I was at the supermarket the other day, having just completed a legal, willing exchange of things of value. For $2.99 I got my box of Chester Fried, acquired without government intervention.
As I made my way to the exit I heard someone call out, “Say, are you that fellow who writes…” His voice trailed off as he looked furtively over each shoulder. Apparently satisfied he had aroused no suspicions, he came closer. Leaning toward me conspiratorially, he began again: “Are you that fellow who writes columns for the Chronicle?” He glanced around again as if we were engaging in a medical marijuana purchase. I told him I was.
“I really like what you write,” he said. “All my friends love your stuff. Keep it up. My name is John.” We exchanged in the Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, clasping right hands and moving them up and down in unison three to five times.
“I’m Rich, glad to meet you,” I said. “Thanks for saying something. It means a lot.” I was a bit more at ease, now that I knew he belonged. Nevertheless, I still kept my radar up. Infiltrators are everywhere.
We began our Eeeevil Extremist Conservative Code-Speak. “There are lots of patriots (Translation: People who agree with us) out there who are fed up with the government spending money like drunken sailors on shore leave (Let’s cut crucial services so the elderly will starve),” John whispered. “I don’t like Obama’s programs (Black people are ruining this country).”
John’s eyes darted to and fro. “It’s dangerous to be talking this way.” He shifted uneasily on his feet.
I tried to be reassuring. “This is America (We hate immigrants). We are still a free country (Slavery, the good old days),” I said. “All we can do is keep telling our side (Keep hysterically shouting, but offer no solutions). People are starting to wake up (Stupid people are joining us).”
John seemed to perk up. “Yeah, a lot of people are finally deciding to take a stand (We are hypocrites who had nothing to say about the past 8 years).” “I really think the TEA party is going to make a difference (with all the funding from shadowy right wingers).”
“Have you been to any TEA party events (Did you have enough Obama = Hitler signs)?” I asked. “Yeah, a couple,” John said. “It was kinda neat to protest government, like they did back in the sixties (As long as we are all white).”
“Why do they think that government can solve economic problems by doing even more of what got us into this mess (We're against the minimum wage in order to keep minorities in poverty)?” I asked. John replied, “I dunno. Do they really think we are that stupid (Glenn Beck is god)?”
I started leaning towards the door. “It was good to meet you,” I said, "and keep on believing (Keep working towards theocracy)".
John’s voice returned to normal. “It was good to meet you, too,” He said. Sotto voce again, he whispered, “What are you going to write about next (How are you going to advance corporate interests at the expense of workers)?”
I thought a moment. “Well, maybe I’ll write about the secret code language conservatives supposedly use.” John replied, “Oh, you mean like, ‘Big city problems coming to Montana?’”
“Yeah, like that,” I said. “Did you know that somehow means blacks are moving in?” He answered, “No, I didn’t. (I’ll have to update my secret decoder ring).”
“Me either.” We exchanged another Eeevil Extremist Conservative Secret Handshake, and John made his way towards the cheap wine section.
Wait a minute, he only shook twice. Infiltrators are everywhere…
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Dr. Laura says the "N" word, outrage ensues
Surprise, the controversy is overblown. She didn't call anyone a "N." Here's the transcript:
SCHLESSINGER: I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says -- we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here -- the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, "White men can't jump; I want you on my team." That was racist? That was funny.
CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate.
CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?
SCHLESSINGER: -- and not enough sense of humor.
CALLER: It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
SCHLESSINGER: I think that's -- well, listen, without giving much thought, a lot of blacks voted for Obama simply 'cause he was half-black. Didn't matter what he was gonna do in office, it was a black thing. You gotta know that. That's not a surprise. Not everything that somebody says -- we had friends over the other day; we got about 35 people here -- the guys who were gonna start playing basketball. I was gonna go out and play basketball. My bodyguard and my dear friend is a black man. And I said, "White men can't jump; I want you on my team." That was racist? That was funny.
CALLER: How about the N-word? So, the N-word's been thrown around --
SCHLESSINGER: Black guys use it all the time. Turn on HBO, listen to a black comic, and all you hear is nigger, nigger, nigger.
CALLER: That isn't --
SCHLESSINGER: I don't get it. If anybody without enough melanin says it, it's a horrible thing; but when black people say it, it's affectionate.
CALLER: So it's OK to say "nigger"?
SCHLESSINGER: -- and not enough sense of humor.
CALLER: It's OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It depends how it's said.
CALLER: Is it OK to say that word? Is it ever OK to say that word?
SCHLESSINGER: It's -- it depends how it's said. Black guys talking to each other seem to think it's OK.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
New editorial, water main
I admit that I am puzzled by the City’s actions regarding the busted water main. I’m going back and forth on the issue. On one hand we have the property damage and other losses, and on the other we have the city’s $1000 goodwill payment.
Add to the mix the City’s insurance carrier. The City apparently has a liability insurance policy. Generally speaking, liability insurance covers the insured for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is found legally liable. Although this is the general principle, we don’t know what the policy language says. It may have some exclusion that applies.
