Disqus - Latest Comments for drywall

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

drywall — Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:16:17 -0000

An excellent point. Treatment should be encouraged, though.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

drywall — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:07:13 -0000

Agreed.

Is there any kind of mandatory alcohol abuse counseling included in the sentencing guidelines? If not, there ought to be. Not in lieu of stiffer penalties, mind you, but alcoholism is a treatable disease as much as it is a failure of personal responsibility.

Re: Throw away the key for habitual drunk drivers

drywall — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 07:47:00 -0000

I wholeheartedly agree that lowering the legal limit isn't a good way to go.

I also agree that we definitely need much tougher sentencing laws.

Though I'd be more inclined to go with more creative punishments, such as permanent suspension of drivers' licenses, than have to foot the bill for lifetime imprisonment. Sounds like the ignition interlock program is having a positive effect, for example (http://bit.ly/18OsaR).

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 21:19:30 -0000

I don't really see how establishing rules for naturalization necessarily leads to having to regulate allowing "potential citizens" into the country. Naturalization is about turning potential citizens into citizens, not about deciding who does and who doesn't get to be a "potential citizen."

I completely agree with you that it would be utterly impractical to make immigration strictly a state issue. You make my points for me:

1. A lot of things have changed since the Constitution was written.
2. Many parts of the Constitution are open to interpretation.

My deeper point is that the "original intent," "limited Federal goverment" philosophy you say you believe in is deeply flawed, for the above reasons. It seems like falling back on the Constitution is a defense many conservatives resort to when they don't like certain federal programs. But when a strong federal presence is necessary to further a "conservative" agenda item, such as strong limits on immigration, then somehow bringing up the Constitution becomes "ludicrous," or the Constitution's stance is moot because things have "changed dramatically," or the opposing interpretation is dismissed as utterly asinine.

For example, I know many conservatives espousing the states rights interpretation of the Constitution that staunchly believe the EPA and pollution regulation is a gross overreach of the government (not saying you're one Bridget, I don't know you views on this). Yet it's not ridiculous to suggest that pollution is a byproduct of commerce that crosses state borders, thus making it legitimate under the commerce clause.

So really, my point I guess is this: I'm happy to agree to disagree on immigration, health care, et al, but I find it distasteful for you to hide behind the Constitution when it serves your ends but dismiss it as impractical, outdated, and ludicrous (essentially employing the "but we really NEED this from the feds" argument) when it gets problematic. Just say you're laissez-faire or libertarian or something, that's fine — just don't disingenuously drag out the Constitution.

Just out of curiosity, did you read the analysis on the page I linked to? It's quite thorough.

Re: Washington Post selling access to its staff with fundraising ‘salons’

drywall — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 14:16:37 -0000

And their own Ombdusman has taken them to task: http://bit.ly/kUSWw

Re: Washington Post selling access to its staff with fundraising ‘salons’

drywall — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:57:01 -0000

The Post has already backed off from this.

http://www.washingtonpost.c...

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:58:39 -0000

So you're in favor of the federal government spending tax dollars to enforce laws that, by your own "original intent" political philosophy, the federal government has no right to have on the books in the first place?

Just trying to understand your position.

Re: ABQ South Valley ‘town’ now has a name: Valle de Atrisco

drywall — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 02:13:51 -0000

Should be "its own city," sans apostrophe.

I like the historical nod of the name, though as I believe the majority of NM residents are English speakers, "Atrisco Valley" might be a better option.

I also support incorporation as a separate municipality.

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 01:41:02 -0000

My point was that as the original framers saw it, "illegal" was something for the states to determine, not for the federal government. Did you read the analysis I linked to?

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:42:36 -0000

No, I don't remember that. But I do agree that Harry Reid is pretty much an idiot. :)

In all honesty I don't think putting illegal aliens in uppercase helps you be taken seriously, but if you think it helps drive the point home, then by all means go for it!

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:05:59 -0000

Not to mention the several prominent right-wingers who have been caught with illegal immigrants working in their homes...

Unfortunately I think you can cross "new clothes" off that list of items. Sure there are sweatshops filled with illegals here in the U.S., but I think most apparel purchased domestically these days is manufactured in export processing zones in foreign countries like China and the Philippines. Which brings up an entirely different set of issues....

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:02:12 -0000

DelawareBob,

It would be EASIER to read your COMMENT if you didn't insist on putting CERTAIN PHRASES in all-caps every mention. It makes your COMMENT read as if you are spastically SHOUTING, making it very hard to FOCUS on the substance of your remarks. I understand WHY you want to EMPHASIZE certain concepts, but I personally find it distracting.

Thanks!

Re: McCain backer: Get behind Obama on health care reform

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 17:52:40 -0000

I commend Spiri and all like him that advocate for what they think is right, whether those beliefs fit traditional partisan alignments or not. Bravo!

