President Bush made a speech tonight. He said we're staying in Iraq until the job is done. That doesn't surprise me. Nor am I watching the cable channels or reading the postmortem because I know what I'll hear, "Despite the polls showing declining support for the war in Iraq, President Bush said we'll keep our troops there, blah blah blah." But I will get my flag out for the Fourth and I'll see what else is on www.americasupportsyou.mil. I supported the War on Terror at the start (and it's not just Iraq as events in Afghanistan tragically proved today), and I'm going to follow through on it. I think I understand what's at stake.
However, I wonder sometimes if we're spending too much time and energy as conservatives worrying about fighting tyranny from without when we are losing our freedoms from within, given the Kelo v. New London decision. After tonight I do feel somewhat more assured about our staying to finish the Iraqi job, at least until early 2009. Anything less would be betrayal and probably spell doom for the GOP for a generation.
A follow-up on my Michael Steele post a few days back. Got to listen to him on the local radio this morning in an interview, and while he was coy enough to not say he's running for the Senate, you got to admit the signs are pointing that way. Given he got an important first endorsement from the Baltimore FOP, that's a segment of the public asking him to run. He was looking for that kind of assurance, and of course to see what kind of money he could raise. Talk to me, I'm willing to slip a Bennie or two in the campaign if you run. Like I said before, I like golf fundraisers.
Here's a news item that has me worried. I can just see the D's playing politics with this if we ever get in more trouble with China. (Seems like we're in enough considering they have missiles that use technology stolen from us pointed in our direction.) It's intriguing that the CNOOC (the ChiComm oil company looking to buy Unocal) hired TWO PR firms, including one linked to the Bush/Chaney campaign. Of course, for their part, CNOOC noted that Unocal's oil and gas production is less than 1% of America's total and that "substantially all" of Unocal's US-based workers would retain their jobs, the others being replaced by ChiComms specializing in industrial espionage. (Ok, I added the last part, but why would it not be true?)
That's one reason I attempt to steer away from Chinese-made goods when I can. It's hard to do, though. A good friend of mine works for a company in the wheelchair industry, and she's done the math regarding moving production of one of their products to China. Even with the cost of importing, they just can't do it domestically with the price of labor. So 120 U.S. workers, albeit mostly temporary, will be out of work, and somewhere in China they'll add another shift.
Additionally, the price of oil continues to climb in part because of Chinese demand. (Remember, the $60/barrel price of oil is that of the futures market, and their demand's slated to rise again).
To sum up: once we finish with the War on Terror, we may have another one on our hands. We may have a bunch of allies when it comes to Iraq, but if China invades Taiwan, not a lot of countries may be willing to join us on the front lines - if we go. Like 1984, once the war with Eurasia is over, we'll go to war with Eastasia.
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Sunday, June 26, 2005
Second daily dose
By six minutes (at least when I start this entry) you get a second dose today.
I did more reading and research this evening. One item that interested me while reading RealClearPolitics was a small article that was actually on Neal Boortz's website. I occasionally listen to his show here since he follows Rush in this market. He's definitely libertarian in his worldview, so generally I agree with him but not always. In this case, he was very much opposed to Thursday's Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, as was I.
One of the links in the story on his website was to the Castle Coalition, which is an advocacy organization dedicated to private property rights and the abuse of eminent domain. I added this link to my favorites and signed up to become a member (it's free, basically you get on the e-mail list and I'm sure they'll ask me for contributions every so often. I can handle that.) Actually, I had heard of them before, but they got pushed back in the old memory files for important stuff like whether the Polanco for Urbina trade with the Phillies was a good one for the Tigers (so far so good.)
But the eminent domain subject interests me because I'm thinking of getting into the real estate investment game. Actually, my uncle's family has done that rather successfully. Just need to decide whether I want to invest in raw land or something like a duplex.
But all of it could be for naught if the Supreme Court decision is allowed to stand in Maryland or Delaware. It was left up to states to pass legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain for private entities (like in New London.) Of course, the developers will spend big coin to fight it tooth and nail, as will entities such as Wal-Mart and Costco - "big box" retailers.
Being originally from Toledo, I'm familiar with one case that wiped out an entire middle-class neighborhood of 80 or so houses and a few businesses. When the Toledo North assembly plant was built for DaimlerChrysler to build Jeeps, they took out this neighborhood at the southwest corner of the site. Now, having seen the building as built, it's a good 300 yards at least from that building to where this neighborhood was. Apparently, this edge of the site is used as a truck entrance because it's close to I-75. But to me, it's a shame they knocked all that down; in fact, the final business left there was demolished last year even before they finally lost their court fight. The Jeep issue is still part of the undercurrent of Toledo politics, particularly again since the mayor at the time is considering running again after a four year hiatus (he was term-limited.) I remember questioning him about the Jeep deal and its cost to the city in a mayoral forum back in 1997. (He dodged my question adeptly.)
Now, I work in a business that is fueled by private development. But I want there to be a clear definition of what is public use. And, while we should strive for land's "highest and best use", there is a right for someone who happens to have made a lot of work and effort to have a piece of the American Dream to say, "no, I'm not interested in selling this to you simply because you as a government can make more revenue on what is MINE." There's a "reverse Robin Hood" element to the Kelo case; most of the reason the developer wanted the parcels was for their ocean view. I know it smacks of class envy, but the rich shouldn't be the only ones who get an ocean view. These people in New London were there first and earned it.
Progress is a good thing. But so is the sanctity of private property.
I did more reading and research this evening. One item that interested me while reading RealClearPolitics was a small article that was actually on Neal Boortz's website. I occasionally listen to his show here since he follows Rush in this market. He's definitely libertarian in his worldview, so generally I agree with him but not always. In this case, he was very much opposed to Thursday's Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, as was I.
One of the links in the story on his website was to the Castle Coalition, which is an advocacy organization dedicated to private property rights and the abuse of eminent domain. I added this link to my favorites and signed up to become a member (it's free, basically you get on the e-mail list and I'm sure they'll ask me for contributions every so often. I can handle that.) Actually, I had heard of them before, but they got pushed back in the old memory files for important stuff like whether the Polanco for Urbina trade with the Phillies was a good one for the Tigers (so far so good.)
But the eminent domain subject interests me because I'm thinking of getting into the real estate investment game. Actually, my uncle's family has done that rather successfully. Just need to decide whether I want to invest in raw land or something like a duplex.
But all of it could be for naught if the Supreme Court decision is allowed to stand in Maryland or Delaware. It was left up to states to pass legislation to prohibit the use of eminent domain for private entities (like in New London.) Of course, the developers will spend big coin to fight it tooth and nail, as will entities such as Wal-Mart and Costco - "big box" retailers.
Being originally from Toledo, I'm familiar with one case that wiped out an entire middle-class neighborhood of 80 or so houses and a few businesses. When the Toledo North assembly plant was built for DaimlerChrysler to build Jeeps, they took out this neighborhood at the southwest corner of the site. Now, having seen the building as built, it's a good 300 yards at least from that building to where this neighborhood was. Apparently, this edge of the site is used as a truck entrance because it's close to I-75. But to me, it's a shame they knocked all that down; in fact, the final business left there was demolished last year even before they finally lost their court fight. The Jeep issue is still part of the undercurrent of Toledo politics, particularly again since the mayor at the time is considering running again after a four year hiatus (he was term-limited.) I remember questioning him about the Jeep deal and its cost to the city in a mayoral forum back in 1997. (He dodged my question adeptly.)
Now, I work in a business that is fueled by private development. But I want there to be a clear definition of what is public use. And, while we should strive for land's "highest and best use", there is a right for someone who happens to have made a lot of work and effort to have a piece of the American Dream to say, "no, I'm not interested in selling this to you simply because you as a government can make more revenue on what is MINE." There's a "reverse Robin Hood" element to the Kelo case; most of the reason the developer wanted the parcels was for their ocean view. I know it smacks of class envy, but the rich shouldn't be the only ones who get an ocean view. These people in New London were there first and earned it.
Progress is a good thing. But so is the sanctity of private property.
Saturday, June 25, 2005
Back in ink
What do you know, the Daily Times published my response to their June 19 editorial yesterday. And they managed not to butcher it, just changing a couple phrases around and reformatting paragraphs. Editor's discretion there, I write like I talk. The meaning is still there.
Interesting that my response comes in the same paper as a military-related editorial. Our Congressman (Wayne Gilchrest, Republican, MD-1) has decided to add his support to a bill allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. (Interestingly enough, I linked to the editorial rather than his website.)
Strange, the Daily Times makes a bigger deal of it than he does, probably for two reasons. Number one, he's likely aware that a majority of his constituents are against gays in the military, and number two, it's an instance where, to the editorial writer, a member of the GOP has "grown" and is an "independent thinker" because he doesn't hew to the party line. (Full disclosure: I haven't been down here long enough to see the DT's reaction to where a Democrat strays from the party's voting pattern on an issue. Maybe that's because it almost never happens!)
I'm just not comfortable with openly gay people in the military. In an environment where privacy is at a premium and most living circumstances are gender-only, it's likely to be somewhat of a distraction to have a situation where two guys (or ladies) are having a relationship. I know it happens between guys and girls in the military, but there's supposed to be rules against fraternization. (However, I've never served in the military, perhaps a reader can set me straight on regulations and how they're followed in reality.)
The military has its own set of regulations and separate justice system for a reason - it's a place where by necessity, the well-being of the group trumps individual rights. Discipline and rigid regulation are necessary for success on the battlefield. One has to know that all members of the team are pulling in the same direction. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, "the military exists to kill people and break things."
