Location, Location, Dislocation

So the .gov has been running ads about flood insurance. Perhaps you've seen them? Some guy stands there with a roof floating over his head and explains how he's a home, and homes need flood insurance, and you should buy some flood insurance.

I'll be honest. Flood insurance infuriates me. Well, flood insurance in the abstract doesn't bother me a bit. The National Flood Insurance Program disturbs me greatly. Here's how it works. You pay a pittance to the feds to insure your house. When your house floods, the feds write you a check. This would be all well and good except the premiums the fed takes in don't cover the checks the feds have to write. The advertisements are so the feds can drum up new revenue sources to help cover the losses instead of robbing the general revenue.

I'd be in favor of the program if it were actuarially sound. It's not. Insurance rates aren't based on risk, they're based on politics. Flood insurance rates are set artificially low. Apparently, pricing the insurance accurately would lead to people moving or not getting flood insurance. Either one works for me if we don't bail people out when bad shit happens. Unfortunately, we do.

Any insurance that is subsidized by the government leads people to make stupid choices. In this case, building houses in floodplains. If Joe and Jane Homeowner had to bear the real cost of their flood insurance themselves, we wouldn't see many houses built below sea level in a swamp.

So what do we get instead? We subsidize flood insurance to make it cheaper to build houses on floodplains. So more people build houses on floodplains, thus ensuring more losses when the inevitable flood happens. We've created a lovely feedback loop of bad decisions. When the program blows up fiscally, do we ever start to rethink the initial bad decision of subsidizing insurance? Nope. Our legislators and bureaucrats tweak the margins in a perpetual attempt to keep the game going. Revisiting the initial assumption of providing subsidized insurance never enters the debate.

If you look around, you can see plenty of examples of similar dynamics at work in a lot of federal programs. So we keep throwing money down ratholes, and we're rapidly going broke. I wonder why?

The Census

Coming across this little ditty from my friend, Texasbelle, I was reminded that we did indeed receive our Census documents this week. We completed the constitutionally required portion of the document and returned it. This basically means, we wrote the number 2 in the box, folded it up, and mailed it right back to the bureau in our postage paid envelope.

It appears according to 13 USC Chapter 7 we could be in for a little fine for sticking to the letter of the law. We might also have "the Manor" visited by some individual who probably doesn't work the same hours we're in residence. I still don't foresee us providing any information beyond that which the Constitution dictates.

Terry Lowry, the Republican Party & the EEEVIL Libertarian Boogeymen

If you're not familiar with Mr. Terry Lowry and his activities, suffice it to say that he has long held an interesting reputation within local Republican activist circles. He's a semi-insider (precinct chair) who claims to host weekday radio programs on FM 100.7 and/or AM 1110 . The problem is if you visit either website, the timeslot he claims to inhabit on the FM frequency actually lists a radio show hosted by a Ms. Marsha Lambeth, and his claimed AM slot is hosted by a Mr. Ray Lucia. I'm sure at one point, he hosted a show somewhere, no doubt tuned into by a couple of family members and/or someone in the listening area with a busted radio. After all, he prints a fantabulous picture of himself over and over on his newsletter that looks about 25 years old where he sports what is I'm sure is his "trademark" stretch-mark hiding mustache and wearing some giant earmuff headphones around his neck. That has to make him radio legit, right?

Now, all joking aside, I'm betting on a personal level, Mr. Lowry is an amiable man; however, what he is really known for is his "Link Letter". This "publication", if you want to call it that, is an amateurish, 70's style, poorly printed mailer, which inside is basically nothing more than a collection of candidate ads, some tabloid-style rumor filled or reprinted articles, and a couple of pages dedicated to who Mr. Lowry personally endorses.

The dirty little secret about the "Link Letter" is, the trick to getting a personal endorsement from Mr. Lowry is having some cash that you're willing to hand over to Mr. Lowry. Oh, and taking him for a couple of meals doesn't hurt either. See, he explains on his "How are Endorsements Made?" page that he meets personally with every candidate, and from what I understand from a few resources, you almost can't get a "personal meeting" without buying the man a meal. Nice gig if you can get enough people to sign up, I guess. That summation made, I honestly think Big Jolly and The County Seat have captured the essence of the Link Letter from a far more interesting perspective than I ever could, so I'll leave the further information to them, if you're interested.

Now, I have to waste a little space to commend whoever compiles the mailing lists for the infamous "Link Letter". The last time there was a Republican primary in this State, the new and improved Y-P-S Manor was little more than a lump of dirt in the back of an obscure suburban neighborhood in South Montgomery County. This primary season, we actually received a "Link Letter" to the Manor, although I found it odd that it was addressed to the only individual in our household whose voting registration is listed "in suspense". Long story short, this person only used our address as a permanent one for a short period and no longer does so.

