I want to go to Madrid, but not the city in Spain. The Madrid I'm talking about is a village along the Turquoise Trail in New Mexico, a place with about 400 inhabitants. I went to Madrid for the first time back in the early 1970s, when it was still pretty much just a ghost town. About all I saw there then were a few hippies living in tumbled down old houses, but that was before the restoration of the village took place. Madrid is now a thriving little town that's somewhat of an art haven, and some of those artists are the real thing. I kept going back to Madrid on occasions over they years, watched it grow and come alive again, but I haven't been there now in twenty years. It's time to see it again, to see if it became what I hoped it would.
The Turquoise Trail is an old highway liking Santa Fe to Albuquerque, and most folks who travel it are tourists out to absorb some New Mexico culture. That's why most tourists come to northern New Mexico, especially to Santa Fe. Santa Fe itself is a city of perhaps seventy thousand, but all sorts of smaller towns and villages around it bring the total population of that area to around a quarter of a million people. Madrid is in the desert south of Santa Fe, near mountains, and within easy driving distance to a city. I'm wondering if Madrid has been able to pull off what Santa Fe lost . . . that art colony atmosphere. Are the artists really there, or is the village full of curio shops and stuff like that? Just checking it out on Google Earth, it looks like some legitimate artists are indeed there, and I see few signs of all the tacky stuff showing up. You know, the fast food places, the foreign made stuff sold in curio shops, the motels, etc. Madrid is too small for most of that, and that's the really good thing about the place.
Even small places can have things worth seeing. There's an old railroad museum in Madrid, and a baseball field with an interesting story behind it. Why would such a tiny town have a fancy baseball park? Well, because a guy who owned a coal mine there many years ago wanted the town to have a baseball team, so he build the field. When the coal played out, the town played out too, and the baseball field went neglected like everything else around there. I understand that the state took over the baseball field, but I don't know if it's used for actually playing baseball now. It's worth preserving, I think, because even little Madrid once had a farm team associated with the Dodgers. I'm old enough to remember when small towns sponsored baseball teams. I even played on one for a while, back in the old days. We lost something when town leagues disappeared, and so did the weekly games held in the fields built around the country.
Yeah, I need to go back to Madrid and hang out a few days, maybe drift on up to Santa Fe and see what's still there worth seeing. One of the few advantages of being old is remembering how things used to be, back before corporate America spoiled so much of the traditional things people like me appreciate. The one constant you can count on is change, and sometimes it isn't an improvement over what we already had. Progress, under whatever name we call it, is sometimes a regression.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
DOING IT ON THE CHEAP (JUST CALL ME TUFFY TIGHTASS)
If you're among those of us with lower or moderate incomes, your survival may hinge on just how tough you can get. If you want to do more than survive, meaning getting some enjoyment out of life, you have to get even tougher . . . and tighter. My income is moderate. I'm not poor by statistical standards set forth by the government, and for good reason. It's my income bracket they take more from than any other. Poor folks don't pay income tax (or very little of it), don't own property that will justify big tax assessments, and they don't spend a lot of money the state can recover sales tax from. Not all wealthy people get off lightly when it comes to taxation, not unless they move into the category of the ultra-rich, but their numbers are much smaller than the moderate income folks. We're the ones who take the big hit, and you can blame that squarely on government. They make the rules, and they sure don't go in our favor. And the chances are that won't change anytime soon.
With that in mind, which means you have to accept it as a fact of life, it's toughen up time. It's time to tighten up, get your priorities in order. It might even take more than getting tough and tightening up; it might take getting downright mean. Some suggestions about how to do that are:
1) Examine extravagant costs, buying those things you just want but do not need. Do you really need a new car? No, you don't. You just need a dependable vehicle, and used ones abound. I bought a really nice SUV in 2012, slightly used, still under warranty and got new car financing on it . . . for ten grand less than it cost new. As a second car, I drive a 2001 Buick Park Avenue that's still a good driver, paid less than eight grand for it when it was only 6 years old. You don't need new cars.