It's no problem in civilian life for an "Adam and Steve" or "Annie and Eve" relationship to occur as the parties know the ramifications and generally those are brought only upon themselves. But gays and lesbians in the military create an unneeded distraction from the mission of a unit. While we may lose good soldiers from time to time, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a much better fallback position than letting soldiers serve openly.
As for my letter, no flames today in the Grapevine section or on anyone else's letter. However, I know these things run a few days behind, so I'll be looking for peacenik whining tomorrow or most likely next week. Maybe they're saving any of that for Tuesday, which is "independence day" in Iraq. June 28, 2004 was the date of the Iraqi government's birth, occurring two days early to foil any terrorist plans for disruption.
It will be intriguing to see reaction to what President Bush will have to say on Tuesday regarding this. He needs his "bully pulpit" now as much as ever.
Interesting that my response comes in the same paper as a military-related editorial. Our Congressman (Wayne Gilchrest, Republican, MD-1) has decided to add his support to a bill allowing homosexuals to serve in the military. (Interestingly enough, I linked to the editorial rather than his website.)
Strange, the Daily Times makes a bigger deal of it than he does, probably for two reasons. Number one, he's likely aware that a majority of his constituents are against gays in the military, and number two, it's an instance where, to the editorial writer, a member of the GOP has "grown" and is an "independent thinker" because he doesn't hew to the party line. (Full disclosure: I haven't been down here long enough to see the DT's reaction to where a Democrat strays from the party's voting pattern on an issue. Maybe that's because it almost never happens!)
I'm just not comfortable with openly gay people in the military. In an environment where privacy is at a premium and most living circumstances are gender-only, it's likely to be somewhat of a distraction to have a situation where two guys (or ladies) are having a relationship. I know it happens between guys and girls in the military, but there's supposed to be rules against fraternization. (However, I've never served in the military, perhaps a reader can set me straight on regulations and how they're followed in reality.)
The military has its own set of regulations and separate justice system for a reason - it's a place where by necessity, the well-being of the group trumps individual rights. Discipline and rigid regulation are necessary for success on the battlefield. One has to know that all members of the team are pulling in the same direction. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, "the military exists to kill people and break things."
It's no problem in civilian life for an "Adam and Steve" or "Annie and Eve" relationship to occur as the parties know the ramifications and generally those are brought only upon themselves. But gays and lesbians in the military create an unneeded distraction from the mission of a unit. While we may lose good soldiers from time to time, the "don't ask, don't tell" policy is a much better fallback position than letting soldiers serve openly.
As for my letter, no flames today in the Grapevine section or on anyone else's letter. However, I know these things run a few days behind, so I'll be looking for peacenik whining tomorrow or most likely next week. Maybe they're saving any of that for Tuesday, which is "independence day" in Iraq. June 28, 2004 was the date of the Iraqi government's birth, occurring two days early to foil any terrorist plans for disruption.
It will be intriguing to see reaction to what President Bush will have to say on Tuesday regarding this. He needs his "bully pulpit" now as much as ever.
Thursday, June 23, 2005
Pea soup
Today's blog named because it's a mish-mash without a lot of clear direction. Tonight was the night I picked to catch up on some reading. So a couple items jumped out at me.
News item: Bush to Consider Social Security Plan That Does Not Include Private Accounts. Then why bother reforming it? Wasn't the whole idea of an "Ownership Society" to have ownership?!? The thing to do here is tell the GOP to grow some gonads and get this thing passed. Unfortunately, I don't happen to have millions to counter the lies and bullshit spread by the D's and the 527 groups. (I liked the photo on the website I picked out, an inflatable monkey flanked by what has got to be union stooges being paid to stand there and hold signs. Come to think of it, a lot of union work is standing around.) I want TRUE reform, not another Band-Aid.
In the "Sometimes Maryland Gets It Right" Department: A federal district court ruled today that a Ten Commandments display in a park in Frederick is constitutional. Wish the article had said how the court ruled, interested to know how the judges ruled individually vis-a-vis Bush/Reagan appointees vs. Clinton/Carter appointees.
Speaking of courts, I find it interesting that the Washington Times doesn't have anything on today's terrible Supreme Court decision but the Baltimore Sun does. So, now it's all right for a local government entity to go ahead and take MY property (speaking in a figurative sense since I live in an apartment right now) and put what THEY consider a "better" use on it, at my loss (since it wasn't at a fair value to me), and to enrich someone else's personal pocket. Roger Hedgecock was all over that today. But I can see the Sun wanting to trumpet that since it was their liberal buddies on the court that were the majority. (In fact, in reading this, I see the city of Baltimore filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case on the side of New London, Connecticut against the homeowners.) More than ever, it's time for the representatives in our legislative branch to rein in this judiciary.
Finally, the Wal-Mart saga hit the news again...sort of. Using the company liberals love to hate as their target, Ted Kennedy saw fit to introduce the so-called "Health Care Accountability Act." (Gee, a nice picture of still MORE union thugs standing around.) This extra batch of red tape would mandate states to generate a report each year to show where companies have 50 employees or more on government-funded health care. Generally this targets Wal-Mart, where a large number of employees are older (think of the "greeter" for example) and are most likely on Medicare. It's not hard then to imagine that Wal-Mart, having a high number of "golden agers" as employees, would rank high up on the scale of employees getting government-funded health care. If you're over 65, you get Medicare, need it or not. But it counts (in the unions' eyes) as ripping off the government.
So today, the pea soup was flowing and things get muddier in the country by the day. We'll see what bombshells fall tomorrow.
News item: Bush to Consider Social Security Plan That Does Not Include Private Accounts. Then why bother reforming it? Wasn't the whole idea of an "Ownership Society" to have ownership?!? The thing to do here is tell the GOP to grow some gonads and get this thing passed. Unfortunately, I don't happen to have millions to counter the lies and bullshit spread by the D's and the 527 groups. (I liked the photo on the website I picked out, an inflatable monkey flanked by what has got to be union stooges being paid to stand there and hold signs. Come to think of it, a lot of union work is standing around.) I want TRUE reform, not another Band-Aid.
In the "Sometimes Maryland Gets It Right" Department: A federal district court ruled today that a Ten Commandments display in a park in Frederick is constitutional. Wish the article had said how the court ruled, interested to know how the judges ruled individually vis-a-vis Bush/Reagan appointees vs. Clinton/Carter appointees.
Speaking of courts, I find it interesting that the Washington Times doesn't have anything on today's terrible Supreme Court decision but the Baltimore Sun does. So, now it's all right for a local government entity to go ahead and take MY property (speaking in a figurative sense since I live in an apartment right now) and put what THEY consider a "better" use on it, at my loss (since it wasn't at a fair value to me), and to enrich someone else's personal pocket. Roger Hedgecock was all over that today. But I can see the Sun wanting to trumpet that since it was their liberal buddies on the court that were the majority. (In fact, in reading this, I see the city of Baltimore filed a "friend of the court" brief in the case on the side of New London, Connecticut against the homeowners.) More than ever, it's time for the representatives in our legislative branch to rein in this judiciary.
Finally, the Wal-Mart saga hit the news again...sort of. Using the company liberals love to hate as their target, Ted Kennedy saw fit to introduce the so-called "Health Care Accountability Act." (Gee, a nice picture of still MORE union thugs standing around.) This extra batch of red tape would mandate states to generate a report each year to show where companies have 50 employees or more on government-funded health care. Generally this targets Wal-Mart, where a large number of employees are older (think of the "greeter" for example) and are most likely on Medicare. It's not hard then to imagine that Wal-Mart, having a high number of "golden agers" as employees, would rank high up on the scale of employees getting government-funded health care. If you're over 65, you get Medicare, need it or not. But it counts (in the unions' eyes) as ripping off the government.
So today, the pea soup was flowing and things get muddier in the country by the day. We'll see what bombshells fall tomorrow.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
Ok, now I'm pissed
I got annoyed with the whining tone of this editorial in the Daily Times yesterday. Surprisingly, I thought my reply was pretty civil and not as snarky as I thought I'd be. This is what I wrote back:
Re: "Positive news needed from Iraq", June 19
William Tecumseh Sherman reminded us that "war is hell." We should have known that fighting the War on Terror would not be a pleasant duty, but a duty we needed to undertake after we were brutally attacked on 9-11.
The tides of battle ebb and flow. Right now, it may appear to the casual observer that we are losing. Sadly, even some in Congress have fallen into that trap of thinking we're in the throes of defeat. Part of the reason is the drumbeat of negative news that we're subjected to, including some in the subject editorial. Yes, we've lost 1,700 brave men and women who volunteered to fight for freedom and democracy.
But polls that become the news - are they really polls or editorial comments disguised as polls and slickly packaged? After a torrent of negativity, it's obvious that opinion would shift to the desired negative result. If you only read and listen to the "mainstream media" you would suspect we are not winning the war. Never mind that we take out many more of the terrorists in Iraq (many of whom are Iranian and Saudi nationals) than we lose, and we have rebuilt Iraq's schools and electrical infrastructure to a point where most of the country outside Baghdad enjoys a better standard of living than they had under Saddam Hussein.
It was noted that "Republican members of Congress are beginning to voice concerns." There are three noted in the editorial. Out of almost 300 Republicans in Congress, the vast majority who support the war and its aims, the mainstream media found three who are wavering in their support and trumpeted it. No quote from a Republican who still thinks we're winning - and far be it for the media to search for a pro-war Democrat. (There has to be at least one! It would be bigger news than finding a squishy moderate on the GOP side.)