All this introductory stuff aside though and the point of my screed du jour, is that the common "scare" theme of Mr. Lowry's "Letter" this year is something I've heard in several circles: all "Christian Conservatives" need to "beware" because there's an evil Libertarian force trying to hijack the Republican party. From a personal perspective, and living with one of these "evil" Libertarians myself, I can convey the following message to all good, God fearing Republicans: true Libertarians wrote off the Republican party as worthless years ago. Most Libertarians are satisfied holding true to their never ending competition for ideological purity while steadfastly maintaining their hefty, but ideologically pure 1% voting block.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, here are the facts. Yes, there is a force trying to take over the party, but we've been here in one form or another all along.

Who are we?

Many of us were on the party "inside", (I personally haven't missed a Republican primary since I became of voting age and was myself a precinct chair & member of the HCRP) but the Republican party moved so far away from us and our ideals we could no longer tolerate the hypocrisy.

We've grown tired of the unkept promises, and of the officeholders who run on one set of issues and govern on another. Some us tried to hold our noses and vote for some abominable characters for the "good of the party" and some of us inevitably couldn't bear it. So we suffered while casting our ballots as the not-so ideologically pure 1%. Many of these folks I believe are the origins of the TEA party revolution, although I don't personally consider myself a TEA party activist.

Many of us are the children of Goldwater Conservatism and the Reagan Revolution.

We're sick of what the spoiled and sense of entitled Baby Boomers have done and continue to do to our country.

We're ready to combat the incremental Socialism and Communism that has oozed like some disease into our system.

We're ready for true constitutionalism and actual capitalism, not the crony variety where failure is "bailed out" by the so-called stewards of our hard earned money.

We're smart, we know who are the few good guys in government, and we back them. Unfortunately, most of those currently in power (regardless of party) are drunk with that power, and have time and time again proven their inability to provide the form of government we've tried to elect.

We don't want the absence of Government regulation, except where you think we need it; we want the Government out of our business.

We believe Government is evil and almost everything it touches fails.

We believe in the liberty and freedom granted to us by God, not by Government.

We believe the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Fundamentally, we believe that the promise of opportunity is as it was during the time of our founders.

We want the Federal Government to stick to the Enumerated Powers so eloquently stated in Article 1, Section 8 of the United States Constitution, and we want our State governments to intrude upon us as little as possible.

We believe that our American Consitution is the most perfect system of Government ever codified.

We believe that our Founders provided us with an exit strategy and we're trying so very desperately to not use it.

So, to further our efforts, we voice our malcontent...and over the years we were placated and preached at by our so-called "leaders" and "voices" that a third party was not the answer. We've been told time and time again we need to change the party from within, at the primary level. Well, that's exactly what we're doing, and that means some of these self-proclaimed "voices" and "leaders" who are part of the problem have got to go.

We are our own leaders, we have our families, and we don't need you.

I can imagine the prospect of losing power to someone who has spent his or her life living off the spoils of Government largess, is very daunting. My goodness, Mr. or Mrs. Government official, you might actually have to GET A REAL JOB and live by the horrid laws to which you've subjected the rest of us.

So now to hang on your sacred power you've resorted to lying about us and calling us names.

We, the liberty minded voters of the Republican party, are the people who the wannabe hanger-oners and political extortionists like Terry Lowry are calling the "libertarians who are trying to hijack the party."

The truth is that those like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, Charlie Crist, Lindsay Graham, Chuck Hagel, Rick Perry, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and even Terry Lowry are the ones who hijacked and perverted the ideals of the Republican party, and now these people and those like them need to recognize that they've failed our country. It is time for them to step aside and give someone else a shot.

And if you don't, we'll do our best to put you aside.

...I'm J, and I approved this message.

/rant

Another Day, Another Disaster

Seriously, who here thinks the possibility of a law named after everybody's favorite tumor-ridden drunk being actually worthwhile or constitutional is greater than zero? Anybody?

Well, good to see we're not teaching the slow class today. I refer, of course, to the recently signed and enacted Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act. The act authorizes the spending of 5.7 billion dollars to train bartenders in the proper mixing of a scotch and soda. Oh, wait, I am apparently mistaken on the meaning of serve in this context. Given the association with Teddy, it was a natural mistake on my part. It has nothing to do with alcohol and everything to do with encouraging volunteerism by handing out oodles of federal money. Personally, I think training bartenders might be more useful. In any event, Nick Gillespie has far more to say about the crapulence than me, and is a wee tad bit more eloquent besides.

The news comes out about the same time as the shocking... wait, that's not right. Need a little more emphasis here. The SHOCKING! news states are not actually able to track the stimulus money being thrown around so casually by the n00b and his enablers in Congress. So the obvious solution is more money. That's right, MORE MONEY! As much as I disliked Matthew Lesko and everything that led to his scam, he's definitely a small time carny fleecing the rubes in Flyover Country compared to this lot. My hero has the best take on it all.