2) Keep energy cost lower by following some simple rules, like unpluging everything you aren't using. Use only what lighting is necessary. Close off rooms in the house you aren't using.
3) Hold sellers accountable for what they charge you, and shop carefully. Don't be a label buyer, find the best deal. If something is overpriced, complain about it . . . or just do without it, if that's possible. Always assume that the seller doesn't give a damn about your financial well-being.
4) Drive less, save money on gasoline. We all drive too much. Don't be a run-and-fetch-it person who thinks they can't do without it until you need to make a trip to the store.
5) Take an active part in putting pressure on government at all levels to do better . . . and we all know they could do better. Don't be timid about complaining about high utility bills, property taxes, or insurance costs. There is no greater rip-off in America than insurance - car, home, health, or life. Make sure you get the best deal you can for as little as possible. Don't stay with the same company too long because they'll start taking you for granted. Always examine the alternatives to what you currently pay.
6) Do your best to get off the tit, meaning you don't need to lean on government. Just because you have Medicare, don't assume that you need to run to the doctor for every little thing. Have done only what needs to be done. Medical costs can most certainly ruin your chances are ever being more than just a survivor. Always question the doctors carefully. And don't assume that the health care system has your best interest at heart.
7) Don't get suckered into any investment that is not sound. If there's any doubt in your mind about the legitimacy of something, get busy and do your own research. Ask questions, and make sure you get the right answers. We live in an age of the grifter, the mooch, and the opportunist. Stay forever vigilant concerning what is offered as a favor to you.
8) Don't be the host for a bunch of leeches, and ridding yourself of the parasites can be hard because the chances are you are related to them. I'm talking about kids who demand too much, needy friends, relatives who see you and as source of something. Doing this takes some real toughness, but it can be done.
9) Let your home become your charity. Don't give to anything unless you can easily afford it. Most charities are bogus, so if you do give money to them, do the homework first. Make certain the money goes where it's supposed to go, not into some CEOs pocket. This includes giving money to candidates seeing public office, churches, and even local charities.
10) Last but by no means least, work on self-discipline, and this one requires more toughness than any of the others. It's a simple question you should always ask yourself: Do I really need that? With that said, you should likewise keep in mind that there's no need in being frugal if you're not going to put the money you save where it should go . . . and that's on you. Remember, life should be more than just survival. Save something for yourself that allows you to really enjoy being alive. You weren't born to be nothing but a service for others. Be as generous as you can to others, but don't forget to be generous to yourself.
With that in mind, which means you have to accept it as a fact of life, it's toughen up time. It's time to tighten up, get your priorities in order. It might even take more than getting tough and tightening up; it might take getting downright mean. Some suggestions about how to do that are:
1) Examine extravagant costs, buying those things you just want but do not need. Do you really need a new car? No, you don't. You just need a dependable vehicle, and used ones abound. I bought a really nice SUV in 2012, slightly used, still under warranty and got new car financing on it . . . for ten grand less than it cost new. As a second car, I drive a 2001 Buick Park Avenue that's still a good driver, paid less than eight grand for it when it was only 6 years old. You don't need new cars.
2) Keep energy cost lower by following some simple rules, like unpluging everything you aren't using. Use only what lighting is necessary. Close off rooms in the house you aren't using.
3) Hold sellers accountable for what they charge you, and shop carefully. Don't be a label buyer, find the best deal. If something is overpriced, complain about it . . . or just do without it, if that's possible. Always assume that the seller doesn't give a damn about your financial well-being.
4) Drive less, save money on gasoline. We all drive too much. Don't be a run-and-fetch-it person who thinks they can't do without it until you need to make a trip to the store.
5) Take an active part in putting pressure on government at all levels to do better . . . and we all know they could do better. Don't be timid about complaining about high utility bills, property taxes, or insurance costs. There is no greater rip-off in America than insurance - car, home, health, or life. Make sure you get the best deal you can for as little as possible. Don't stay with the same company too long because they'll start taking you for granted. Always examine the alternatives to what you currently pay.
