On 10/14/11, a committee/subcommittee interviewed and discussed the government backing of loans to Solyndra. They discussed the matter with two representatives from the Department of Treasury.
I would like to discuss with you the detailed issues regarding this matter. Unfortunately that's not possible. After about 3 hours of listening to these politicians, they have spent more time asking inane questions, arguing with the DoT representatives, and spouting rhetoric to further their political agenda. As such there wasn't much actual information garnered from this subcommittee hearing.
What I can tell you is that the Department of Treasury, while handling the government's money particularly loans, does not decide whether other departments, particularly the Department of Energy, CAN have a loan. The DoT offers advice and recommendations to other departments, but has no power (nor enough information) to deny a loan or to force additional investigations.
However, if I understand the law here, if the loan exceeds $100,000, then whatever department, again Department of Energy in this case, must consult with the Department of Justice before proceeding. The DoTreasury informed the DoEnergy regarding this issue, BUT the DoEnergy never did consult the DoJustice.
My problem is the politicians neither understand, nor seem able to grasp the established procedures between the Dot, the DoJ, the DoE or any other department. I kinda think it's their fucking JOB to know how our government runs. Do you really want someone who doesn't understand how the government runs, to be making more laws?
These are the people who represent us, the constituents.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
EPA Regulation of Coal Waste
If I understand the issues correctly, the bill referred to as EPA Regulation of Coal Waste, will move the regulation of coal ash from the EPA to the states, in an attempt to prevent the EPA from eventually classifying coal ash as hazardous, which, according to the EPA's own scientific/factual regulations, coal ash does not classify as hazardous/toxic.
The "head" of the bill is Republican Representative John Shimkus, from Illinois.
The opposition is led by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, from California.
I didn't really find Waxman's criticisms to be legitimate. The biggest concern here is taking away the power of the EPA and passing it to the states. While I agree that a federal institution (the EPA here) ought to be able to peruse, inform, and step in under gross abuses, I think it is more rational to have these local issues dealt with by local government agencies. The federal government should not be stepping into individual waste management institutions. Fuck that.
The other concern brought by the opposition is that coal ash, the waste product of coal energy factories (I believe), is toxic/hazardous. Despite R. Rep. John Shimkus large clear graph that demonstrates, scientifically, that coal ash does not meet the requirements of hazardous material set by the EPA, all the opposing Democrats continued to harp on the hazardous and toxic nature of coal ash.
These Democrats claimed to be the smart party?! Yet they can't grasp a simple, SCIENTIFIC assessment?
So 3-4 Democrats tried to add amendments to the bill. R. Rep John Shimkus opposed these amendments, pointing out that they were redundant. And like sore losers, each Democrat asked for a recorded vote.
(I believe the first Amendment was brought up by R. Rep John Shimkus and was passed)
2nd Amendment is not adopted.
3rd Amendment is not adopted.
4th Amendment is not adopted.
5th Amendment is not adopted.
6th Amendment is not adopted.
So Democratic Representative David Cicilline, from Rhode Island, stands up and makes a flowery speech about how the House of Representatives should be trying to pass legislation to get people back to work, to improve our economy, not on legislation that damages our environment and fails to protect our communities. But it's a pretty empty speech; there's a lot of rhetoric, but little facts, data, or info, mostly just fear-mongering. If he had been there 2 hours ago, he could have heard such facts that completely discounted everything he said, although whether he would have listened is debatable. And just for the record, putting the words "common sense" in front something (like this "common sense amendment") does not make that something "common sense."
Republican Representative Fred Upton, from Michigan, gives a speech opposing Dem Rep. David Cicilline. He tells the history of the bill; he talks of the many proponents of the bill; and he outlines, briefly, how this bill will be helpful. He uses info, data and rationale to support his point of view.
Final Vote on H.R. 2273, Limiting EPA Authority & Giving States Oversight Over Coal Ash
Yeas 267
Nays 144
Special thanks to C-SPAN.
The "head" of the bill is Republican Representative John Shimkus, from Illinois.
The opposition is led by Democratic Representative Henry Waxman, from California.