Fuck the Free Market

So, the bailout plan proposed by Henry Paulson, et al.? Give us a whole pile of money to spend and let us be completely unaccountable in doing so. Don’t believe me? Here’s the relevant subsection:

Sec. 8. Review.

Decisions by the Secretary pursuant to the authority of this Act are non-reviewable and committed to agency discretion, and may not be reviewed by any court of law or any administrative agency.

Excuse me, what? We’re talking about spending $700 billion here. That’s $700,000,000,000 dollars that have to come from somewhere and these ignuts want the decisions to be unquestionable? If you have any kind of a brain in your head, you should realize the magnitude of the colossally poor decision being discussed here. It should concern anyone with functioning brain cells when the government tells you it wants to spend this kind of money and avoid answering any questions about the details.

Let’s review: a bunch of dumb people borrowed money they couldn’t pay back from a second group of morons. Somehow, the poor decisions by the collective idiots in the crowd means we, collectively, have to pony up the entire GDP of the Netherlands or Turkey. Instead, we could buy Vietnam 10 times over.

I’d also like to note the proposal came from the efenants in DC. Let me quote you some choice tidbits.

Republicans will attack wasteful Washington spending immediately.

If billions are worth spending, they should be spent in the light of day.

Congress has a fundamental duty to conduct meaningful oversight on the effectiveness of government programs

We believe government should tax only to raise money for its essential functions.

We do not support government bailouts of private institutions. Government interference in the markets exacerbates problems in the marketplace and causes the free market to take longer to correct itself.

All of these quotes are from the RNC Platform. I guess Paulson and Bernanke didn’t get the fucking memo, huh?

Evidence, Please

I have avoided commenting about the FLDS raid and the aftermath. Lots of allegations being tossed around but surprisingly little hard evidence was coming out. As things turned out, that's because CPS and the rest of the minions of the state of Texas didn't have much in the way of actual, supportable evidence. Of course, if you don't believe me, you might believe the Third Court of Appeals. The ruling is here, and a fairly lengthy breakdown of the decision can be found over at Lone Star Times.

I'll give you the thirty second summary. In order to justify removing children, CPS alleged a whole host of things for which they have no supporting evidence. All this was done because somebody thinks the FLDS is creepy and strange.

This ruling is a victory for all of us who care about civil liberties and any of us who might be considered creepy and strange. The bar for the state coming in and taking your kids ought to be set pretty goddamned high, and should be based on something more than just the personal prejudices of state workers. As personally repellent as I may find the FLDS belief system, the members have a right to hold those beliefs and to teach their beliefs to their children. The state doesn't get to come in and take hundreds of kids because mommy and daddy don't believe what the state thinks they should. That way lies a particularly vile form of tyranny that we've seen before elsewhere, and we sure as hell shouldn't acquiesce to someone trying it in the US.

Grits for Breakfast has been all over the case from the get go. He's also got a good post up on the burning question of who's going to pay for this giant clusterfuck. With cost estimates running up to $21 million dollars, somebody is going to take a huge budgetary hit. Maybe the cost, if nothing else, will cause the idiots who triggered the investigation to look a bit more closely next time.

Your Tax Dollars at Work

This is a direct communication from someone who works for NPR. Yes, it is credible, and the guy is apparently their stealth affirmative action hire (he's a conservative).

________________________________
From: Communications
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 6:01 PM
Subject: DC STAFF: VOTE NOW FOR NEW FOOD VENDOR

From: NPR Executive Committee
Jim Elder, Dennis Haarsager, Bob Holstein, Mitch Praver, Dana Davis Rehm, Suzanne Shwetz, Andi Sporkin, Ellen Weiss, Maria Thomas

To: NPR DC Staff
Re: Food Vendor Update and Quick Survey
Date: April 8, 2008

As promised, we wanted to update you on the food vendor selection and ask final input.

First, we want to thank the nine staff members of the Food Service Committee for countless hours of personal time on behalf of us all – sourcing vendors, researching them, visiting their facilities and interviewing their representatives. We had 19 vendors to start, eight quarter-finalists, four semi-finalists and now two finalists. Joining the Committee were 50 other NPR staff who participated in blind taste tests and completed evaluation forms. This was a smart, thorough, objective and thoughtful process by everyone involved.

The Food Service Committee presented their results and recommendations to us and their top two finalists were Cuisine by Bleu, which ranked #1 overall, and MW Catering, which ranked #2 overall.