The City’s insurer has taken this very position, publicly announcing that there is no coverage. It’s worth noting that this is not the same thing as denying an actual claim; it seems more like a pre-emptive strike to minimize future losses. We don’t know if property owners have actually submitted claims and been denied.
However, just because the insurer says the damage isn’t covered doesn’t mean that is the end of the issue. Property owners could complain to the State Auditor’s office, which oversees insurance in Montana. I assume the city's insurer is subject to the Auditor's oversight. This is a powerful motivator for insurers, because the Auditor is the gateway to doing insurance business in Montana. An insurer would not want their authority to transact business impeded in any way, so they might choose to cover the losses in order to retain their authority to sell insurance in Montana.
But let’s assume that there is an unambiguous exclusion in the policy which lets the insurer off the hook. The absence of coverage does not mean an absence of liability. A property owner might choose to take the City to court. The court’s affirmative decision would certainly establish legal liability for the loss, so the City would then be obligated to pay all damages caused by the broken water main.
But here is where I get confused. The City is apparently acting on the insurer’s denial and offering each owner a $1000 payment (or more in some cases). This strikes me as odd. Why insult people with an inadequate payment? If the City is offering this payment they must have some sort of sense that they ought to help pay for the damage. But why would they do that if they don’t believe it’s their fault? Either they’re liable or they are not. If they are liable, they pay for everything; if they are not, they pay nothing.
And by making the token payment it may mean they are assuming liability, a situation their attorneys should have warned them about. One might wonder if there is a level of incompetence at work here.
This payment scheme was a quick announcement, like there was a midnight meeting or something. They were ready with this $1000 awfully fast. I can imagine sleepy-eyed commissioners having a conversation, like: “OMG, what are we gonna do?” “Hey, how about $1000 each?” “Yeah, then we just say that we wanted to treat everyone equally.” “I like that. We show our compassion in the face of that eeeevil insurance company denying claims.”
This is a scheme that could only be dreamed up by government. No matter what the individual situation, no matter who is at fault or who deserves what, no matter how much damage, the payment is $1000. Funded by taxpayers, of course. Like so many government programs which pay people regardless of need or merit, this payment is nothing more than a feel-good moment for the governmental elites.
And they expected that there would be no criticism of their offer? One might wonder if the city leaders are living in the real world.
Add to the mix the City’s insurance carrier. The City apparently has a liability insurance policy. Generally speaking, liability insurance covers the insured for bodily injury or property damage for which the insured is found legally liable. Although this is the general principle, we don’t know what the policy language says. It may have some exclusion that applies.
The City’s insurer has taken this very position, publicly announcing that there is no coverage. It’s worth noting that this is not the same thing as denying an actual claim; it seems more like a pre-emptive strike to minimize future losses. We don’t know if property owners have actually submitted claims and been denied.
However, just because the insurer says the damage isn’t covered doesn’t mean that is the end of the issue. Property owners could complain to the State Auditor’s office, which oversees insurance in Montana. I assume the city's insurer is subject to the Auditor's oversight. This is a powerful motivator for insurers, because the Auditor is the gateway to doing insurance business in Montana. An insurer would not want their authority to transact business impeded in any way, so they might choose to cover the losses in order to retain their authority to sell insurance in Montana.
But let’s assume that there is an unambiguous exclusion in the policy which lets the insurer off the hook. The absence of coverage does not mean an absence of liability. A property owner might choose to take the City to court. The court’s affirmative decision would certainly establish legal liability for the loss, so the City would then be obligated to pay all damages caused by the broken water main.
But here is where I get confused. The City is apparently acting on the insurer’s denial and offering each owner a $1000 payment (or more in some cases). This strikes me as odd. Why insult people with an inadequate payment? If the City is offering this payment they must have some sort of sense that they ought to help pay for the damage. But why would they do that if they don’t believe it’s their fault? Either they’re liable or they are not. If they are liable, they pay for everything; if they are not, they pay nothing.
And by making the token payment it may mean they are assuming liability, a situation their attorneys should have warned them about. One might wonder if there is a level of incompetence at work here.
This payment scheme was a quick announcement, like there was a midnight meeting or something. They were ready with this $1000 awfully fast. I can imagine sleepy-eyed commissioners having a conversation, like: “OMG, what are we gonna do?” “Hey, how about $1000 each?” “Yeah, then we just say that we wanted to treat everyone equally.” “I like that. We show our compassion in the face of that eeeevil insurance company denying claims.”
This is a scheme that could only be dreamed up by government. No matter what the individual situation, no matter who is at fault or who deserves what, no matter how much damage, the payment is $1000. Funded by taxpayers, of course. Like so many government programs which pay people regardless of need or merit, this payment is nothing more than a feel-good moment for the governmental elites.
And they expected that there would be no criticism of their offer? One might wonder if the city leaders are living in the real world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)