Here is a quote from another local Republican: "America, be patient, and believe in our goal: to spread freedom, decency, and the principles that made our country great to places in the world that haven't yet experienced the God-given right to live freely and unencumbered by tyranny." That Republican is me, and if the Associated Press decides to call my number I will tell them that yes! I support the War on Terror and our troops. We won't take a step forward every day, and we might get knocked on our heels every so often, but the only thing that stops us is our will to win. If we don't want another Viet Nam, believe in our troops and our mission.
Damn straight. Publish this letter. I want to see somebody rag on this - oh please, I want to see just how many wussy appeaser peaceniks live in my area. I could tell them if you want peace, move to Canada...besides, didn't half the D's vow to move to that or another socialist paradise like France anyway? Yes, you Alec Baldwin.
Aaaaaahhhhh...I feel better. Now I'll just wait for the call that confirms I wrote the letter and hopefully they'll have the smarts to print it.
Re: "Positive news needed from Iraq", June 19
William Tecumseh Sherman reminded us that "war is hell." We should have known that fighting the War on Terror would not be a pleasant duty, but a duty we needed to undertake after we were brutally attacked on 9-11.
The tides of battle ebb and flow. Right now, it may appear to the casual observer that we are losing. Sadly, even some in Congress have fallen into that trap of thinking we're in the throes of defeat. Part of the reason is the drumbeat of negative news that we're subjected to, including some in the subject editorial. Yes, we've lost 1,700 brave men and women who volunteered to fight for freedom and democracy.
But polls that become the news - are they really polls or editorial comments disguised as polls and slickly packaged? After a torrent of negativity, it's obvious that opinion would shift to the desired negative result. If you only read and listen to the "mainstream media" you would suspect we are not winning the war. Never mind that we take out many more of the terrorists in Iraq (many of whom are Iranian and Saudi nationals) than we lose, and we have rebuilt Iraq's schools and electrical infrastructure to a point where most of the country outside Baghdad enjoys a better standard of living than they had under Saddam Hussein.
It was noted that "Republican members of Congress are beginning to voice concerns." There are three noted in the editorial. Out of almost 300 Republicans in Congress, the vast majority who support the war and its aims, the mainstream media found three who are wavering in their support and trumpeted it. No quote from a Republican who still thinks we're winning - and far be it for the media to search for a pro-war Democrat. (There has to be at least one! It would be bigger news than finding a squishy moderate on the GOP side.)
Here is a quote from another local Republican: "America, be patient, and believe in our goal: to spread freedom, decency, and the principles that made our country great to places in the world that haven't yet experienced the God-given right to live freely and unencumbered by tyranny." That Republican is me, and if the Associated Press decides to call my number I will tell them that yes! I support the War on Terror and our troops. We won't take a step forward every day, and we might get knocked on our heels every so often, but the only thing that stops us is our will to win. If we don't want another Viet Nam, believe in our troops and our mission.
Damn straight. Publish this letter. I want to see somebody rag on this - oh please, I want to see just how many wussy appeaser peaceniks live in my area. I could tell them if you want peace, move to Canada...besides, didn't half the D's vow to move to that or another socialist paradise like France anyway? Yes, you Alec Baldwin.
Aaaaaahhhhh...I feel better. Now I'll just wait for the call that confirms I wrote the letter and hopefully they'll have the smarts to print it.
Letter from the guv
This will be the first of two posts tonight. Since the subjects are different and deserve special mention, I'll do two for the price of one.
Got a letter from Governor Ehrlich today and it was very interesting. If you look back and read my April 15 entry (named, appropriately, "Letter to the guv"), you'll find that I wrote Governor Ehrlich regarding two things: urging a veto of the Fair Share Health Act and a veto of a bill raising the minimum wage. I also made a comment about state lands, but wasn't expecting any comment on that.
Well, I got it back and it was solely about the minimum wage. Guess I should have expected a form letter, think that's what I got:
Dear Mr. Swartz:
Thank you for contacting me regarding my veto of House Bill 391 - Labor and Employment - Minimum Wage - Increase. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you regarding this important matter.
First, raising the minimum wage in Maryland without raising the federal minimum wage is a bad decision that elevates politics over economics and ultimately hurts the people it claims to help. Raising the minimum wage harms most severely those government should help the most - the least skilled and least educated in our workforce. In fact, more than half of minimum wage workers nationally are of high school or college age, and minimum wage jobs for them are a means by which to enter the labor market and acquire skills necessary for career advancement.
Employers have few options to recover the increased costs imposed by government. They can either pass along these new costs to consumers or they can cut their costs by firing their employees. Given our close proximity to Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, all of which still follow the federal wage rate, the State of Maryland would be at a competitive disadvantage when competing to attract and retain businesses. Likewise, Maryland employers would have higher labor costs than neighboring states and would be at a significant competitive disadvantage when competing for new business.
This may most adversely affect small businesses, which often can only afford to pay their employees the minimum wage (or slightly above it) in order to stay in business. These Maryland small businesses do not have the resources to absorb yet another government mandate, and since their customers would be free to choose products from cheaper competitors located in neighboring states they will most likely have to fire employees to stay afloat.
Second, for the first time in Maryland history, the Legislative Branch is seeking to sever Maryland's minimum wage from the federal minimum wage. This action sets a dangerous precedent that disrupts the marketplace as businesses face the uncertainty of whether Congress, the Maryland General Assembly, or both will enact the next wage increase, or tackle any other business issue, such as mandating minimum spending on health care.
I believe that each working person deserves an appropriate wage that reflects his or her work, skill level, and productivity. Accordingly, I believe employment and education provide the necessary foundation for future success in life. Raising the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for those who need it most, thereby limiting an individual's training, experience, and skills.
Thank you again for your letter. If I may be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor
Actually, when I reread it again (as I type it), he (or whoever actually wrote the letter) made some pretty compelling (if standard) arguments. I did like the dig at "mandating minimum spending on health care."
The thing that I would point out to Governor Ehrlich is that, since you don't want "yet another government mandate", let's propose that we eliminate more of them! I can think of one that annoys me every time I go to a ballgame: somebody's bright idea to spend money on a billboard, buttons on the employees, and a program ad to "strike out tobacco." Now I don't smoke and I have asthma. If they don't allow smoking, that's cool. But why spend that money to discourage smoking, especially since it's the sale of tobacco that helps tax revenues in Maryland?
Anyway, I appreciate that he wrote me back. Nice to know they take a moment to listen to the citzens.
Got a letter from Governor Ehrlich today and it was very interesting. If you look back and read my April 15 entry (named, appropriately, "Letter to the guv"), you'll find that I wrote Governor Ehrlich regarding two things: urging a veto of the Fair Share Health Act and a veto of a bill raising the minimum wage. I also made a comment about state lands, but wasn't expecting any comment on that.
Well, I got it back and it was solely about the minimum wage. Guess I should have expected a form letter, think that's what I got:
Dear Mr. Swartz:
Thank you for contacting me regarding my veto of House Bill 391 - Labor and Employment - Minimum Wage - Increase. I appreciate the opportunity to respond to you regarding this important matter.
First, raising the minimum wage in Maryland without raising the federal minimum wage is a bad decision that elevates politics over economics and ultimately hurts the people it claims to help. Raising the minimum wage harms most severely those government should help the most - the least skilled and least educated in our workforce. In fact, more than half of minimum wage workers nationally are of high school or college age, and minimum wage jobs for them are a means by which to enter the labor market and acquire skills necessary for career advancement.
Employers have few options to recover the increased costs imposed by government. They can either pass along these new costs to consumers or they can cut their costs by firing their employees. Given our close proximity to Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, all of which still follow the federal wage rate, the State of Maryland would be at a competitive disadvantage when competing to attract and retain businesses. Likewise, Maryland employers would have higher labor costs than neighboring states and would be at a significant competitive disadvantage when competing for new business.
This may most adversely affect small businesses, which often can only afford to pay their employees the minimum wage (or slightly above it) in order to stay in business. These Maryland small businesses do not have the resources to absorb yet another government mandate, and since their customers would be free to choose products from cheaper competitors located in neighboring states they will most likely have to fire employees to stay afloat.
Second, for the first time in Maryland history, the Legislative Branch is seeking to sever Maryland's minimum wage from the federal minimum wage. This action sets a dangerous precedent that disrupts the marketplace as businesses face the uncertainty of whether Congress, the Maryland General Assembly, or both will enact the next wage increase, or tackle any other business issue, such as mandating minimum spending on health care.
I believe that each working person deserves an appropriate wage that reflects his or her work, skill level, and productivity. Accordingly, I believe employment and education provide the necessary foundation for future success in life. Raising the minimum wage reduces employment opportunities for those who need it most, thereby limiting an individual's training, experience, and skills.
Thank you again for your letter. If I may be of further assistance on this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
Governor
Actually, when I reread it again (as I type it), he (or whoever actually wrote the letter) made some pretty compelling (if standard) arguments. I did like the dig at "mandating minimum spending on health care."
The thing that I would point out to Governor Ehrlich is that, since you don't want "yet another government mandate", let's propose that we eliminate more of them! I can think of one that annoys me every time I go to a ballgame: somebody's bright idea to spend money on a billboard, buttons on the employees, and a program ad to "strike out tobacco." Now I don't smoke and I have asthma. If they don't allow smoking, that's cool. But why spend that money to discourage smoking, especially since it's the sale of tobacco that helps tax revenues in Maryland?
Anyway, I appreciate that he wrote me back. Nice to know they take a moment to listen to the citzens.