I didn't really find Waxman's criticisms to be legitimate. The biggest concern here is taking away the power of the EPA and passing it to the states. While I agree that a federal institution (the EPA here) ought to be able to peruse, inform, and step in under gross abuses, I think it is more rational to have these local issues dealt with by local government agencies. The federal government should not be stepping into individual waste management institutions. Fuck that.
The other concern brought by the opposition is that coal ash, the waste product of coal energy factories (I believe), is toxic/hazardous. Despite R. Rep. John Shimkus large clear graph that demonstrates, scientifically, that coal ash does not meet the requirements of hazardous material set by the EPA, all the opposing Democrats continued to harp on the hazardous and toxic nature of coal ash.
These Democrats claimed to be the smart party?! Yet they can't grasp a simple, SCIENTIFIC assessment?
So 3-4 Democrats tried to add amendments to the bill. R. Rep John Shimkus opposed these amendments, pointing out that they were redundant. And like sore losers, each Democrat asked for a recorded vote.
(I believe the first Amendment was brought up by R. Rep John Shimkus and was passed)
2nd Amendment is not adopted.
3rd Amendment is not adopted.
4th Amendment is not adopted.
5th Amendment is not adopted.
6th Amendment is not adopted.
So Democratic Representative David Cicilline, from Rhode Island, stands up and makes a flowery speech about how the House of Representatives should be trying to pass legislation to get people back to work, to improve our economy, not on legislation that damages our environment and fails to protect our communities. But it's a pretty empty speech; there's a lot of rhetoric, but little facts, data, or info, mostly just fear-mongering. If he had been there 2 hours ago, he could have heard such facts that completely discounted everything he said, although whether he would have listened is debatable. And just for the record, putting the words "common sense" in front something (like this "common sense amendment") does not make that something "common sense."
Republican Representative Fred Upton, from Michigan, gives a speech opposing Dem Rep. David Cicilline. He tells the history of the bill; he talks of the many proponents of the bill; and he outlines, briefly, how this bill will be helpful. He uses info, data and rationale to support his point of view.
Final Vote on H.R. 2273, Limiting EPA Authority & Giving States Oversight Over Coal Ash
Yeas 267
Nays 144
Special thanks to C-SPAN.
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
"Well Read" Indeed!
Much earlier in this year, a serious of blogs were discussing the idea of how impossible it is to be "well read" in this day and age, as well as what it means to be "well read".
First Roger Ebert's journal
Second an NPR article by Linda Holmes
Third a blog entry by Signal Watch
Fourth a blog entry by Horus Kemwer
They all have useful and interesting things to say regarding the matter. However, none of them actually touch upon the topic of the purpose of defining someone as "well read." They are all so obsessed with "how to be 'well read'," that they never stop to think about whether it is actually a good thing or not.
I'm sure you're immediate response is "of course it's good to be 'well read.' It means you are in touch with the culture. That you are educated." The Free Dictionary.com defines "well read" as "knowledgeable through having read extensively."
But what you may be ignoring is its qualitative implication. The phrase "well read" is a term used by pretentious elitists to define themselves as more intelligent than others. If you are not 'well read' than your opinion is less valuable than someone who is. Because you have not read these important influential books, you are not educated, not intelligent, not 'worldly'.
The authors listed above are writing about the impossibilty of being 'well read' in an environment where books flood the market like tidal waves; where books from all countries through all ages are accessible with but a few mere clicks of a mouse; where distinguished authors change like seasons in a year. These authors appear to be intelligent rational people, which is probably why they missed the fact that it is not about an accomplishable task, but about a defining of status.
Don't believe me? Let's examine where the phrase originates:
Shakespeare! (surprise.) In his play Henry IV Part 1, Percy Hotspur and Edmund Mortimer are discussing Mortimer's father, Glendower, who has just exited. Hotspur doesn't like Glendower and voices his dislike through a speech about Glendower's tedious references to all sorts of things. He complains of Glendower's constant ramblings of facts and knowledge, so mundane that they are boring beyond patience. He sums up with:
I had rather live
With cheese and garlic in a windmill , far,
Than feed on cates and have him talk to me
In any summer-house in Christendom.