6) Do your best to get off the tit, meaning you don't need to lean on government. Just because you have Medicare, don't assume that you need to run to the doctor for every little thing. Have done only what needs to be done. Medical costs can most certainly ruin your chances are ever being more than just a survivor. Always question the doctors carefully. And don't assume that the health care system has your best interest at heart.
7) Don't get suckered into any investment that is not sound. If there's any doubt in your mind about the legitimacy of something, get busy and do your own research. Ask questions, and make sure you get the right answers. We live in an age of the grifter, the mooch, and the opportunist. Stay forever vigilant concerning what is offered as a favor to you.
8) Don't be the host for a bunch of leeches, and ridding yourself of the parasites can be hard because the chances are you are related to them. I'm talking about kids who demand too much, needy friends, relatives who see you and as source of something. Doing this takes some real toughness, but it can be done.
9) Let your home become your charity. Don't give to anything unless you can easily afford it. Most charities are bogus, so if you do give money to them, do the homework first. Make certain the money goes where it's supposed to go, not into some CEOs pocket. This includes giving money to candidates seeing public office, churches, and even local charities.
10) Last but by no means least, work on self-discipline, and this one requires more toughness than any of the others. It's a simple question you should always ask yourself: Do I really need that? With that said, you should likewise keep in mind that there's no need in being frugal if you're not going to put the money you save where it should go . . . and that's on you. Remember, life should be more than just survival. Save something for yourself that allows you to really enjoy being alive. You weren't born to be nothing but a service for others. Be as generous as you can to others, but don't forget to be generous to yourself.
Wednesday, September 10, 2014
DO BIRDS POOP IN THEIR OWN NESTS?
My dad used to say that often - you know, that old saying that a bird doesn't crap in its own nest. It was his way of reminding me that I shouldn't screw up in my home town because I'd be remembered for it. Well, I did screw up there, and just as he warned, people remembered it for a long time. I figure as long as they remember me, they're remember my screw-ups. Just to make sure the old man got it right, I looked it up and found that birds really don't poop in their own nests. They do, however, poop over the side of the nest, and woe be unto him standing under the nest. Birds poop on my cars all the time because they nest in the trees at night. Maybe a bird keeps a tidy nest, but it sure doesn't have much respect for anything else when it comes to letting those tiny turds fly.
Which brings to mind how people are about disposing of their poop. Unlike birds, we do poop in our own nests, then flush it away and let someone else worry about it. And it's not just the poop we propel into the somewhere-out-there; it's all the other waste we generate. The average person creates close to a ton of solid waste each year, and if we didn't find ways to dispose of it, we'd be buried under it by now. It takes lots of water to flush away all the waste we create, and we're starting to realize a need to conserve water. We also need to stop polluting the water 'cause what we shed in the way of waste sometimes end up back in the water we use. When it gets right down to it, people are a bunch of nasty bastards.
I could go on and on about all the damage we do to the environment due to our anthropocentric attitude about life, but I'll save you the bother of ignoring it. Nobody wants to hear about how nasty they are. Suffice it to say you're a pollution machine, the worst enemy of the environment you live in, and we'll either have to change that or end up like a stupid bird living in our own excrement. All living things excrete something, and we've been rather ingenious at finding ways to use it. We process cow manure and use it for fertilizer, and we've learned to make great fertilizers from bird droppings. We don't usually do anything productive with our own poop because unlike the cow or the bird, we don't eat things that generate good poop. We are manufacturers of mostly worthless poop, but that hasn't stopped some people for learning how to use it.
I read an article some years ago about a town in Florida that got into the business of treating human waste as a useful fertilizer source. It didn't work. For one thing, they had a hard time with the seeds that commonly pass through out systems, still in condition to sprout and create growing plants. This Florida town sold the human fertilizer to some folks (or maybe gave it away), who then put it on their lawns, who then ended up with hundreds of small tomato plants sprouting all over the place. That would be all well and fine, but it's hard to make tomato plants look good in a lawn. One Alabama town learned to raise worms in their sewage plant system, actually got well known for selling them at a profit. Good for them, and good for the worms. A city here in Texas, hard pressed due to water shortages, has started reprocessing sewage water into drinking water, and with good results.
