Skip to main content

Political Poll... a third world experience

I got a phone call this evening.

I'm a bad person to poll, I think, because I spend the entire time analyzing the poll. What was the purpose of this question or that question, what will they use the poll data for?

At one point I was wondering if by answering the questions I was giving someone I didn't want to support vital information about how to campaign more effectively. I guess I could have asked but I decided not to.

The most interesting bits, though, were a series of questions about the Dem and Republican candidates for the US congress in my district. Or rather it was a series of statements and then I was supposed to answer if that statement made me more likely or less likely to vote for that person or if it made no difference at all. The incumbent is Heather Wilson. The person running against her is "who? sounds like a name I've heard but I'm not sure." Later it was "Oh, her." So at the very least I am now a better informed voter. Yay!

What I discovered about my own priorities was that I'm forgiving, or at least partially so, of inaction in office. Inaction is mostly neutral. I'm also fairly tolerant of political differences on the theory that I really can't expect someone to agree with me all that much. What I've got absolutely no tolerance for is the questionable transfer of funds to politicians or the *use* of an office in a way that appears... third worldish.

As an example... the Democratic challenger's inaction on charges of possible corruption in the State Treasury department didn't bother me so much because I figure that people make unrealistic demands of public figures all the time... there may have been a good reason that she couldn't take action. OTOH, the newspaper headline (Oh, her!) that she'd brought state charges against the Fed's prosecution witnesses in the aformentioned State Treasury *thang* sets off all my BS alarms... every single one.

People joke about New Mexico being a third world country and when they do it's not the *poverty* that they're complaining about. It's the perception of public corruption. I haven't been here long enough and I know that many good people are involved in our government and I've got NO interest in undermining their efforts with baseless rummors. But I've heard them.

The headline about bringing state charges against federal witnesses in a case concerning possible NM State government corruption makes me think I'm back in the Philippines.

This is not a good thing.

(Yes, I'm going to vote for Heather Wilson and on those things where I think she's wrong, I'll write her more e-mails.)

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Some times some people.

 

It's Not Projection

Take the case of "fascism". When you can see clear as day that the person who is accusing you of fascism is a fascist, they aren't projecting. They're talking about something ELSE. Basically, in the case of fascism, the basic set of fascist government controls are the default assumption of reality for a whole lot of people. The government is supposed to control every part of your life. The government is supposed to make you moral and good and reflect "justice". The government is supposed to do this by picking winners from the good people and losers from the bad people. The government is supposed to control the way people do business, how businesses (and farmers) function and what they produce. And people should be made to cooperate with this control because they are part of society and society is dependent on everyone being in compliance. This is simply the Truth. It's how the world works and how the world is supposed to work. The Socialist Nationalism, ...

Tyranny.gov vs Tyranny.com

Compulsion is Compulsion, no matter who does it.  This is Brilliant Theft is Theft, no matter who does it. Freedom of Association has no room in it for *private* action   that takes that away Freedom of Association. If I have a business and have voluntary associations such that I choose to serve some people and to not serve others, that might make me a jerk and it might lose me business, it might make me smart and it might gain me business, but it's got to be my choice.  If I would normally serve the current disliked minority in my shop except for the fact that if I'm SEEN to serve them by the wrong people I'll have a private campaign against me as those people do everything possible to ruin me by preventing me from doing business physically or by attacking my customers or suppliers, then I am NOT free to make those choices. Does it really make a difference to losing my CHOICE to voluntarily associate if there's a law that says I may not serve "those people" o...