Monday, June 20, 2005
The other passion (standings report)
Well, today is as good as any for a standings update for my teams:
The Delmarva Shorebirds (my hometown team, low-A Orioles affiliate) finished their first half with a 30-40 record, 12 games out in the South Atlantic League's Northern Division.
Toledo (my old hometown team, AAA team of the Tigers) is 40-28 in the International League's West Division, 2 1/2 games out but they lead the IL wildcard race by .002 over the hated Columbus Clippers. Tonight they're beating Ottawa 10-2 late, Columbus is up 3-2 on Scranton in the 9th as well.
And the Tigers enjoy an off day at 33-33, 12 games back of the White Sox but only 4 1/2 back of Minnesota for the wild card. This is the latest they have been at .500 since September of 2000. That was when what I call the "curse of Al Gore" started.
On September 6, 2000, the Tigers were possibly the hottest team in the big leagues. After being left for dead in early August with a 52-60 record, they went on an 18-7 surge to put themselves 5 games back in the wild card hunt, picking up 4 1/2 games in the stretch.
It was that day that Al Gore came to pitch batting practice at the invitation of fellow Tennesseean Phil Garner, the Tigers manager at the time.
That night, they lost to the Anaheim Angels 1-0, managing only 2 hits in the process. It was the start of a 6 game losing streak that eventually stretched to losing 9 of 10 - after that, their playoff hopes and chance to get a .500 season for the first time since 1993 were about expired. They would finish 79-83 in 2000, slumping to 66-96, 55-106, and that horrible 43-119 season over the next three years.
Much as Al Gore in 2000, the Tigers just kept finding ways to lose when it counted.
Now, I'm not sure how manager Alan Trammell leans politically, but I'm hoping that the longer President Bush is in office, the less this curse remains in effect. Tiger owner (and pizza magnate) Mike Ilitch is definitely a switch-hitter politically, although maybe it's a question of whether free pizza is a political contribution. (He has some interesting contribution amounts on opensecrets.org.)
All I hope is that my Tigers can keep up their good work this season. The Olde English "D" is basically about the only "D" I want to succeed, the ones on the ballot can be losers like Al Gore.
Late edit: baseball history courtesy of retrosheet.org - one of my favorite non-political websites!
The Delmarva Shorebirds (my hometown team, low-A Orioles affiliate) finished their first half with a 30-40 record, 12 games out in the South Atlantic League's Northern Division.
Toledo (my old hometown team, AAA team of the Tigers) is 40-28 in the International League's West Division, 2 1/2 games out but they lead the IL wildcard race by .002 over the hated Columbus Clippers. Tonight they're beating Ottawa 10-2 late, Columbus is up 3-2 on Scranton in the 9th as well.
And the Tigers enjoy an off day at 33-33, 12 games back of the White Sox but only 4 1/2 back of Minnesota for the wild card. This is the latest they have been at .500 since September of 2000. That was when what I call the "curse of Al Gore" started.
On September 6, 2000, the Tigers were possibly the hottest team in the big leagues. After being left for dead in early August with a 52-60 record, they went on an 18-7 surge to put themselves 5 games back in the wild card hunt, picking up 4 1/2 games in the stretch.
It was that day that Al Gore came to pitch batting practice at the invitation of fellow Tennesseean Phil Garner, the Tigers manager at the time.
That night, they lost to the Anaheim Angels 1-0, managing only 2 hits in the process. It was the start of a 6 game losing streak that eventually stretched to losing 9 of 10 - after that, their playoff hopes and chance to get a .500 season for the first time since 1993 were about expired. They would finish 79-83 in 2000, slumping to 66-96, 55-106, and that horrible 43-119 season over the next three years.
Much as Al Gore in 2000, the Tigers just kept finding ways to lose when it counted.
Now, I'm not sure how manager Alan Trammell leans politically, but I'm hoping that the longer President Bush is in office, the less this curse remains in effect. Tiger owner (and pizza magnate) Mike Ilitch is definitely a switch-hitter politically, although maybe it's a question of whether free pizza is a political contribution. (He has some interesting contribution amounts on opensecrets.org.)
All I hope is that my Tigers can keep up their good work this season. The Olde English "D" is basically about the only "D" I want to succeed, the ones on the ballot can be losers like Al Gore.
Late edit: baseball history courtesy of retrosheet.org - one of my favorite non-political websites!
Sunday, June 19, 2005
Birth control (of a nation)
Sometimes inspiration comes from the strangest sources. I was at work today, placing nose firmly to the grindstone, when I heard my boss talking to somebody today about Iraq and the proposal to pull our troops out. He had a good point that I agree with - since we were in Germany and Japan first, shouldn't we pull out of there? The threat from the Nazis and the Chrysanthemum Throne has long since passed. It took us almost a decade to withdraw from Serbia, and that was a country harboring no threat to us, simply the UN's desire to stop "ethnic cleansing." (I noticed that occurred with VERY little fanfare, since I thought we were still there!)
So why the hurry to get out of Iraq? Now, maybe Bush can pull a Clinton and say that the troops will be home by Christmas, just not specify which year. But I look for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, simply because it's the place close to our biggest threat. After World War 2, we left a forward guard in Germany and other places scattered around Europe because the Soviet Union was our biggest threat. I remember John Kerry didn't want those troops pulled out last year when it was an issue. But I'll bet he's right there wanting a date certain for our withdrawal from Iraq.
If we give a date to pull out early, it's just common sense that the enemy will lay low unless we have defeated them thoroughly. In WW2, we stuck around after the enemy was defeated and are still there. In Korea, we still are there because the enemy wasn't defeated, it's only a truce. So the enemy still sits and awaits the day we leave, and they rattle a saber once in awhile.
In Viet Nam, we turned tail and months later the enemy won. Fortunately, the domino effect didn't occur like we feared, but Viet Nam is still a Communist nation and millions were slaughtered in Cambodia in the decade after we left.
When we defeat the enemy totally, we can leave. We had successes in the 1980's ousting Marxists in Grenada and Nicaragua, and extracting Manuel Noriega from Panama. We do not sit in any of those countries now, and they're no threat anymore. A success in anyone's book.
Thus, it follows given these examples that it's in our best interest to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan. If for no other logical reason, is it not better to fight and kill the enemy someplace else rather than here? They are now the ones bringing the fight to us over there in Iraq. When they are defeated, the Islamic jihadists will have given their lives in vain defending an archaic system and fanatical subsect of an otherwise respectable religion.
On the other hand, if we do leave Iraq like we did Southeast Asia, the fledgling Republic of Iraq will be overrun by a sea of militants from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and either we'll be thrown back in again to save them or they will perish into an Iranian-style tyranny. The Iraqi nation, reborn under our wing, will be aborted.
Come to think of it, since the Democrats are pro-choice, their Iraq position now makes perfect sense.
So why the hurry to get out of Iraq? Now, maybe Bush can pull a Clinton and say that the troops will be home by Christmas, just not specify which year. But I look for a continued U.S. presence in Iraq, simply because it's the place close to our biggest threat. After World War 2, we left a forward guard in Germany and other places scattered around Europe because the Soviet Union was our biggest threat. I remember John Kerry didn't want those troops pulled out last year when it was an issue. But I'll bet he's right there wanting a date certain for our withdrawal from Iraq.
If we give a date to pull out early, it's just common sense that the enemy will lay low unless we have defeated them thoroughly. In WW2, we stuck around after the enemy was defeated and are still there. In Korea, we still are there because the enemy wasn't defeated, it's only a truce. So the enemy still sits and awaits the day we leave, and they rattle a saber once in awhile.
In Viet Nam, we turned tail and months later the enemy won. Fortunately, the domino effect didn't occur like we feared, but Viet Nam is still a Communist nation and millions were slaughtered in Cambodia in the decade after we left.
When we defeat the enemy totally, we can leave. We had successes in the 1980's ousting Marxists in Grenada and Nicaragua, and extracting Manuel Noriega from Panama. We do not sit in any of those countries now, and they're no threat anymore. A success in anyone's book.
Thus, it follows given these examples that it's in our best interest to stay the course in Iraq and Afghanistan. If for no other logical reason, is it not better to fight and kill the enemy someplace else rather than here? They are now the ones bringing the fight to us over there in Iraq. When they are defeated, the Islamic jihadists will have given their lives in vain defending an archaic system and fanatical subsect of an otherwise respectable religion.
On the other hand, if we do leave Iraq like we did Southeast Asia, the fledgling Republic of Iraq will be overrun by a sea of militants from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, and either we'll be thrown back in again to save them or they will perish into an Iranian-style tyranny. The Iraqi nation, reborn under our wing, will be aborted.
Come to think of it, since the Democrats are pro-choice, their Iraq position now makes perfect sense.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Opposition research
Couple of things tonight. Got to thinking about the old hometown so I decided to see how Coingate was percolating. And thanks to the Toledo Blade and its incessant coverage of the story, it continues to bubble away. If only they looked into Toledo's generally corrupt city government (run by their Demo buddies) the same way. By my count, it's up to 119 Coingate articles in the 85 days since they broke the story. The only day they skipped a Coingate story since May 10 was June 6th. I think they desperately want to assure themselves another Pulitzer by bringing down at least the state GOP and possibly even a president.
And then I looked back here, just to see what the D's were whining about now. Seems that Gov. Ehrlich has decided to basically zero out the budget of the agency that enforces some of the wage laws, including the so-called "prevailing wage" (which is a fiction created for the construction unions during the Depression.) As they should, the Associated Building Contractors are all for this, to wit (from the Baltimore Sun Thursday):
Michael Henderson, president of the Baltimore-area chapter of Associated Building Contractors, praised Ehrlich's decision to shut down the prevailing wage office.