People have demonstrated one thing in particular about themselves that is central to the problem of waste disposal, and that's this: They aren't responsible enough to dispose of their own waste. If they were left with that responsibility, you'd be seeing piles of poop in their back yards. You'd see all sorts of unsanitary situations arising, so we can't allow people to do that. At waste disposal, we're bad personal managers . . . and we can't stop creating waste. We're made to do that, you know . . . what goes in must come out. We have to turn that over to government, since the burden falls mostly on their shoulders, and here's a rare incident of where we can give them a pat on the back. I for one appreciate what they do to get rid of my waste. Excuse the pun, but I'd be up shit creek without a paddle without them . . . and so would you.
So, here's my suggestion. Write your Congressman a letter, or send them an email, telling them how much you appreciate them taking care of your personal poop and pee problems. Give them a pat on the back, and then make sure and tell them that just because they helped out with the waste disposal thing doesn't mean they need to give us back anything . . . you know, like all the shit they hand us when they can't handle the economy. You'd think they'd do better, being as how they do a pretty good job handling other shitty things.
Which brings to mind how people are about disposing of their poop. Unlike birds, we do poop in our own nests, then flush it away and let someone else worry about it. And it's not just the poop we propel into the somewhere-out-there; it's all the other waste we generate. The average person creates close to a ton of solid waste each year, and if we didn't find ways to dispose of it, we'd be buried under it by now. It takes lots of water to flush away all the waste we create, and we're starting to realize a need to conserve water. We also need to stop polluting the water 'cause what we shed in the way of waste sometimes end up back in the water we use. When it gets right down to it, people are a bunch of nasty bastards.
I could go on and on about all the damage we do to the environment due to our anthropocentric attitude about life, but I'll save you the bother of ignoring it. Nobody wants to hear about how nasty they are. Suffice it to say you're a pollution machine, the worst enemy of the environment you live in, and we'll either have to change that or end up like a stupid bird living in our own excrement. All living things excrete something, and we've been rather ingenious at finding ways to use it. We process cow manure and use it for fertilizer, and we've learned to make great fertilizers from bird droppings. We don't usually do anything productive with our own poop because unlike the cow or the bird, we don't eat things that generate good poop. We are manufacturers of mostly worthless poop, but that hasn't stopped some people for learning how to use it.
I read an article some years ago about a town in Florida that got into the business of treating human waste as a useful fertilizer source. It didn't work. For one thing, they had a hard time with the seeds that commonly pass through out systems, still in condition to sprout and create growing plants. This Florida town sold the human fertilizer to some folks (or maybe gave it away), who then put it on their lawns, who then ended up with hundreds of small tomato plants sprouting all over the place. That would be all well and fine, but it's hard to make tomato plants look good in a lawn. One Alabama town learned to raise worms in their sewage plant system, actually got well known for selling them at a profit. Good for them, and good for the worms. A city here in Texas, hard pressed due to water shortages, has started reprocessing sewage water into drinking water, and with good results.
People have demonstrated one thing in particular about themselves that is central to the problem of waste disposal, and that's this: They aren't responsible enough to dispose of their own waste. If they were left with that responsibility, you'd be seeing piles of poop in their back yards. You'd see all sorts of unsanitary situations arising, so we can't allow people to do that. At waste disposal, we're bad personal managers . . . and we can't stop creating waste. We're made to do that, you know . . . what goes in must come out. We have to turn that over to government, since the burden falls mostly on their shoulders, and here's a rare incident of where we can give them a pat on the back. I for one appreciate what they do to get rid of my waste. Excuse the pun, but I'd be up shit creek without a paddle without them . . . and so would you.
