for their victory in the first leg of the Volvo Ocean Race.

Also to the Camper team for second, and even the Groupama Team for finishing third. They didn't have the best race and they are probably thinking to themselves that they got third by simply being one of the three boats that managed to finish the race. But that is part of sailboat racing. Your boat actually has to make it to the finish.

Six boats crossed the starting line in Alicante Spain on November 5 racing for a finish line in Cape Town, South Africa, by way of a turning mark at the island of Fernando de Noronha off the coast of Brazil. 7,480 miles of pushing a boat to it's limits.

Shortly after the start Abu Dhabi Ocean Racing lost their mast in heavy wind and they turned back to the starting point to install their spare mast. Once they had the mast in the boat a couple of days later they took off racing again. But not having had enough time to thoroughly test the new rig, having no chance of finishing better than last, and not being sure they could make it in time to start the next leg, they decided before they had made it out of the Mediteranian that their best option was to retire from the leg and ship the boat to South Africa and be tested and ready to go for leg two.

There's was not the only disaster in the early days of the race. Team Sanya struck something in the water during the first night of racing resulting in a large hole in the bow of the boat. A watertight bulkhead kept the boat from sinking and they were able limp to the nearest port. And for them leg one became a race of logistics. A ship was secured to transport the damaged boat to South Africa. In the mean time, a team of boat building specialists flew into Cape Town and began building a new bow section for the boat. Their goal was to build a section of hull bigger than the area damaged on the boat so that when it arrived they could cut away the damage and have enough new hull to make the repair.

This is project that would normally take weeks. When Sanya arrived in Cape Town they had eight days. They are working night and day and expect they will have the boat repaired and in the water in time to race.

Ordinarily, that would seem like a heroic accomplishment of management, logistics and hard work. But then there's the Puma story.

Somewhere in the middle of the South Atlantic The Puma team also suffered a broken mast. Unlike the Abu Dhabi team, they were more than a 1,000 miles from the nearest port. They jerry rigged some sails on what left of the mast and started up the onboard diesel - very slowly. These boats carry just enough fuel to power the generator and keep their batteries charged for the expected length of the race. They didn't really have enough fuel to go very far.

But the shore team was fast into action. They made contact with a freighter that was "nearby" and would divert their course to meet Puma and supply them with the fuel they needed. As the Puma boat bobbed alongside the freighter at what they hoped was a safe enough distance to keep from being crushed, 10 gallon cans of diesel were passed back and forth on a series or ropes between the two vessels.

Fully stocked with fuel they shifted the engine into high and headed for inhabited land, the Island of Tristan De Cunha. Tristan is the most remote inhabited place on the planet and has a population of 262. The shore team was busily arranging for a freighter with an onboard crane to meet Puma at the island, hoist the boat on board and take it and the team to Cape Town. Simultaneously the team's spare mast was prepped and flown from Newport R.I.

The first ship didn't work out. I never caught the reason but they just couldn't make it. So second ship was contracted. It left from Dhurban for Cape Town to pick up the cradle for the boat then proceeded on to Tristan Cunha.

Tristan does not really have a protected harbor. They do have a break water that would not, however, accommodate the freighter. The task of lifting the boat out of the water onto the ship would have to happen in open ocean. It was only going to be possible if the wind and waves cooperated. A carbon fiber sailboat hull does not respond well to crashing into the steel hull of the freighter.

The freighter, the Teem Bremen, arrived a Tristan and they were able to load the Puma boat without incident and they got underway. If the weather cooperates the Team Bremen will arrive in Cape Town on Tuesday. The new mast transported by truck from Johannesburg arrived at the team's dock on Saturday after multiple truck breakdowns.

The in port race portion of the event is scheduled to take place next Saturday. There is a pro-am race on Friday but I don't think that counts in the points standings. The Start for leg 2, Cape Town to Abu Dhabi (5, 430 nautical miles) is Sunday, December 11. If Team Puma is on the starting line for those races it will be an astounding convergence of hard work and amazing luck.

I am once again participating in the Virtual Volvo Ocean Race and finished leg 1 in a disappointing 14,594th out of 121,060 boats. I was at one point just under 4,000 but made a couple of unfortunate tactical decisions that put me on the wrong side of a couple of weather systems. Actually it was one decision that put me on the wrong side of a weather system that left me on the wring side of the next weather system, and the next… I entered with zero expectation of winning because doing so requires and investment of time I'm not willing to make even though the winner gets a nice new Volvo SUV! I'll consider myself satisfied if I finish a leg in the top 10%, happy if I finish in the top 10,000, beside myself giddy if I finish in the top 5,000. I'll keep you posted!

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 12:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

No Dog in THis Fight

A while back I started writing a series of posts on the GOP primary candidates, offering my entirely unsolicited opinion and advice to my GOP friends. I've done Romney and Cain (and I know two posts does not a series make so I have some work to do on that score) because they were the top dogs at the time. Now the newest leader of the pack is Newt F'n Gingrich.

Are you kidding me?

When I suggested the GOP nominate anyone but Romney, Newt was somewhere around 7% support in the polls. I seriously didn't think the GOP could possibly be that stupid. I guess I should have learned my lesson last year when I hoped the Democrats would nominate anyone but Hillary Clinton.

That Gingrich wasn't laughed out of the race within two days of filing the paperwork says something about the GOP. That he is currently the front runner for the nomination says something even more frightening. If it's a choice between Romney and Gingrich the GOP might as well draft John Boehner or Olympia Snowe.