Skilled construction workers are in demand, he said, and they don't need the wage protections afforded by the law. But because of the unions' influence in the legislature, the governor could never succeed in getting the law repealed, he said.
Not enforcing the law is the next best thing, Henderson said. "When we first heard about it, it was, 'Wow.' It really took us by surprise. It was brilliant," Henderson said. "If he's able to do this, the state is going to get a lot more bang for its construction dollar and without hurting construction workers in the slightest."
And he's absolutely right. It works with Ohio schools as well (Ohio Revised Code 4115.04 exempts school construction from prevailing wage laws, saving the state millions in what has been nearly $1 billion in school construction over the last decade.)
To play nitpicker, I think Andrew Green (Sun writer and author of the article) needs to get out a basic thesaurus and find synonyms for "said" like stated, remarked, commented, exclaimed, etc. He used the word "said" four times in the quote! I'm just a blogger and I try not to use the same terms over and over again.
But this is what our not-so-loyal opposition (hello, Senator Durbin) is up to.
And then I looked back here, just to see what the D's were whining about now. Seems that Gov. Ehrlich has decided to basically zero out the budget of the agency that enforces some of the wage laws, including the so-called "prevailing wage" (which is a fiction created for the construction unions during the Depression.) As they should, the Associated Building Contractors are all for this, to wit (from the Baltimore Sun Thursday):
Michael Henderson, president of the Baltimore-area chapter of Associated Building Contractors, praised Ehrlich's decision to shut down the prevailing wage office.
Skilled construction workers are in demand, he said, and they don't need the wage protections afforded by the law. But because of the unions' influence in the legislature, the governor could never succeed in getting the law repealed, he said.
Not enforcing the law is the next best thing, Henderson said. "When we first heard about it, it was, 'Wow.' It really took us by surprise. It was brilliant," Henderson said. "If he's able to do this, the state is going to get a lot more bang for its construction dollar and without hurting construction workers in the slightest."
And he's absolutely right. It works with Ohio schools as well (Ohio Revised Code 4115.04 exempts school construction from prevailing wage laws, saving the state millions in what has been nearly $1 billion in school construction over the last decade.)
To play nitpicker, I think Andrew Green (Sun writer and author of the article) needs to get out a basic thesaurus and find synonyms for "said" like stated, remarked, commented, exclaimed, etc. He used the word "said" four times in the quote! I'm just a blogger and I try not to use the same terms over and over again.
But this is what our not-so-loyal opposition (hello, Senator Durbin) is up to.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Will he or won't he?
According to a Baltimore Sun article, it sounds like Lieutenant Governor Steele is going to throw his hat in the ring for the United States Senate seat vacated by the retirement of Senator (and Eastern Shore native) Paul Sarbanes. I guess the question is - if not him, then who? I would guess the distant #2 is State Sen. E.J. Pipkin, who lost to Barb Mikulski in 2004.
I liked this comment though:
"Steele is more conservative on social and moral issues than Ehrlich and many Marylanders. He opposes the death penalty, as well as abortion rights."
Interesting juxtaposition since most conservatives I know support the death penalty, although I can buy the argument for one to be both anti-capital punishment and pro-life. I'm not sure what that will get him in the U.S. Senate, though. Maybe a better place to affect change on those issues would be the judicial system, at least in this day and age. Now if he can start to rein in the judiciary as is the proper role of the legislative branch (as outlined in the Constitution) from a Senate seat, that may be newsworthy. And I notice it's "many" Marylanders, but not a majority, otherwise I'm sure the liberal powers-that-be at the Sun would have stated so.
Guess I better get the checkbook out, I need to put myself on the rolls of opensecrets.org. I'm already in followthemoney.org for contributions I made in Ohio (to Ohio Supreme Court candidate Terrence O'Donnell in 2000.) I'm sure there's going to be a fundraiser of some sort in Wicomico County. (I'm partial to golf scrambles.)
I tell you, like bees to a field full of blooming flowers, open seats attract a lot of politicians. I also heard about a race in Ohio that could be a harbinger of events in 2006. Ohio's 2nd Congressional district had a primary yesterday to replace outgoing Rep. Rob Portman. In what is probably a pretty safe Republican district, Mike DeWine's son Pat (a Hamilton County commissioner, Hamilton County predominantly being the city of Cincinnati) lost bigtime, coming in 4th of 11 candidates. Can you say an initial payback for being one of the "Sellout Seven" and caving to the D's? That's an interesting contest now, with a GOP woman being matched up against a Iraq war veteran Democrat.
But if Steele wants to join Mike DeWine in the Senate ranks (assuming DeWine's reelected in 2006), it is high time to get the campaign going. Even with his office, he'll need all of the $15 million it's projected he needs to raise to get name recognition and something to counter all the mud slung at him by the D's. They've already started on that if you believe one of my previous posts regarding his book endorsement. And that's not all they'll do. If there's one thing I've seen in politics, it's that Democrats play pretty dirty.
I liked this comment though:
"Steele is more conservative on social and moral issues than Ehrlich and many Marylanders. He opposes the death penalty, as well as abortion rights."
Interesting juxtaposition since most conservatives I know support the death penalty, although I can buy the argument for one to be both anti-capital punishment and pro-life. I'm not sure what that will get him in the U.S. Senate, though. Maybe a better place to affect change on those issues would be the judicial system, at least in this day and age. Now if he can start to rein in the judiciary as is the proper role of the legislative branch (as outlined in the Constitution) from a Senate seat, that may be newsworthy. And I notice it's "many" Marylanders, but not a majority, otherwise I'm sure the liberal powers-that-be at the Sun would have stated so.
Guess I better get the checkbook out, I need to put myself on the rolls of opensecrets.org. I'm already in followthemoney.org for contributions I made in Ohio (to Ohio Supreme Court candidate Terrence O'Donnell in 2000.) I'm sure there's going to be a fundraiser of some sort in Wicomico County. (I'm partial to golf scrambles.)
I tell you, like bees to a field full of blooming flowers, open seats attract a lot of politicians. I also heard about a race in Ohio that could be a harbinger of events in 2006. Ohio's 2nd Congressional district had a primary yesterday to replace outgoing Rep. Rob Portman. In what is probably a pretty safe Republican district, Mike DeWine's son Pat (a Hamilton County commissioner, Hamilton County predominantly being the city of Cincinnati) lost bigtime, coming in 4th of 11 candidates. Can you say an initial payback for being one of the "Sellout Seven" and caving to the D's? That's an interesting contest now, with a GOP woman being matched up against a Iraq war veteran Democrat.
But if Steele wants to join Mike DeWine in the Senate ranks (assuming DeWine's reelected in 2006), it is high time to get the campaign going. Even with his office, he'll need all of the $15 million it's projected he needs to raise to get name recognition and something to counter all the mud slung at him by the D's. They've already started on that if you believe one of my previous posts regarding his book endorsement. And that's not all they'll do. If there's one thing I've seen in politics, it's that Democrats play pretty dirty.
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
I like this point of view
I'll try to keep this one short. I have some stuff tonight and I'm also keeping an eye on my Tigers, they lead San Diego in the 8th inning - following them through the Detroit Tigers Fan Forum.
While perusing some of my reading tonight, I came across an op-ed by Jon E. Dougherty. He's an author and journalist by trade, and a writer I became familiar with by reading WorldNetDaily. While it's not a true blog, WND is owed a debt by bloggers because it was one of the first independent online news sites and has managed to become a fairly trusted news roundup source.
Anyhow, Dougherty wrote a column advocating the newest military branch - the Border Guard. Basically, it would be a land equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is a civilian branch of the military, currently under the Department of Homeland Security (previously it was a part of the Department of Transportation.) While in wartime it answers to the U.S. Navy (and has much the same protocol), the Coast Guard is entrusted with a variety of civilian duties including law enforcement.
To me, it's an intriguing idea, because while the Border Patrol does a good job with limited resources, having an "Army lite" on the border would certainly help with homeland security. It may help the recruitment for the military as a whole, given the option of truly defending the homeland. And, if we do find that someday La Raza goes to paramilitary mode or even an "overseas" terrorist network such as Hezbollah is stirring up trouble, we can put the Border Guard under the command of the U.S. Army.
I think it's a fine compromise between security on the one hand and using the true military for law enforcement (which violates the Posse Comitatus Act.)
If you are reading this as a repeat offender, first of all thanks. Second of all, I was informed of an interesting blog called "Suitably Flip" by the author, a conservative who's also something of a financial expert (moreso than I, anyway.) So I appreciate him checking me out and give him a shout.
And yes, the Tigers won it 8-4. Shades of the last time San Diego played in Detroit, the clinching game 5 of the 1984 World Series was decided by the same score.
While perusing some of my reading tonight, I came across an op-ed by Jon E. Dougherty. He's an author and journalist by trade, and a writer I became familiar with by reading WorldNetDaily. While it's not a true blog, WND is owed a debt by bloggers because it was one of the first independent online news sites and has managed to become a fairly trusted news roundup source.
Anyhow, Dougherty wrote a column advocating the newest military branch - the Border Guard. Basically, it would be a land equivalent of the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is a civilian branch of the military, currently under the Department of Homeland Security (previously it was a part of the Department of Transportation.) While in wartime it answers to the U.S. Navy (and has much the same protocol), the Coast Guard is entrusted with a variety of civilian duties including law enforcement.