So, here's my suggestion. Write your Congressman a letter, or send them an email, telling them how much you appreciate them taking care of your personal poop and pee problems. Give them a pat on the back, and then make sure and tell them that just because they helped out with the waste disposal thing doesn't mean they need to give us back anything . . . you know, like all the shit they hand us when they can't handle the economy. You'd think they'd do better, being as how they do a pretty good job handling other shitty things.
Sunday, September 7, 2014
I WONDER WHAT THEY'RE DOING IN FRANCE
I've never been to France, other than via Google Earth. I always wanted to, but that won't ever happen. Too far away, too expensive to make the trip, and I'm too old now to go and do the things I'd like to investigate there. In fact, I don't even travel much in the U.S. anymore. America is a big country, but I spent a lot of time rambling around in it. Lots of diversity here, all the way from swamps and lowlands to deserts and high mountains. Since I'm a mountain person first and foremost, I usually investigated them thoroughly. I've lived in the southern Appalachians of North Carolina, even in the Rocky Mountains of New Mexico for a while . . . but I never saw the mountains of any other country. France has mountains, and that's attractive to me.
I'll always wonder what it's like to spend time in a foreign country. I've always had a fascination with geography, about the different landscapes around the world. What's it like down in Patagonia in Argentina? What's South Africa like up close and personal? And what about the south Island of New Zealand? Are the mountains of France as beautiful as they look on Google Earth? I've seen lots of beautiful mountains right here in America, and we've even got mountains right here in Texas. I visit them from time to time, down in the Big Bend Country along the Mexican border. Got friends there, always enjoy their company . . . and that's what it's partly about, isn't it? If you travel, you meet people, and that tells you a lot about a place.
I met a man not long ago (he lives near here) who was born in England. He became a seaman, eventually a ship captain, and he spent most of his years doing that in France. When I discovered that about him, I had a million questions for him. He still goes back there from time to time, especially when he needs medical care. He talked about a doctor there in France, a half Vietnamese, half French guy who pretty much reconstructed his face after a bout with skin cancer, had nothing but praise for the medical system there and the doctors. This doctor, he said, had a fascination with the American West and came to the U.S. each year investigate what he reads about. I share that fascination with the man, hope he finds what he's looking for. Were I a younger man, I'd probably contact him and cut a deal - you show me French mountains, and I'll show you my mountains.
I guess my particular interest in foreign places is more about the people there. It's Sunday here, a misty morning with the expectation of rain. We don't get enough rain where I live, so that's welcome. I get up early, before sunrise, and drink coffee, take care of chores around the house like letting out the dogs and cats for a morning romp. Shortly, I'll drive across town to my shop and take care of some animals there, and maybe I'll drink more coffee before doing the things almost everyone in small town America does. It's a simple life for the most part, and I like it that way. Half the people in town will go to church this morning, then gather somewhere for lunch. People will go to the park and meet friends this afternoon, or some will go to the lake for a little recreation. Since it's Sunday, the downtown area will be deserted, except for out of town motorists driving through. It's a quiet day here at daybreak, will stay that way throughout the day.
And somewhere in France, I can only imagine that there's a town much like where I live - a place where people will do pretty much the same as I'm doing here in Texas. Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe that's just proof that the world is really a small place after all . . . at least in some ways.
I'll always wonder what it's like to spend time in a foreign country. I've always had a fascination with geography, about the different landscapes around the world. What's it like down in Patagonia in Argentina? What's South Africa like up close and personal? And what about the south Island of New Zealand? Are the mountains of France as beautiful as they look on Google Earth? I've seen lots of beautiful mountains right here in America, and we've even got mountains right here in Texas. I visit them from time to time, down in the Big Bend Country along the Mexican border. Got friends there, always enjoy their company . . . and that's what it's partly about, isn't it? If you travel, you meet people, and that tells you a lot about a place.
I met a man not long ago (he lives near here) who was born in England. He became a seaman, eventually a ship captain, and he spent most of his years doing that in France. When I discovered that about him, I had a million questions for him. He still goes back there from time to time, especially when he needs medical care. He talked about a doctor there in France, a half Vietnamese, half French guy who pretty much reconstructed his face after a bout with skin cancer, had nothing but praise for the medical system there and the doctors. This doctor, he said, had a fascination with the American West and came to the U.S. each year investigate what he reads about. I share that fascination with the man, hope he finds what he's looking for. Were I a younger man, I'd probably contact him and cut a deal - you show me French mountains, and I'll show you my mountains.