To which Mortimer replies:
In faith, he is a worthy gentleman,
Exceedingly well read, and profited
In strange concealments, valiant as a lion
And as wondrous affable and as bountiful
As mines of India.
hmmm
When first I read this I was unsure of the purpose of the phrase...I needed context.
Once I had read Hotspur's previous comments, I felt certain that Mortimer was giving a back-handed compliment. "Exceedingly well read" If "well read" means to have knowledge from reading extensively, isn't the phrase "exceedingly well read" a little redundant.
But since Glendower, the person they are referring to, is Mortimer's father, it became clear that it was highly unlikely Mortimer would be insulting his father so blatantly. Instead it seems more likely that Mortimer was attempting to excuse his father's behavior by admitting Glendower's faults in a concilatory way.
I still think it supports the idea that being "well read" should not be a badge of honor but a fault to be wary of. Glendower is described, by Hotspur, as talking and talking and talking, about inconsequential topics ("a dragon and a finless fish,").
And to describe oneself as "well read" seems to be an arrogance of self-importance. Because it implies that anything you (the arrogant self-important prick) haven't read isn't worth reading, it discounts the importance of experience. One person might read Moby Dick and find it extremely telling of the human condition; while someone else who read Moby Dick, might see it as boring tripe. What makes a book good and worth remembering is the impact it has on you. However we are all so different and are continuously changing that to make a definitive list of 'must-read' books ignores the purpose of reading....pleasure. In essence the concept of "well read" is meaningless....except as a superficial method of establishing status.
Hmph. I'll tell you this, if you come at me with, "I am 'well read'," you've lost my interest. I am done with you. You are too arrogant to offer any intelligent discourse.
i Look Foward to the End of that.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Fuuuuuuuck me!!!
So at an earl-ish age I realized that people are full of shit. The things that people say, believe in, these motives and actions are based on nothing. Nothing need be rational or logical; we can do whatever we want for whatever reason. Which of course is complete bullshit.
I will NEVER take someone seriously whose sole rationalization for thoughts and actions are because I said so, because I wanted to. It's straight up idiotic. Remember that saying "think before you act"? Know why such a saying came about? Because people just fucking acted!!
"Huh I wonder what this does? So I'll do it." BOOM action
"I want to do this. So I'll do it." BOOM action
Never once thinking "Is this a good idea?" "Will this hurt someone else?" "Do I need to do this?"
You walk into a room. There is strange machinery and bizarre devices littering the room. Light shines brightly from the ceiling, illuminating the glistening metallic instruments. You turn and see one large red circle. As you approach there is a sign above it: 'Do not press.' The large red circle is a glowing red button.
If you did not press the button, you have thought before you acted. Good job.
I'm getting off topic. This is about ME, not people; I'll bitch about their insanity in a different post.
Clearly I had to re-evaluate all my previous notions, that is if all my beliefs were based upon nothing. I believed that if those beliefs were rational, I would arrive at the same conclusions. I didn't (in most cases). I began structuring my entire belief system from the ground up, or as best as I could do. One would have to literally erase one's memory to obliterate the influence of those previous notions.
This difficult process taught me to open my mind. To any porblem there are always many solutions. To each theory there is always more information. no matter where I turned I found that people were making assumptions with insufficient information. I tried to tell me about this, to show them that they shouldn't be so quick to make such declarative statements with what little information they have.
Nobody listened. Out of all the people I have met there has only ever been one person who has listened to me and thought about what I said. Everyone else is so caught up with proving that they are right, that they only think about how to tell you you're wrong. Weirdly I mostly just try to question what they say, NOT tell them they're wrong, yet they act like I am attacking their beliefs (like their god-damn beliefs are soooo irreproachable).
So living in a world full of fools, I became arrogant. I became certain I was right. I became them. I became these people. I don't know how to go back. I don't want to think I'm right all the time. I know it's not true. But how do I fucking deal with people who just blabber bullshit. Every time someone opens their mouth I find myself sectioning out what's probably true and the bullshit (politicians are almost nothing but bullshit, kinda just like lawyers and judges).