I also commend Spiri and his family for their service to this country. So often we apply the term "heroes" to those who do not deserve the label, such as professional athletes. But in my mind, anyone commissioned in the military deserves the moniker. Thank you.

Re: Congressman Lujan is out of step with northern N.M. on illegal immigration

drywall — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 10:53:39 -0000

So it sounds like you support strong measures against illegal immigration.

And yet, last week you argued forcefully that you believe in adhering to the Constitution as written. I quote: "Conservatives believe in the founding principles of our republic. We believe that the appropriate role of the federal government is set forth clearly in the Constitution, and that most of the powers it has arrogated to itself over the last century have been unconstitutionally usurped..."

The constitution says nothing whatsoever about empowering the federal government to control immigration, and employs the term "citizens" within the scope of the states, not federally.

Thomas Jefferson reaffirmed that immigration is NOT within the purview of the federal government:

"[A]lien friends are under the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of the state wherein they are; that no power over them has been delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the individual states, distinct from their power over citizens; and it being true, as a general principle, and one of the amendments to the Constitution having also declared, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved, to the states, respectively, or to the people,” the act of the Congress of the United States, passed the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled “An Act concerning Aliens,” which assumes power over alien friends not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force."

Given your earlier statements about the government expanding its role beyond what is proscribed in the Constitution, and your clear wish to rein it in, how can you justify supporting strong federal laws against illegal immigrants? Sounds to me like you're picking and choosing which laws should be enforced and which should be abandoned.

(for more on immigration and the Constitution, check out http://bit.ly/okUBv )

Re: Let them eat green chile

drywall — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:09:01 -0000

Way to mix your metaphors.

Re: Let them eat green chile

drywall — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:43:35 -0000

Hmmm, interesting response. In all honesty, I would be happy to go to that office with you. I think talking to the people there would challenge both of our assumptions.

Re: Let them eat green chile

drywall — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:54:44 -0000

Ms. Russell,

Bravo on writing a much more thoughtful commentary this time around. I think you are right to assail some (not all) on the left for painting conservatives as uncaring and selfish with too broad a brush. I appreciate your explaining your underlying philosophy a bit.

That said, I think you too paint with too broad a brush. Not all conservatives derive their beliefs from where you do. Like with liberals, some are bad apples who truly are simply interested in, say, lowering their personal tax burden for the most selfish reasons.

Of course, I *strongly* disagree with your interpretation of the facts, your selective recall of them, and your characterization of liberals as nothing more than utopian dreamers who want to take away people's money and liberty. For example, last I checked, the outcry over illegal surveillance and the support of gay marriage — both as exemplary of liberty as, say, gun rights — are coming predominantly from the left. And I would remind you that the first salvos of the bailout were fired by the Republicans when Bush was still in office.

But I digress. I suspect there's probably no way to convince you that socialism isn't the Root of All Evil (or merely incompatible with a spirit of enterprise), so I won't try here. Instead, I will merely ask: can you provide an example of an individual who now considers him/herself a "helpless child" after being exposed to leftist fear-mongering?

Thanks.

Re: Health care is broken, but the government can’t fix it

drywall — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:59:58 -0000

Brigette,

Are you familiar with the adage "write what you know?" You would be wise to heed it.

Making people pay 100% of the cost for preventive care like flu shots is a *horrible* way to keep health care costs down. It's less expensive to get immunizations than it is to get treated for the diseases they prevent. It's less costly to get good prenatal care than it is to deal with late-pregnancy complications. It's cheaper to invest in smoking cessation aids than it is to suffer cancer treatments. Add in the "public health" benefits — why this concept gets such short shift in the 21st century is beyond me — in addition to the individual benefits and the cost-effectiveness of preventive care becomes even more clear. An ounce of prevention truly is worth a pound of cure.

Forcing people to bear the full cost for routine care will result in fewer people choosing to receive it. Health care/insurance isn't like buying goods or services that result in immediate utility, like filling a gas tank or buying shoes. Preventive care's benefits come in the future as unseen costs never appear, not in the present.

Fewer people will pay for preventive, future-benefit care, not because they're idiots, but because we're all hardwired to discount future rewards. It's called "temporal discounting" — humans universally perceive future utility to be diminished compared to the present. It's a phenomenon that's been observed in species other than humans, in fact.

You're correct that administrative costs are far too high, but forcing consumers to directly pay for services is not way to ultimately lower total healthcare costs. A better solution (or at least part of one) is for the government to step in and provide incentive for health care providers and insurers to switch to uniform electronic records, which would both lower costs and reduce errors. Better IT could save roughly $80 billion annually.

Currently the health industry is reluctant to do this because it's highly expensive to make the switch and deeply disruptive to entrenched interests. Even though the long-term cost savings seem clear, for-profit insurers and providers who answer to shareholders seeking short-term profits lack incentive to move forward. The government should step in and incentivize or require modernization to get this market problem fixed.