I guess my particular interest in foreign places is more about the people there. It's Sunday here, a misty morning with the expectation of rain. We don't get enough rain where I live, so that's welcome. I get up early, before sunrise, and drink coffee, take care of chores around the house like letting out the dogs and cats for a morning romp. Shortly, I'll drive across town to my shop and take care of some animals there, and maybe I'll drink more coffee before doing the things almost everyone in small town America does. It's a simple life for the most part, and I like it that way. Half the people in town will go to church this morning, then gather somewhere for lunch. People will go to the park and meet friends this afternoon, or some will go to the lake for a little recreation. Since it's Sunday, the downtown area will be deserted, except for out of town motorists driving through. It's a quiet day here at daybreak, will stay that way throughout the day.
And somewhere in France, I can only imagine that there's a town much like where I live - a place where people will do pretty much the same as I'm doing here in Texas. Maybe that's the way it should be. Maybe that's just proof that the world is really a small place after all . . . at least in some ways.
Friday, September 5, 2014
THE ECONOMIC SIDE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
At the risk of sounding like a rabid libertarian here, I'll say right up front that government has a big economic interest in making and enforcing regulatory laws. They'd defend the fines, levies, taxes, excises, and fees as necessary to defray the expense incurred in the enforcement process, and there's some validity in that argument. There's another way of looking at it, however, and that's this: If you didn't pass the law requiring enforcement, you wouldn't have the expense. Many of our drug laws, for instance, and unnecessary, and if we'd take the steps to do away with them, the government would save millions upon millions of dollars . . . and that would mean a lot of people who enforce them would be out of a job. The economic factor in the war against drugs is two-sided at the least. The makers and dealers of drugs make millions, and the government benefits from the need to have people to fight that. Legalizing certain drugs, like marijuana, would go a long way toward cutting down on government expenditures in enforcing laws . . . and that would take a bite out of a lot of tax dollars, commerce in general, and the need to keep people employed.
Government isn't new in the regulatory business. That's something that's been with us for a long, long time. Forget taxes, that always fall back on source of revenue for the government, and consider how much they take in from fines, fees, levies, etc. Almost any profession a person gets involved in will require licensing, and most of the time, those fees are reasonable. But let's say, for instance, you want to get into the restaurant business, better yet one that sells alcoholic beverages. Government at several levels already taxes the crap out of booze, but they get another chunk of change when a person applies for a liquor license or permit. And one permit won't satisfy most states, since it's going to take several of them to get set up to sell booze. You might well find, depending on the state where you set up business, that you've got thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in fees before you ever get started.
Don't mistake my statements here as being against regulation of the liquor business . . . 'cause I'm most certainly not. What I question is the expense of it all, and I even understand the need for the high costs to some degree. Bars are a pain in the ass when it comes to law enforcement. Wherever and whenever people congregate to drink alcoholic beverages, you're going to have problems from time to time . . . and you might have problems all of the time with some establishments like your good old boy bars. Police have to patrol those places, and they get frequent calls to take care of problems that arise at them. That costs money, and you can't expect local government to do that without expecting some fee money to help offset costs. It's the good guys, the ones who try to run responsible businesses that sell alcohol, who get screwed by the system of high costs. Perhaps governments need to take a look at that.
Here's what I suggest in that regard: If a business has shown that they can keep down disruption at their place of business, have a record of doing that, they should be cut some slack when it comes to fees required to stay in business. If, on the other hand, an establishment has a lousy record, and I'm talking about a place where there's always trouble of some kind going on, they should pay more, and not just in the way of fines. If they don't clean up their act, shut them down. The same should be done with dirty companies, the ones who do little to stop polluting the air, dirtying our waters. If they don't clean up, levy bigger fees against them, increase fines, and if need be, shut them down too. Sounds reasonable, right? If you do that, and it does happen occasionally, you'll lose the money from fines and fees. Government at any level doesn't like to lose money.