To me, it's an intriguing idea, because while the Border Patrol does a good job with limited resources, having an "Army lite" on the border would certainly help with homeland security. It may help the recruitment for the military as a whole, given the option of truly defending the homeland. And, if we do find that someday La Raza goes to paramilitary mode or even an "overseas" terrorist network such as Hezbollah is stirring up trouble, we can put the Border Guard under the command of the U.S. Army.
I think it's a fine compromise between security on the one hand and using the true military for law enforcement (which violates the Posse Comitatus Act.)
If you are reading this as a repeat offender, first of all thanks. Second of all, I was informed of an interesting blog called "Suitably Flip" by the author, a conservative who's also something of a financial expert (moreso than I, anyway.) So I appreciate him checking me out and give him a shout.
And yes, the Tigers won it 8-4. Shades of the last time San Diego played in Detroit, the clinching game 5 of the 1984 World Series was decided by the same score.
Saturday, June 11, 2005
Who's afraid of Michael Steele?
Perusing the papers today, I came across this in the Baltimore Sun. It seems the D's have their panties in a bunch over a book endorsement by Lt. Governor Steele. Normally that's not a big deal, people endorse books all the time. But when you are a black conservative, and the book takes a look at the racial history of the Republican Party in glowing terms (in other words, the truth) then the gauntlet has to be thrown down. Can't let these things get out for fear of losing more blacks from the Democrat plantation.
The book is called Back to Basics for the Republican Party, by Michael Zak. Actually, prior to this story, I'd never heard of the book. But it seems to be a well-liked book based on the Amazon.com reviews I read. (By the way, there's only 5 left in stock.) The gist of the problem that the D's have with the book is that it points out a lot of truth in history. For example, until the New Deal and for some period beyond, blacks in the country were predominantly GOP, including Dr. Martin Luther King. This was because the Republicans were originally cast as an anti-slavery party, and it was the Republicans who enacted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These were the original civil rights acts. It wasn't until Reconstruction ended and Democrats again took over in the South that the so-called "Jim Crow" laws were passed.
Later, in the 1960's, it was the GOP helping northern Democrats to pass civil rights legislation. It's a fact that as a percentage, the GOP vote in the Senate was higher than the Democrat voting for civil rights passage.
Obviously, the Democrats have managed to gloss over some of their record on race by promising economic goodies to inner-city blacks, in essence buying their votes. Seriously unethical and stinks to high heaven, but it works to where over 90% of blacks vote Democrat in the presidential elections and Baltimore city votes (mostly minority) keep the Democrats in power in the state of Maryland.
This is where Michael Steele comes in. He is black, and he is conservative. To Democrats, he's their biggest threat to the near-monopoly on the black vote. To try and damage Steele in the minority community you get comments like, "Michael Steele has failed an important test of character by aligning himself with Michael Zak's dangerous, deceptive and racially divisive commentary." So to the Democrats, pointing out obscure historical facts is dangerous and deceptive. Well, I happen to think that a lot of comments made by black Democrat icons like, for example, the Rev. Jesse Jackson are dangerous, deceptive, and racially divisive too.
(And I'll bet Democrats think that articles like this one written by Mychal Massie, a black man, are divisive as well.)
I held my nose and visited the Maryland Democratic website, and sure enough, this flap with Steele is front page news there. It's not quite the scream like on the Ohio Dems' website about Ken Blackwell (another black conservative who leads the governors' race in 2006), but they certainly don't like someone they consider "theirs" because of his race getting away from the Democrat fold. The same can be said about newly confirmed appellate judge Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman who threatens the left as a believer in judicial restraint. The left certainly doesn't appreciate her opinions on civil rights.
Needless to say, I didn't sign the petition on the Maryland Democrat website asking Steele to repudiate his endorsement of the book. Now, if there's a petition necessary to put Michael Steele on the U.S. Senate primary ballot, I'd be happy to sign that one. (Not sure how Maryland works, you do have to be petitioned onto the ballot in Ohio.)
And, speaking of Maryland Republican politics, today I sent in an application to join the Wicomico County Republican Club. I think it's time to start working toward change with all that's going on in the state right now. Luckily we don't have full-year legislative sessions, but there's a lot of damage done in the time the Democrats hold sway in Annapolis. It will be tough, but what needs to be done is to outflank the left in this county. The key is to get the influx of newcomers on our side. Let the market straighten out the housing situation and this area will really boom, possibly enough to start outweighing the Baltimore area. That's what I want to work for.
The book is called Back to Basics for the Republican Party, by Michael Zak. Actually, prior to this story, I'd never heard of the book. But it seems to be a well-liked book based on the Amazon.com reviews I read. (By the way, there's only 5 left in stock.) The gist of the problem that the D's have with the book is that it points out a lot of truth in history. For example, until the New Deal and for some period beyond, blacks in the country were predominantly GOP, including Dr. Martin Luther King. This was because the Republicans were originally cast as an anti-slavery party, and it was the Republicans who enacted the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. These were the original civil rights acts. It wasn't until Reconstruction ended and Democrats again took over in the South that the so-called "Jim Crow" laws were passed.
Later, in the 1960's, it was the GOP helping northern Democrats to pass civil rights legislation. It's a fact that as a percentage, the GOP vote in the Senate was higher than the Democrat voting for civil rights passage.
Obviously, the Democrats have managed to gloss over some of their record on race by promising economic goodies to inner-city blacks, in essence buying their votes. Seriously unethical and stinks to high heaven, but it works to where over 90% of blacks vote Democrat in the presidential elections and Baltimore city votes (mostly minority) keep the Democrats in power in the state of Maryland.
This is where Michael Steele comes in. He is black, and he is conservative. To Democrats, he's their biggest threat to the near-monopoly on the black vote. To try and damage Steele in the minority community you get comments like, "Michael Steele has failed an important test of character by aligning himself with Michael Zak's dangerous, deceptive and racially divisive commentary." So to the Democrats, pointing out obscure historical facts is dangerous and deceptive. Well, I happen to think that a lot of comments made by black Democrat icons like, for example, the Rev. Jesse Jackson are dangerous, deceptive, and racially divisive too.
(And I'll bet Democrats think that articles like this one written by Mychal Massie, a black man, are divisive as well.)
I held my nose and visited the Maryland Democratic website, and sure enough, this flap with Steele is front page news there. It's not quite the scream like on the Ohio Dems' website about Ken Blackwell (another black conservative who leads the governors' race in 2006), but they certainly don't like someone they consider "theirs" because of his race getting away from the Democrat fold. The same can be said about newly confirmed appellate judge Janice Rogers Brown, a black woman who threatens the left as a believer in judicial restraint. The left certainly doesn't appreciate her opinions on civil rights.
Needless to say, I didn't sign the petition on the Maryland Democrat website asking Steele to repudiate his endorsement of the book. Now, if there's a petition necessary to put Michael Steele on the U.S. Senate primary ballot, I'd be happy to sign that one. (Not sure how Maryland works, you do have to be petitioned onto the ballot in Ohio.)
And, speaking of Maryland Republican politics, today I sent in an application to join the Wicomico County Republican Club. I think it's time to start working toward change with all that's going on in the state right now. Luckily we don't have full-year legislative sessions, but there's a lot of damage done in the time the Democrats hold sway in Annapolis. It will be tough, but what needs to be done is to outflank the left in this county. The key is to get the influx of newcomers on our side. Let the market straighten out the housing situation and this area will really boom, possibly enough to start outweighing the Baltimore area. That's what I want to work for.
Friday, June 10, 2005
Throw this baby out with the bathwater
A very interesting quote in today's Federalist Patriot that could be a headache for me and thousands of other bloggers:
...the full effects of McCain-Feingold are just about to hit. As it reads, the 2002 law regulates political advertising in coordination with a candidate's campaign appearing on "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general-public political advertising." At the law's inception, the FEC wisely reasoned that the wording of this particular statute did not apply to the Internet -- references to the Internet and the World Wide Web were included elsewhere in the law, so Congress must have intentionally omitted it here.
Then the reformers struck again. The boondoggling duo of McCain and Feingold sued the FEC, insisting that regulations on political speech did in fact apply to the Internet and to e-mail. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed: "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated-communications regulation severely undermines" the purpose of the campaign-finance law. The Commission's three Republicans couldn't convince any of the three Democrats to appeal the ruling, with the net result being that Big Brother is on his way to policing the cybersphere.
Under the law, which the FEC will have to enforce if Congress does not intervene, even a link to a candidate's website will be considered a political contribution. While the value of such a "contribution" remains uncertain, Bradley Smith, one of the FEC's three Republican commissioners, warns that FEC regulatory precedents don't bode well for the blogosphere.
"Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns," notes Smith. "Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."
Sound bad? That's not all, warns Smith. "The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services."
Under current law, however, "press exemption" is limited to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." This would bring the status of Internet-based publications -- such as The Federalist Patriot -- into serious question. So warns Commissioner Smith: "[Internet reporting services are] exempt from regulation only because of the press exemption. But people have been arguing that the Internet doesn't fit under the press exemption. It becomes a really complex issue that would strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing out there today."
The Internet is the ultimate frontier of truly free speech. Its ubiquity has made it a powerful tool for the spread of ideas and democracy around the globe. While the unparalleled access to information offered by the Internet certainly has its moral and legal pitfalls, its benefits far outweigh all negatives. If, however, "reform" is allowed to have its way and Congress fails to ensure the Internet's continued independence by repealing those parts of McCain-Feingold that impinge upon free speech, the future of this column, and others like it, is anything but certain.