As for your "nationalized health care" bogeyman — give me a break. As our system currently stands, most health insurers already retain the right to decide what counts as "medically necessary," not your doctor (check the fine print of your own insurance if you don't believe me). There's no reason to believe administrators of a public plan would be any more disruptive to the doctor-patient relationship than administrators of a private plan.

Let's be honest here: Canadians' use of U.S. health services has been radically overstated, while more than a million Americans seek care in Mexico (or get prescription drugs reimported from Canada) every year. You should do more research on comparative health care systems before belittling Canada's (or any other country's).

Citations:
For examples of the cost-effectiveness of preventive care, see http://bit.ly/GRbF5
To learn more about the phenomena of temporal discounting and discounted utility, Google those terms (duh)
For info on the promise (and problems) of electronic record keeping, see http://bit.ly/15W9J4 and http://bit.ly/4v3Yx
For info on Canadians seeking treatment in the U.S., see http://bit.ly/aZtS9
Here's a nice piece on Americans seeking care in Mexico: http://bit.ly/Luqhm
And here's a nice piece looking at the pros and cons of different countries' health systems: http://bit.ly/19LyIM

Where are your citations, Brigette?

Re: Heinrich Elected Class President

drywall — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:41:34 -0000

Does this mean he's in charge of planning the prom?

Re: Albuquerque breaks water conservation record

drywall — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:10:53 -0000

Great news! How does ABQ's per capita usage compare to other Southwestern cities such as Phoenix, Tucson or Vegas?

Re: Rail Runner: On to Santa Fe by mid-December

drywall — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 11:41:04 -0000

Pity wifi won't be available sooner. That seems like a gross oversight to me. But I sure am excited for service to Santa Fe to start.

Re: Escape from free market dogma

drywall — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 13:30:25 -0000

With all due respect, there was nothing in your initial post to suggest that your problem was with cherry-picking. You simply implied that Art is sympathetic to oppressive leftist regimes.

And of course, the cherry-picking is avowedly a central point of the piece. By doing so, he's calling attention to the fact that absolutist "free market" disciples have been cherry-picking words from the chief prophet of capitalism for decades.

Though I'm happy to see in this follow-up post that you actually address arguments of the article, I find it troubling that your issue is, as you put it, "with Mr. Alpert," and not with his argument. What difference does it make that he is "a longtime leftist"? The article should stand or fall on its own merits. If someone published a piece asserting "a nuclear capable Iran poses a grave risk to world security," would it be any less true if the assertion were made by Dennis Kucinich, than, say, Donald Rumsfeld or Paul Wolfowitz?

Anyway, I don't think anyone here is advocating for something other than a market-based system — the question is how closely we continue to cling to the ideology that "free" markets are better than those in which the state plays a significant role. There's certainly a fair amount of evidence coming out of places like Scandinavia to suggest that a more active government role is compatible with, and may encourage, economic wealth as well as personal health. But you're right to assert that there are no successful examples of economies that aren't market-based at their core. Art's "better idea" isn't something other than a market-based system — it's that we should stop being rooted in hardline libertarian economic ideology and start taking a more pragmatic approach.

As for RWB: How exactly is being based in Paris relevant? Yes, the organization is not without controversy and detractors, in part due to the fact that no nation seems to much appreciate being placed anywhere but the top of the list. None of the controversies, however, suggest that there's any sort of deep, systemic bias in their ranking methodology that would render their list completely irrelevant: Such rankings are necessarily subjective. I'm happy to cite another source, Freedom House, which puts the United States in a tie for 16th alongside such beacons of freedom as Estonia and St. Lucia.

Re: To revive or not to revive the Fairness Doctrine

drywall — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:49:34 -0000

While a good article, this is a strictly academic discussion. None of the players in Washington that could muster the firepower to get something like the Fairness Doctrine have the slightest interest in doing so. Remarks like Sen. Bingaman's do nothing but stoke the flames of the right-wing fires that claim they are under attack.

Organizations like Free Press have no interest in bringing it back. To quote my colleague Craig Aaron:

If you want more balance and variety on the airwaves, the fairness doctrine won't do it. It's a poorly designed, constitutionally dubious policy - one that failed to meet its arguably well-intentioned purpose the first time around. The old fairness doctrine was infrequently enforced and easy to avoid. ... The government simply shouldn't be in the speech-regulating business. Instead of bureaucrats deciding what constitutes balance, we need policies that encourage the expression of diverse points of view.

Re: Escape from free market dogma

drywall — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:19:33 -0000

Great piece. Far too many people have forgotten that while Smith was pro-market, he certainly wasn't blind to market shortcomings.

JoMa, why do take issue with Art's attempt to inject nuance into ridiculously Manichaean economic dialogue? Do you out-of-hand reject the idea that economics is a human and fundamentally complex system?

As for journalists getting shot in Russia: Don't get too uppity there, the U.S. only ranks 36th in press freedom right now. Still dramatically better than any of the countries you mention, of course, but hardly at the vanguard.