I was in Austin some years back and saw something that shows a need for regulatory money. My son was a bartender downtown in an area loaded down with bars, and I drove him there to start his shift. A half dozen black busses pulled up and tough looking cops dressed like storm troopers piled off. Down the street, a saw dozens of cops on horses, looking deadly serious. "What's that about?" I asked, as I pulled up in front of the bar where he worked. "They've got a big track meet in town tonight, and after a while, the street will fill up with people. Thousands of spectators from that event will end up down here, and they usually cause trouble, and that's why the cops are here."
I guess the bottom line is that as long as you've got irresponsible people flocking to places like that, you're going to need lots of protection against the violence that will or might erupt. And somebody has to pay for that. Here's another idea for you. On occasions like that, the city ought to require all bars to add another dollar to the cost of each drink, and that should go directly to the city. Maybe more of a surcharge than that is necessary, but when it gets right down to it, the taxpayer often pays for cleaning up the messes they make. All fees aren't bad, and that's a fact.
Government isn't new in the regulatory business. That's something that's been with us for a long, long time. Forget taxes, that always fall back on source of revenue for the government, and consider how much they take in from fines, fees, levies, etc. Almost any profession a person gets involved in will require licensing, and most of the time, those fees are reasonable. But let's say, for instance, you want to get into the restaurant business, better yet one that sells alcoholic beverages. Government at several levels already taxes the crap out of booze, but they get another chunk of change when a person applies for a liquor license or permit. And one permit won't satisfy most states, since it's going to take several of them to get set up to sell booze. You might well find, depending on the state where you set up business, that you've got thousands upon thousands of dollars invested in fees before you ever get started.
Don't mistake my statements here as being against regulation of the liquor business . . . 'cause I'm most certainly not. What I question is the expense of it all, and I even understand the need for the high costs to some degree. Bars are a pain in the ass when it comes to law enforcement. Wherever and whenever people congregate to drink alcoholic beverages, you're going to have problems from time to time . . . and you might have problems all of the time with some establishments like your good old boy bars. Police have to patrol those places, and they get frequent calls to take care of problems that arise at them. That costs money, and you can't expect local government to do that without expecting some fee money to help offset costs. It's the good guys, the ones who try to run responsible businesses that sell alcohol, who get screwed by the system of high costs. Perhaps governments need to take a look at that.
Here's what I suggest in that regard: If a business has shown that they can keep down disruption at their place of business, have a record of doing that, they should be cut some slack when it comes to fees required to stay in business. If, on the other hand, an establishment has a lousy record, and I'm talking about a place where there's always trouble of some kind going on, they should pay more, and not just in the way of fines. If they don't clean up their act, shut them down. The same should be done with dirty companies, the ones who do little to stop polluting the air, dirtying our waters. If they don't clean up, levy bigger fees against them, increase fines, and if need be, shut them down too. Sounds reasonable, right? If you do that, and it does happen occasionally, you'll lose the money from fines and fees. Government at any level doesn't like to lose money.
I was in Austin some years back and saw something that shows a need for regulatory money. My son was a bartender downtown in an area loaded down with bars, and I drove him there to start his shift. A half dozen black busses pulled up and tough looking cops dressed like storm troopers piled off. Down the street, a saw dozens of cops on horses, looking deadly serious. "What's that about?" I asked, as I pulled up in front of the bar where he worked. "They've got a big track meet in town tonight, and after a while, the street will fill up with people. Thousands of spectators from that event will end up down here, and they usually cause trouble, and that's why the cops are here."
I guess the bottom line is that as long as you've got irresponsible people flocking to places like that, you're going to need lots of protection against the violence that will or might erupt. And somebody has to pay for that. Here's another idea for you. On occasions like that, the city ought to require all bars to add another dollar to the cost of each drink, and that should go directly to the city. Maybe more of a surcharge than that is necessary, but when it gets right down to it, the taxpayer often pays for cleaning up the messes they make. All fees aren't bad, and that's a fact.