These two vendors are very different in their scope of offering and service strengths and weaknesses. What follows is information on each provided by them or researched by NPR staff, with click-throughs to more detail on menus, staff feedback, ratings comparisons and other aspects that were investigated. Pricing on menus in the links is proposed only and final prices will be subject to negotiation, as is our overall contract with the vendor.

We want to be inclusive so we are asking all DC staff to read the following and take 10 seconds to cast one confidential vote. If there is significant survey response (at minimum, 3/4 of the DC staff), the majority preference will determine our final decision-making.

Deadline for response to the survey below is Thursday, April 10, 5PM.

Vendor #1: Cuisine by Bleu
* Owned and managed by Indebleu restaurant, 707 G Street NW (opened 2003) and Cuisine de Bleu Catering (since 2007) http://www.indebleu.net/main.html They are seeking to expand their business to in-house food operations and this would be their first location. The base kitchen will be at Indebleu restaurant.
* Ranked #1 in four of the five NPR evaluation categories and #2 in the other category.
* Offering up to six hot food options daily; also espresso and smoothies
* Vendor statement: "The scope of our menu ranges from traditional fare to specialized vegetarian dishes - healthy, locally sourced and fresh. The ingredients we use are made from scratch. Nothing comes from a tub or can."
* Proposed NPR Menu <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/Cuisine%20y%20by%20Bleu.2.pdf> – breakfast, lunch, snacks, beverages
* Catering Menu <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/Cuisine%20y%20by%20Bleu.3.pdf> (Vendor reports prices listed will be discounted 15-20% for NPR orders.)
Key strengths:
* Managed by professional organization with experience and good local reputation for restaurant and full-service catering business
* Broad selection of tasty food that meets all NPR requirements; significant base kitchen facility
* Wide-ranging catering menu for all purposes; guaranteed discount pricing on catering
* Proximity: kitchen is three blocks away; helpful in inclement weather, for reordering and last-minute catering
* Every Indebleu employee is provided with full health benefits and workers comp
Key weaknesses:
* Although they have successful local food operations, this is a new venture for them
* Price could be an issue although they are committed to working within our established price points
Additional Documents
* Vendor History/Overview/Kitchen Description <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/Cuisine%20y%20by%20Bleu.1.pdf>
* Comments from Blind Taste Test in which 50+ Staff Participated <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/Cuisine%20y%20by%20Bleu.pdf>

Vendor #2: MW Catering
* New food service company formed by longtime Port of Piraeus/NPR on-site staff Matina Kourkoutas, Wilmer Reyes and Oscar Amador
* They are planning to provide menu, selections, food quality comparable to Port of Piraeus. Base kitchen will be Bazzano Restaurant, Springfield VA. Cooked foods will be delivered by Wilmer; food will be received and served by Matina and Oscar. Matina will handle cash register and all financial duties
* Ranked #1 in one NPR evaluation category and #2 in the four other categories.
* Vendor statement: "MW Catering is a start-up company. The owners have an extensive history in food management services. The two owners have over 25 years’ combined experience."
* Proposed NPR Menu <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/MW%20Catering.2.pdf> – breakfast, lunch, snacks beverages
* Catering Menu <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/MW%20Catering.3.pdf>
Key strengths:
* Established customer service relationship with NPR for more than a decade; now, they would have opportunity to demonstrate their food talents and skills
* Low pricing on large portions, lots of vegetarian items
* Staff may have opportunity to run a tab
* They may be able to provide morning coffee/pastry service to 7th Street
* They will accommodate catering
Key weaknesses:
* A first-time venture for them; they have no previous experience running a company
* Proximity: transportation from Springfield during rush hour or bad weather could cause problems; questions were raised about freshness of prepared food traveling that distance
Additional Documents
* Vendor History/Overview/Kitchen Description <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/MW%20Catering.1.pdf>
* Comments from Blind Taste Test in which 50+ Staff Participated <http://intranet.npr.org/newintranet/departments/communications/About_NPR/Vendors/MW%20Catering.pdf>

Voting:
Please cast your vote through the link below, considering the five criteria for a new vendor cited as "of greatest importance" by NPR staff:
* quality food
* variety of selections - including heart-healthy and vegetarian items
* efficient and professional operation
* affordable pricing
* good customer service

Click here to go to the voting page:
http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=GO1JJuIgTtFuJ96YKoweaw_3d_3d
Deadline for response to the survey is Thursday, April 10, 5PM.
________________________________

It apparently takes 59 employees, on the payroll, to pick the cart to sell basically a freaking bagel and a cup of coffee. Yes, read that again, 59 people. You had 9 people on the "Food Service Committee" and another 50 who sat around getting paid by the American taxpayer to eat a lot of free food. And don't forget they started with 19 vendors, narrowed to 8, 4, then 2. This is A LOT of free freaking food. And who in the hell knew NPR had 59 employees?

We should all call our congresscritters, or better yet, flood their survey.