A whole lot of nothin'

Why isn't it spelled "wholistic"?

Did you see the story on USAToday.com about car loans? They now write them for seven years! How many people own a car for seven years? This seems way too similar to the predatory loans that some mortgage brokers wrote. If that is indeed the case, both the car buyer and the dealer writing the loan are going to lose. Will we end up paying for it?

Arizona, like many states, is currently experiencing a budget shortfall. The downturn in the economy has a broad range of ripple effects, and lower income for the state is one of them. Arizona's Governor Napalitano has proposed, yea is pushing, the installation of over 100 photo radar cameras to catch speeders on area freeways as a means of pumping money into the state coffers in order to help with the shortfall. The tickets pack a heavy punch!
My first reaction was "good idea!" Instead of higher taxes we put the burden on people who flagrantly break the law. Then I started reading some of the criticisms of the plan.
The goal of speeding tickets should be to reduce the incidence of speeding. It's all about public safety, right? But if the cameras are effective at getting people to obey the law and slow down, the budget loses the additional income. That would seem to be a flaw in the Governor's logic.
These cameras are expensive to install and to maintain. And they're not installed or maintained by the state. Nope, a private firm does that. They get both an up-front fee and a significant piece of each ticket issued. So now, the state and a private company have a vested interest in a high level of speeders; the income of both depends on it. This doesn't seem especially healthy for the public good.
Again, I don't have the answers, but I've come to see the issue as more complicated than it first appeared.

And we don't need cameras to catch speeders. At least not the off-duty Sheriff's deputy who was clocked doing 96 in a 45 zone at the wheel of his new Vette. But it's OK, 'cause he was racing another off-duty deputy.

I did desk work this morning, church stuff and bookkeeping. We have a little TV in the office/sewing room so I watched the hearings with McNamee and Clemmens on Capital Hill. Props to ESPN for showing them w/o any commercial interruptions. And it was the kind of drama you wouldn't want to miss for 30-second Viva Viagra spots!
A case can certainly be made that Congress is grandstanding by putting this much time and energy into something of no consequence to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness. That aside, the laws of logic still apply; two mutually exclusive statements can't both be true. Somebody at that table was lying. And I don't see any way in the world that Roger Clemmens' story holds up. I don't remember which congressman said it - could have been Waxman: "There are two men here giving contradictory statements. And I think the most believable man is Andy Pettite." That would be the same Andy Pettite who confirmed Clemmens' use of steroids.
Mr. Clemmens should be thankful I'm not on his jury.

Nebraska: Ask about our state motto contest.