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
A HAWKISH VIEW FROM AN AMERICAN LIBERAL
I've heard it said that compared to world standards there are no liberals in America, and based on my own understanding of world politics, I believe that's true. I've studied foreign governments for along time - as a student, a professor of political science, and just as a hobby. Sometimes I get curious about a particular country and start digging up as much as I can about it. Sometimes I do it following the old saying that one should know the enemy, and we most certainly have some of them out there. Sometimes, however, you can't find out much studying a particular government because our real enemy in this day and age isn't confined to just one country. I'm talking here about the threat of terrorism from Islamic extremists. I happen to be an American liberal who favors a hard line against them . . . a very hard line.
President Obama is a very cautious man, but I think if you check the records you'll find that he's used bombs and other airborne devices against the terrorists more than any other President. Now he's mulling over what to do about a new group of terrorists operating in Syria, this group calling themselves ISIS. Should we bomb them . . . or not? So far, he's holding off on doing that until our intelligence people can gather more information, and I support that move. But I likewise don't approve of doing nothing, and here's my thinking on that. If some terrorist group makes actual threats against you, openly vows to destroy you, that to me is a declaration of war that should be responded to. That should signal an open season on them whenever and wherever we find them, and we should do that without gathering together a coalition force beforehand. It's nice to have international support, but it shouldn't be mandatory. World opinion is often against us, but that shouldn't hold us back. It is us under the threat of attack, not them.
I've noticed that when other nations come under attack that they're not at all reluctant to ask us for help, and we've got a pretty good record of jumping in there and helping. Regardless of what anyone wants to think, we are the most powerful military force in the world, and if you need help from a friend when trouble comes your way, it's smart to ask a big friend, one with some muscle. We're often seen as arrogant by other nations, and perhaps we are, but when a real threat of violence arises, that's not something we should worry much about. It takes some arrogance to really do a good job of kicking someone's ass, especially if they need it. These Islamic terrorists need it, deserve it, and we deserve the right to give it to them. You can't solve everything with bombs, and that's a fact . . . but you can sure send a message. Even the most devout Islamic terrorist understands the bomb, especially when he feels the weight of one. And if he believes death in service to his goals gains him a place in the hereafter, we should do him the favor and send him on his way there.
And we've got lots of bombs.
President Obama is a very cautious man, but I think if you check the records you'll find that he's used bombs and other airborne devices against the terrorists more than any other President. Now he's mulling over what to do about a new group of terrorists operating in Syria, this group calling themselves ISIS. Should we bomb them . . . or not? So far, he's holding off on doing that until our intelligence people can gather more information, and I support that move. But I likewise don't approve of doing nothing, and here's my thinking on that. If some terrorist group makes actual threats against you, openly vows to destroy you, that to me is a declaration of war that should be responded to. That should signal an open season on them whenever and wherever we find them, and we should do that without gathering together a coalition force beforehand. It's nice to have international support, but it shouldn't be mandatory. World opinion is often against us, but that shouldn't hold us back. It is us under the threat of attack, not them.
I've noticed that when other nations come under attack that they're not at all reluctant to ask us for help, and we've got a pretty good record of jumping in there and helping. Regardless of what anyone wants to think, we are the most powerful military force in the world, and if you need help from a friend when trouble comes your way, it's smart to ask a big friend, one with some muscle. We're often seen as arrogant by other nations, and perhaps we are, but when a real threat of violence arises, that's not something we should worry much about. It takes some arrogance to really do a good job of kicking someone's ass, especially if they need it. These Islamic terrorists need it, deserve it, and we deserve the right to give it to them. You can't solve everything with bombs, and that's a fact . . . but you can sure send a message. Even the most devout Islamic terrorist understands the bomb, especially when he feels the weight of one. And if he believes death in service to his goals gains him a place in the hereafter, we should do him the favor and send him on his way there.
And we've got lots of bombs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)