FUUUUUUUUUUUCK ME!!!! I don't want to think I'm right, that I'm better. I do not want to be this person. I don't want to be around these lying, delusional, arrogant, naive, ignorant jack-asses. God, I can't wait till it's all over.
I will NEVER take someone seriously whose sole rationalization for thoughts and actions are because I said so, because I wanted to. It's straight up idiotic. Remember that saying "think before you act"? Know why such a saying came about? Because people just fucking acted!!
"Huh I wonder what this does? So I'll do it." BOOM action
"I want to do this. So I'll do it." BOOM action
Never once thinking "Is this a good idea?" "Will this hurt someone else?" "Do I need to do this?"
You walk into a room. There is strange machinery and bizarre devices littering the room. Light shines brightly from the ceiling, illuminating the glistening metallic instruments. You turn and see one large red circle. As you approach there is a sign above it: 'Do not press.' The large red circle is a glowing red button.
If you did not press the button, you have thought before you acted. Good job.
I'm getting off topic. This is about ME, not people; I'll bitch about their insanity in a different post.
Clearly I had to re-evaluate all my previous notions, that is if all my beliefs were based upon nothing. I believed that if those beliefs were rational, I would arrive at the same conclusions. I didn't (in most cases). I began structuring my entire belief system from the ground up, or as best as I could do. One would have to literally erase one's memory to obliterate the influence of those previous notions.
This difficult process taught me to open my mind. To any porblem there are always many solutions. To each theory there is always more information. no matter where I turned I found that people were making assumptions with insufficient information. I tried to tell me about this, to show them that they shouldn't be so quick to make such declarative statements with what little information they have.
Nobody listened. Out of all the people I have met there has only ever been one person who has listened to me and thought about what I said. Everyone else is so caught up with proving that they are right, that they only think about how to tell you you're wrong. Weirdly I mostly just try to question what they say, NOT tell them they're wrong, yet they act like I am attacking their beliefs (like their god-damn beliefs are soooo irreproachable).
So living in a world full of fools, I became arrogant. I became certain I was right. I became them. I became these people. I don't know how to go back. I don't want to think I'm right all the time. I know it's not true. But how do I fucking deal with people who just blabber bullshit. Every time someone opens their mouth I find myself sectioning out what's probably true and the bullshit (politicians are almost nothing but bullshit, kinda just like lawyers and judges).
FUUUUUUUUUUUCK ME!!!! I don't want to think I'm right, that I'm better. I do not want to be this person. I don't want to be around these lying, delusional, arrogant, naive, ignorant jack-asses. God, I can't wait till it's all over.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
DBA: a legal tool of fraud
I promised myself I wouldn't do this. I wouldn't start a blog where I ranted and raved like a two year old child about things that pissed me off. After all there's so much about the world that I don't know I could be throwing a temper tantrum without all the data. Like that's ever stopped anyone before.
DBA or "Doing Business As" is a legal term that allows a company to have more than one name. While the company is required to file these names with the government, they are not required to inform the customers/consumers in any way (except in California, where they are required to publish it in the local newspapers for some set period of time).
That means a company with $10-$50 can file for a fictious business name in order to operate multiple businesses without creating new legal entities. And since, apparently, documents and contracts signed with this fictious name are still legally binding, you, as a customer/consumer, have absolutely no idea what you are getting into when you sign any document with a business.
Since DBA are a legal tool and, as far as I can tell, the only way to find out a businesses DBA's are to search the name on the BBB, it is quite simple for a business to pose as any other business.
Recently I was screwed by an energy service provider (yes, ALWAYS read the fine details in a contract. Usually the phrases and sections that are the most unclear are attempts to fuck you over.). When they sent me a copy of the original contract, I noted that it was with a different company. By the time I was talking to a credit collection agency, they were telling me, same company. I paid it off (not much money and didn't want it to show up on my credit report).
In anger I searched their name on the BBB, originally to complain. But to my surprise, the original company I signed with was NOT listed as their DBA. Similar constructions exist, but in the world of the legal similar is not close enough.
[Ex. Business Company A, Inc. is not the same as Business Company A Corp.]