Luckily, it does sound like somebody else has noticed this if you believe this Washington Times article. However, what any of this does not do is get rid of these unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.
This is the way I look at it, as a timeline.
Spring 2000: John McCain is buried in the South Carolina primary after some impressive early wins. As other conservatives drop out of the running, George W. Bush gathers enough momentum and raises enough money to wipe out McCain for the GOP presidential nod.
November 2000: In one of the closest and most bitter elections in our history, George W. Bush wins the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote by less than 1%. Democrats immediately cry foul in Florida, putting the result in doubt for weeks and earning Bush perpetual emnity of most Democrats (including, by definition, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.)
January 2001: You have the two Senators above joined together to create the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package.
June 2001: In the House, Democrat Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and RINO Christopher Shays of Connecticut put together the House version of campaign finance reform.
March 27, 2002: Having been combined and smoothed out of the petty House and Senate differences, the so-called campaign finance reform is signed by President Bush, who expresses reservations about its Constitutionality.
2004: Hundreds of "527" committees spend millions on advertising, the majority of which is supportive of John Kerry. However, George W. Bush wins reelection by a majority of both electoral and popular votes.
Here is a short summary of the bill and court fight from opensecrets.com.
What really irked me when all this came out was that there was a dependence on the Supreme Court to clean this up and sort out what was Constitutional and what was not. I think President Bush was as shocked as anyone that the Court found it compliant. But I wasn't.
Currently we have a court that is split into two camps...unfortunately, the judicial activist camp is the majority. That would be Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and generally either one or both of Kennedy and O'Connor. The constructionists tend to be Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. In the CFR case, the 5-4 split was the four activists joined by O'Connor.
I'm a believer in free speech. I write this blog because I want as many people to see my opinions and arguments to back them up as possible. That's why it's "news and views from Maryland's Eastern Shore." And dammit, if I ever got enough money to where I could dump millions into a campaign or candidate I believe in, then that is my RIGHT as an American, terrible Supreme Court decision be damned. Someone else has the perfect right to do the opposite. George Soros does it now.
I would like to see someone in Congress do more than Rep. Ney is doing with half-measures to soften the ill effects of CFR. Someone just needs to introduce a bill repealing all limits on campaign finance. Right now, the advantage in CFR goes to the media, who can report what they want as "news" without the target having an opportunity to defend himself. I want to truly level the playing field. Even one George Soros isn't a match for millions contributing in a small way.
...the full effects of McCain-Feingold are just about to hit. As it reads, the 2002 law regulates political advertising in coordination with a candidate's campaign appearing on "any broadcast, cable or satellite communication, newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mass mailing or telephone bank to the general public, or any other form of general-public political advertising." At the law's inception, the FEC wisely reasoned that the wording of this particular statute did not apply to the Internet -- references to the Internet and the World Wide Web were included elsewhere in the law, so Congress must have intentionally omitted it here.
Then the reformers struck again. The boondoggling duo of McCain and Feingold sued the FEC, insisting that regulations on political speech did in fact apply to the Internet and to e-mail. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly agreed: "The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated-communications regulation severely undermines" the purpose of the campaign-finance law. The Commission's three Republicans couldn't convince any of the three Democrats to appeal the ruling, with the net result being that Big Brother is on his way to policing the cybersphere.
Under the law, which the FEC will have to enforce if Congress does not intervene, even a link to a candidate's website will be considered a political contribution. While the value of such a "contribution" remains uncertain, Bradley Smith, one of the FEC's three Republican commissioners, warns that FEC regulatory precedents don't bode well for the blogosphere.
"Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns," notes Smith. "Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly."
Sound bad? That's not all, warns Smith. "The judge's decision is in no way limited to ads. She says that any coordinated activity over the Internet would need to be regulated, as a minimum. The problem with coordinated activity over the Internet is that it will strike, as a minimum, Internet reporting services."
Under current law, however, "press exemption" is limited to a "broadcasting station, newspaper, magazine or other periodical publication." This would bring the status of Internet-based publications -- such as The Federalist Patriot -- into serious question. So warns Commissioner Smith: "[Internet reporting services are] exempt from regulation only because of the press exemption. But people have been arguing that the Internet doesn't fit under the press exemption. It becomes a really complex issue that would strike deep into the heart of the Internet and the bloggers who are writing out there today."
The Internet is the ultimate frontier of truly free speech. Its ubiquity has made it a powerful tool for the spread of ideas and democracy around the globe. While the unparalleled access to information offered by the Internet certainly has its moral and legal pitfalls, its benefits far outweigh all negatives. If, however, "reform" is allowed to have its way and Congress fails to ensure the Internet's continued independence by repealing those parts of McCain-Feingold that impinge upon free speech, the future of this column, and others like it, is anything but certain.
Luckily, it does sound like somebody else has noticed this if you believe this Washington Times article. However, what any of this does not do is get rid of these unconstitutional restrictions on political speech.
This is the way I look at it, as a timeline.
Spring 2000: John McCain is buried in the South Carolina primary after some impressive early wins. As other conservatives drop out of the running, George W. Bush gathers enough momentum and raises enough money to wipe out McCain for the GOP presidential nod.
November 2000: In one of the closest and most bitter elections in our history, George W. Bush wins the electoral vote despite losing the popular vote by less than 1%. Democrats immediately cry foul in Florida, putting the result in doubt for weeks and earning Bush perpetual emnity of most Democrats (including, by definition, Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.)
January 2001: You have the two Senators above joined together to create the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform package.
June 2001: In the House, Democrat Martin Meehan of Massachusetts and RINO Christopher Shays of Connecticut put together the House version of campaign finance reform.
March 27, 2002: Having been combined and smoothed out of the petty House and Senate differences, the so-called campaign finance reform is signed by President Bush, who expresses reservations about its Constitutionality.
2004: Hundreds of "527" committees spend millions on advertising, the majority of which is supportive of John Kerry. However, George W. Bush wins reelection by a majority of both electoral and popular votes.
Here is a short summary of the bill and court fight from opensecrets.com.
What really irked me when all this came out was that there was a dependence on the Supreme Court to clean this up and sort out what was Constitutional and what was not. I think President Bush was as shocked as anyone that the Court found it compliant. But I wasn't.
Currently we have a court that is split into two camps...unfortunately, the judicial activist camp is the majority. That would be Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, and generally either one or both of Kennedy and O'Connor. The constructionists tend to be Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist. In the CFR case, the 5-4 split was the four activists joined by O'Connor.
I'm a believer in free speech. I write this blog because I want as many people to see my opinions and arguments to back them up as possible. That's why it's "news and views from Maryland's Eastern Shore." And dammit, if I ever got enough money to where I could dump millions into a campaign or candidate I believe in, then that is my RIGHT as an American, terrible Supreme Court decision be damned. Someone else has the perfect right to do the opposite. George Soros does it now.
I would like to see someone in Congress do more than Rep. Ney is doing with half-measures to soften the ill effects of CFR. Someone just needs to introduce a bill repealing all limits on campaign finance. Right now, the advantage in CFR goes to the media, who can report what they want as "news" without the target having an opportunity to defend himself. I want to truly level the playing field. Even one George Soros isn't a match for millions contributing in a small way.
Thursday, June 09, 2005
Time for some new words
I knew it would happen. I guess I need to get a laptop and wireless connection because I'm sure not going to sit in here and do this every night when the warm summer evenings beckon. But I did some reading and came across some interesting items online. Meanwhile, my outdoor reading of choice the last few days was a reread of Rush's The Way Things Ought To Be...interesting to see how things have changed 13 years hence.
The big national news tonight is the Senate confirming Janice Rogers Brown and moving on William Pryor's nomination to the bench. I believe he is the last of the three "sacrificial" nominees the D's caved on in their dirty deal with the Sellout Seven. So, after this, look for the long knives of extreme circumstance to come out. Please, Senator Frist, throw one of the abandoned nominees out. I want to see the carnage.
But I ran across an op-ed by David Horowitz I had some thoughts on. It got me to thinking about school days...not all my own, but flashbacks to my ex-wife's second college career (she graduated from the University of Toledo in 1998 after attending Ohio University in the early 1980's. That stopped when she had my stepdaughter.)
She majored in social work at UT, and was told she was "too conservative to be a good social worker" by faculty there. Now, I remember one thing about a woman I was married to for 11 1/2 years, and that's the fact she's nowhere near as right-wing as I am. I would place her maybe a little left of center, moreso now since she works for a quasi-governmental agency. But after just a few trips into her classroom building, I found out just how loony left her instructors were. Even in the era of Clinton, they thought he was way too right-wing. Mention Bush or Reagan and you were an extremist.
Now, I went to Miami University back in the mid-'80's. It was (and is to an extent) considered one of the more conservative places to get an education. I had a roommate who was a College Republican and ROTC...that was not frowned upon at MU during that time.
But, a lot of my classes (and my home for the first 2 years) were over at the old Western College, where MU has its School of Interdisciplinary Studies. This was the former Western College that was annexed into Miami in the early 1970's. And it was widely acknowleged on campus during this Reagan era that "over there at Western is where all the tree-huggers hang out." Trust me, they were right.
Since then, though, when I get the alumni magazine, I find those tree-huggers have spread throughout campus. "Diversity" seems to be the watchword there. Miami's proud of being the top recycling school in the country. I'm more proud of being defending MAC East champions in football, basketball, AND baseball, plus winning the MAC all-sports trophy for the 23rd time since 1958. It may not be relevant to anyone else, but neither is recycling to me.
