Daily Archives: November 7, 2012

Where Mitt lost it

I think Romneybot 2.012 (and a tip of the sombrero to Patrick O’Grady for the epithet) knew he was going to lose the election way back when he was fundraising and made his (in)famous “47%” comment. If you have 47% of people that will vote for your opponent regardless, then anybody else that votes for anyone else but you is actually voting twice, because all that’s required is a plurality of the votes to win a majority of the electoral college. If you don’t have the majority, that’s cool so long as on a per state basis you have more votes in the states with the most electoral votes. And in almost all of the contests there were no totals that showed more than 49% of the vote to any one candidate. And for some reason all the links I had to the state by state vote counts are now dead. How strange?

Our long national nightmare is over, only 2 months until campaigning for the 2016 elections begins, and the Feed

It’s over, for now, but as I indicated in the headline it won’t damned stay over. The truckloads of money required for a political campaign these days requires entering the race early, and most of the first 3 years are going to be begathons going from one rich guy to the next promising to make him even richer if he gives you money to get elected. This has to stop, and it has to stop now before it gets completely out of hand. My personal political beliefs are that government should do what government does best when it comes to public works projects, act as arbitrator on civil disputes to prevent them from becoming escalated, apprehend and punish the guilty to protect the innocent, and stay out of the personal lives of people until there is a case of physical or financial harm inflicted on one by another. If 2 people want to get married, then government has no business deciding on which pairs get to be married and which pairs don’t. I’ll go as far as endorsing polygamy and polyandry for those who desire such an arrangement, so long as all enter the contract willingly and are of age to consent to a contract. If 2 people (or more) want to have sex, then as long as they don’t hurt each other (blood, broken bones, unwanted pregnancy…) then it isn’t any business of the government who or how many, or which genders are involved. It is the government’s business if you are polluting, because that harms many people and depending on what you are polluting and what pollutant it may harm people that haven’t even been born yet. Paying for this should be a function of disposable income. I have little personal experience with the actual concept of “disposable” income. Most of my life my income has been pretty much spent on keeping alive and the means to earn that money to keep alive, doing something non-essential just didn’t happen very often. The one exception to that was when I took flying lessons and started to build an airplane, but even then the airplane was designed to carry passengers and cargo and be capable of flying between TN and TX so I could visit my friends and family more frequently. So even my “frivolous” spending was still mostly based in practicalities, but I digress. Taxation should be based on how much you make after you have made enough to be able to survive and develop a measure of comfort. At our income level having enough to eat and shelter and clothing is 99% of our spending, spending frivolously for us is a Starbucks or dinner out a couple times a year on our dime, Mittens Romney spends more keeping his fleet gassed up that we make in a year so obviously Mittens should pay much more in taxes than the brain-damaged bicycle blogger’s family. The recent furor has been that Mittens doesn’t want to give up any of his comfort so that I can continue to eat and have clothes…

Up first is an update on the CO cyclist that was buzzed and fell under a truck. Bicyclist hit by truck in Cherry Creek North area dies of injuries The suggestion that the traffic was giving the cyclist enough room was made ludicrous by the “hit the curb” statement from LEO. You don’t “hit the curb” when drivers are passing with 3 or more feet of clearance. To avoid a wreck like this TAKE THE LANE and ride at least 3 feet from the curb so you have “wiggle room” for debris and bad pavement. The law says as practicible not as possible. Possible does not make any allowances for error on the parts of the cyclist or any drivers passing who may be distracted or just too stupid to be allowed to drive but who are allowed to anyway, or for random debris that can cause a bike to fall down. The comments on this one would be amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that they are talking about things that could get me killed, because they don’t want to be delayed by 20-30 seconds. For some crazy reason I think my life is more valuable than 20-30 seconds of your time, but apparently I’m some kind of a Maoist. Another link Truck hits, kills woman on bicycle in Cherry Creek North Only one respectful comment on this link.

An AZ wreck that the narrative makes no sense for. Teen on bike hit by school bus in N. Phoenix Think about the geometry of this wreck, the bus was turning left, and the cyclist was crossing a street. There are only two points of conflict that this collision could take place, one being the crosswalk directly in front of the bus waiting to make the turn with the cyclist coming from the right side of the street, the other being on the cross street. One place has the driver looking in front of the vehicle as the cyclist crossed the street and still pulling out with another vehicle (the bicycle) in front of him, the other place has the cyclist moving in conflict with the moving bus but also has both vehicles moving with the green light. So there isn’t much wiggle room for the driver in this one. If the driver hit the cyclist in the cross street crosswalk then the cyclist was crossing with the light, or if the cyclist was crossing against the light the driver ran over someone in the street in front of the vehicle before it started moving. Either way though the cyclist was partially in the wrong, so lots of blame to go around on this one. Get the infrastructure right to keep buses away from kids riding bicycles.

A MA cyclist is seriously injured. 1 hurt after bicycle struck by pickup truck in Westfield All that blather about the cyclist not wearing a helmet, but nothing on the actual wreck, not even stating if it was in an intersection or mid-block. Without that information about all we can do is the Internet equivalent of holding our hats over our hearts in respect for the fallen.

Infrastructure! news from CA. On Cycling: What’s the value of a human life? You get half the fine for killing a cyclist that you get for feeding a wild animal, really? Did anyone stop to, I don’t know, think! about the relative harm of feeding a wild animal against killing a human being?

More infrastructure from CA. Newport’s ‘sharrows’ a sign of concern for bike safety

And those are all the links that gave me fits this morning… Yes I’m that early today.

Billed @$0.02, Opus