At this point GOP voters should stop worrying about finding a candidate with solid conservative principles and just try to find one with any principles at all.

I think I'm kind of done offering these people the benefit of my wisdom. I'm normally fond of tilting at windmills but all of this shouting into a gale force wind of electoral stupidity is getting tiring.

There are many reasons I am registered to vote as an Independent. The biggest one is that the GOP does things like make Gingrich or Romney their most likely nominees and I want no part of it. There may be some of you wondering "why not get involved and try to change things?" Well, it never changes, for one thing. For another, I live in the very small, very blue state of Connecticut. There is a Republican party here but it is about as effective and relevant as the Libertarian Party of Saudi Arabia.

In the end I will probably wind up in a voting booth in November of 2012 holding my nose and casting symbolic vote for whomever the GOP sends up against The One. That The One will walk away with Connecticut's electoral votes without even bother to campaign in the state is a given. And I'll cast a token vote for the Republican sacrificial lamb in Connecticut's Congressional contests. And I will go home feeling like I need an intellectual and moral shower with the only solace available being the end of The One's socialist reign and the return to GOP socialism lite.

Would it be too much to ask that they make it at least a little fun? Could they, just for a while, make Ron Paul the front runner?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment

November 28, 2011

A Lesser Stench of Corruption

A layer of filth, corruption and stupidity will soon be scraped off the floor of the House of Representatives. Massachusetts Representative Barney Frank has announced he will not seek re-election.

So long asshole.

UPDATE: Here's a link where you can send Barney a personal message. Please be sure to show him all the respect he deserves. dccc.org/Barney

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 10:27 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

November 10, 2011

And The There Was One

Not too long ago whenever I left the house I was "fully loaded." I had a PDA, an iPod and cell phone. If I were going to a child's even I would add to that a digital camera. That's why they make those cargo pants with all the extra pockets!

The PDA died and you know what they just didn't make PDA's anymore. I did the only thing I could do and got a replacement on eBay. In the mean time I got a cell phone with an OK camera that was good enough for routine events. Special occasions required something more, but those are rare and that's part of what makes them special.

The iPod had it's issues. I had to replace the battery twice and the hard drive once. Yes it was that old. Eventually it and the replacement PDA stopped working.

I bought an iPod touch. It did all the PDA stuff. It did all the iPod stuff. It did better photography. It did good enough for routine video. I was down to two devices. iPod and Cell phone.

For as long as I could I resisted the "Smart Phone." At first it was easy. If I was going to get one it was going to be an iPhone, but I was locked into Verizon and the iPhone was only AT&T. Then they came out with iPhone on Verizon and I didn't get one because I was too cheap to pay for a data plan.

Then I got a job at which a good part of what I do is design for the mobile web. It occurred to me that having a Smart Phone to actually see and test what I was doing might be a good idea. I tried it for a while using the iPod and it was OK. But so the mobile web is built around phones so I couldn't get the full experience.

So I broke down and got the iPhone 4. I did not get the iPhone 4S. It cost more and I just didn't see it as worth the extra money to be able to use a beta voice command system.

Now I have one thing to find. One thing to keep charged. And when I leave the house, one thing in my pocket.

I wish I had done this a lot sooner!

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 05:42 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

November 04, 2011

The Trouble With Herman Cain

Here is round two in my unsolicited advice and commentary on the GOP Presidential hopefuls.

Today's candidate is Herman Cain.

I am deeply disappointed in Herman Cain and his campaign over their handling of the Politico hit piece on some old allegations of sexual harassment. I don't know if there is any truth to the allegations - and neither to the political hacks at Politico. All we know for sure is that allegations were made, and that the two women who made the allegations received a very small settlement. We seem to know just enough to make it look as bad as possible for Herman Cain.

I spent 10 years working in a fairly large corporation and was forced to sit through several semi-annual sexual harassment seminars. I think most of it is bullshit to begin with.

But I don't care about that.

What I care about is that Herman Cain knows the details. He knew that true or false these allegations existed in his past. He had to know, particularly as his standing in the polls began to rise that this story was going come out. He had to know that in the current media climate it would be reported as breaking news if he ever tore the tag off his mattress.

Knowing that, he seemed completely unprepared when the story broke. His initial responses when the story broke were fumbling and ad hoc.

Ideally the campaign should have put the story out their on their own - with their own spin. Maybe use it as a personal anecdote in support of tort reform aimed at ending a legal cultural in which even those falsely accused will settle because it's cheaper and easier. Barring that and knowing the story was going to come out, they should have been prepared.

They were not.

If a candidate can't be prepared for the expected, how would he be as a President dealing with the unexpected?

Posted by: Stephen Macklin at 08:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment

October 27, 2011

Another 1%

Here's a thought that cold make a few heads explode down at the OWS camp on Wall Street and it's sister tent cities around the country.

No matter what you do, there will always be a 1%.

If you taxed away the income of the current 1% to a level where they were what they were pocketing was equal to the national median income, you would have successfully made them part of your group. Part of the 99%.

But guess what. There will be a whole new crop of people who become the new 1%. They won't have as much money to steal as the old 1% but they will be there at the top of the income ladder. Ready for you to attack.

And if you succeed in taking down that 1% there will new crop ripe for the picking.

And here's the real kick in the ass. If you keep it up long enough eventually you will become the 1%. I suspect you'll be banging a different drum by then.