I have e-mailed them directly to see what kind rational legal excuse they offer. But if it is not sufficient...I'm going straight to the BBB and reporting them for fraud.
The 2 main arguements for DBA are:
1. Sole Proprietors - Individuals who do not want to use their name when conducting business. If you are doing so much business that you need a professional business name, you probably ought to be filing for an EIN and registering your business. Sure this is much cheaper and lets you use a typical business name (corp., LLC, partnership) without being one! Plus you can open up business accounts and get business phone listings! All while being an individual running a "business".
2. Businesses - Companies can practice their business without using their legal name. Why would you ever let a business do that? The claim is that it allows businesses to create a generic business name, and then more specific DBA's for the various regions the business expands to. Sounds like a big business to me.
The potential for a business to engage in fraud with "Doing Business As" names is exceptionally higher, than without. In this day when fraud and indentity theft are too common, difficult to protect against, and signficantly easier than before (10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc.), such a legal tool as a DBA seems at the very least highly suspect, and at worst unethical.
Thankfully when I'm dead, I wont have to worry about greedy leeches looking for ways to manipulate the system and take what they have not earned.
4/23/2013 UPDATE:
"A DBA (short for "doing business as") is simply an assumed or fictitious name that a business uses which is different than the true legal name of the business."
http://www.limitedliabilitycompanycenter.com/sole-proprietorship-vs-llc.html
So how can a legal document made by a fictitious name of a business be legally binding?
DBA or "Doing Business As" is a legal term that allows a company to have more than one name. While the company is required to file these names with the government, they are not required to inform the customers/consumers in any way (except in California, where they are required to publish it in the local newspapers for some set period of time).
That means a company with $10-$50 can file for a fictious business name in order to operate multiple businesses without creating new legal entities. And since, apparently, documents and contracts signed with this fictious name are still legally binding, you, as a customer/consumer, have absolutely no idea what you are getting into when you sign any document with a business.
Since DBA are a legal tool and, as far as I can tell, the only way to find out a businesses DBA's are to search the name on the BBB, it is quite simple for a business to pose as any other business.
Recently I was screwed by an energy service provider (yes, ALWAYS read the fine details in a contract. Usually the phrases and sections that are the most unclear are attempts to fuck you over.). When they sent me a copy of the original contract, I noted that it was with a different company. By the time I was talking to a credit collection agency, they were telling me, same company. I paid it off (not much money and didn't want it to show up on my credit report).
In anger I searched their name on the BBB, originally to complain. But to my surprise, the original company I signed with was NOT listed as their DBA. Similar constructions exist, but in the world of the legal similar is not close enough.
[Ex. Business Company A, Inc. is not the same as Business Company A Corp.]
I have e-mailed them directly to see what kind rational legal excuse they offer. But if it is not sufficient...I'm going straight to the BBB and reporting them for fraud.
The 2 main arguements for DBA are:
1. Sole Proprietors - Individuals who do not want to use their name when conducting business. If you are doing so much business that you need a professional business name, you probably ought to be filing for an EIN and registering your business. Sure this is much cheaper and lets you use a typical business name (corp., LLC, partnership) without being one! Plus you can open up business accounts and get business phone listings! All while being an individual running a "business".
2. Businesses - Companies can practice their business without using their legal name. Why would you ever let a business do that? The claim is that it allows businesses to create a generic business name, and then more specific DBA's for the various regions the business expands to. Sounds like a big business to me.
The potential for a business to engage in fraud with "Doing Business As" names is exceptionally higher, than without. In this day when fraud and indentity theft are too common, difficult to protect against, and signficantly easier than before (10 years ago, 20 years ago, 40 years ago, etc.), such a legal tool as a DBA seems at the very least highly suspect, and at worst unethical.
Thankfully when I'm dead, I wont have to worry about greedy leeches looking for ways to manipulate the system and take what they have not earned.
4/23/2013 UPDATE:
"A DBA (short for "doing business as") is simply an assumed or fictitious name that a business uses which is different than the true legal name of the business."
http://www.limitedliabilitycompanycenter.com/sole-proprietorship-vs-llc.html
So how can a legal document made by a fictitious name of a business be legally binding?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)