What's important to me is that they did a reasonable job educating me, or at least taught me how to learn for myself to an extent. The idea behind a good university is not to teach one about multiculturalism or diversity or whatever the academic fad of the time is - the idea is to teach one to teach himself by enhancing their critical thinking skills.
I will say that MU did all right at that, even with their professors being mostly left-wing. But there were some attempts at showing the right side back then. Now any conservative idea is dismissed as "extremist" on a typical college campus. Ask Ann Coulter about her general reception on college campuses. Same goes for onetime leftist David Horowitz. So much for a diversity of thought.
The part that I dislike most about college c. 2005 is that on the one hand they whine and complain that the government doesn't support them enough (here's one typical example from Michigan) which makes costs continue to skyrocket. What they don't tell you is that a large portion of the student's cost is paid by other government programs that saddle the student with debt for years. So colleges still get their money to pay for large administrative salaries, Taj Mahal-like student centers, and bringing radical lefties to graduations like these speakers from 2004.
On the other hand, many of the students they attract and put deep into debt need to take remedial courses to get to a basic freshman level. While some of this is by state mandate, colleges rarely reject applicants meeting a minimum state standard whether they are ready for college or not. To State U., it's all good because the tuition and fees still spend whether the student was in National Honor Society and a 4.0+ student in school or barely passed the SAT after a 2.5 high school career.
What I would like to see is college become tough again, basically something that is earned through hard work and scholarship. Of course, this may discourage the radical leftists because those who work hard for academic success may already have critical thinking skills and reject the propaganda espoused by academia, or at least give it an honest challenge. If it means college enrollment drops in half, so be it. I think many are better suited for something along the lines of a community college or technical school; not that they are dumb, but perhaps a vocational line of education better suits their career goals.
Then we can eliminate the deadwood in the ivory towers, get a more balanced educational system, and save the taxpayers who pay for all the extra bells and whistles found at most universities.
A controversial view? Yes. Do I come across as elitist for denying some an opportunity I had? Probably. But, it is "higher" education. That implies that a higher standard be the norm. Besides, there's no rule that says a college education equates to success. I mentioned at the beginning reading Rush Limbaugh's book - he was a college dropout who made his fortune through hard work and dedication, not by a diploma on the wall. The hard work is what generally leads to success.
I think if we go back to making a college education meaningful, the academic branch of the left wing will be subdued. Until then, the average college has become no more than an indoctrination camp.
The big national news tonight is the Senate confirming Janice Rogers Brown and moving on William Pryor's nomination to the bench. I believe he is the last of the three "sacrificial" nominees the D's caved on in their dirty deal with the Sellout Seven. So, after this, look for the long knives of extreme circumstance to come out. Please, Senator Frist, throw one of the abandoned nominees out. I want to see the carnage.
But I ran across an op-ed by David Horowitz I had some thoughts on. It got me to thinking about school days...not all my own, but flashbacks to my ex-wife's second college career (she graduated from the University of Toledo in 1998 after attending Ohio University in the early 1980's. That stopped when she had my stepdaughter.)
She majored in social work at UT, and was told she was "too conservative to be a good social worker" by faculty there. Now, I remember one thing about a woman I was married to for 11 1/2 years, and that's the fact she's nowhere near as right-wing as I am. I would place her maybe a little left of center, moreso now since she works for a quasi-governmental agency. But after just a few trips into her classroom building, I found out just how loony left her instructors were. Even in the era of Clinton, they thought he was way too right-wing. Mention Bush or Reagan and you were an extremist.
Now, I went to Miami University back in the mid-'80's. It was (and is to an extent) considered one of the more conservative places to get an education. I had a roommate who was a College Republican and ROTC...that was not frowned upon at MU during that time.
But, a lot of my classes (and my home for the first 2 years) were over at the old Western College, where MU has its School of Interdisciplinary Studies. This was the former Western College that was annexed into Miami in the early 1970's. And it was widely acknowleged on campus during this Reagan era that "over there at Western is where all the tree-huggers hang out." Trust me, they were right.
Since then, though, when I get the alumni magazine, I find those tree-huggers have spread throughout campus. "Diversity" seems to be the watchword there. Miami's proud of being the top recycling school in the country. I'm more proud of being defending MAC East champions in football, basketball, AND baseball, plus winning the MAC all-sports trophy for the 23rd time since 1958. It may not be relevant to anyone else, but neither is recycling to me.
What's important to me is that they did a reasonable job educating me, or at least taught me how to learn for myself to an extent. The idea behind a good university is not to teach one about multiculturalism or diversity or whatever the academic fad of the time is - the idea is to teach one to teach himself by enhancing their critical thinking skills.
I will say that MU did all right at that, even with their professors being mostly left-wing. But there were some attempts at showing the right side back then. Now any conservative idea is dismissed as "extremist" on a typical college campus. Ask Ann Coulter about her general reception on college campuses. Same goes for onetime leftist David Horowitz. So much for a diversity of thought.
The part that I dislike most about college c. 2005 is that on the one hand they whine and complain that the government doesn't support them enough (here's one typical example from Michigan) which makes costs continue to skyrocket. What they don't tell you is that a large portion of the student's cost is paid by other government programs that saddle the student with debt for years. So colleges still get their money to pay for large administrative salaries, Taj Mahal-like student centers, and bringing radical lefties to graduations like these speakers from 2004.
On the other hand, many of the students they attract and put deep into debt need to take remedial courses to get to a basic freshman level. While some of this is by state mandate, colleges rarely reject applicants meeting a minimum state standard whether they are ready for college or not. To State U., it's all good because the tuition and fees still spend whether the student was in National Honor Society and a 4.0+ student in school or barely passed the SAT after a 2.5 high school career.
What I would like to see is college become tough again, basically something that is earned through hard work and scholarship. Of course, this may discourage the radical leftists because those who work hard for academic success may already have critical thinking skills and reject the propaganda espoused by academia, or at least give it an honest challenge. If it means college enrollment drops in half, so be it. I think many are better suited for something along the lines of a community college or technical school; not that they are dumb, but perhaps a vocational line of education better suits their career goals.
Then we can eliminate the deadwood in the ivory towers, get a more balanced educational system, and save the taxpayers who pay for all the extra bells and whistles found at most universities.
A controversial view? Yes. Do I come across as elitist for denying some an opportunity I had? Probably. But, it is "higher" education. That implies that a higher standard be the norm. Besides, there's no rule that says a college education equates to success. I mentioned at the beginning reading Rush Limbaugh's book - he was a college dropout who made his fortune through hard work and dedication, not by a diploma on the wall. The hard work is what generally leads to success.
I think if we go back to making a college education meaningful, the academic branch of the left wing will be subdued. Until then, the average college has become no more than an indoctrination camp.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
One fun annual meeting
Generally, I would venture to guess that annual meetings of stockholders are staid affairs, where a hotel meeting room is filled with a few people interested enough to hear what the CEO has to say about the company's prospects for the next year. Could be real fun times, I don't know...I have owned stock in several companies over the last 5 years or so, but I've just sent in my proxy and voted my shares that way.
(As an aside, I have a good method for picking people for the boards of directors of the company. I look up who they donate political contributions to - if they donate to Democrats they are O-U-T as far as my vote!)
Anyway, the Wal-Mart annual meeting has got to be a doozy if I believe this Washington Times article. Remember, it only takes one share and you can go to their meeting. So I'm betting every anti-Wal-Mart creep in the country held their nose and bought one share just to go to the stockholder meeting. Interesting how the union thugs got in...obviously their pension fund decided to invest there, or they now own a piece of their non-union competitor.
So the UFCW wants Wal-Mart to "sacrifice profits to help ensure its workers live above the poverty line." Obviously Paul Blank, the leader for the group "Wake Up Wal-Mart" has never run a business. I'm guessing he's got some cushy UFCW job and is a union lifer. That has to be true, because Mr. Blank doesn't understand that the aim for a business is not to employ people at the living wage du jour, but to make a profit for the owner; and if the business is large enough, dividends for the shareholders. Profit is made by selling goods and services at a higher income than the cost of producing or supplying those goods and services...thus it's to the advantage of business to hold labor costs down as they can.
However, that becomes a balancing act - if the wages are too high, then the company has to raise prices and lose market share, which eventually leads to employee dismissal. If wages are set too low, the company may make more money short-term, but sooner or later they lose good employees because they are underpaid. (A simplistic picture because of myriad other factors, but that's the gist of the argument.)
It's obvious Wal-Mart has found a balance there because they have a lot of employees , presumably the vast majority of whom are happy because they continue to work there, and the corporation makes a lot of money - all without the hindrance of unions. And because unions are a business too, and they've seen their market share declining as they price themselves out of labor markets nationwide, Big Labor screams and cries and tries to get their liberal allies in government to slant the playing field toward their side. In the case of Wal-Mart, you get "Fair Share" in Maryland, a bill the unions see as a model for adoption in all the other states.
I suppose if I was only a blogger and didn't have a real job (no, I can't sit here in my pj's all day) I'd go to Arkansas in 2006 after buying one share of Wal-Mart and enjoy the spectacle, maybe argue with some union thugs while I'm there. Gee, it would be like old times, working the polls on Election Day in Toledo, Ohio with my friendly neighborhood Teamster/UAW Jeep goon. And as a bonus, I could see Martha Burk in person and ask her whether she can get Tiger Woods's autograph for me next time she goes to Augusta and harasses a perfectly fine golf club. Yes, she's there too because she thinks women and minorities get screwed on stock options.
But since I do work for a living, I suppose I'll just have to stay around here. Maybe I can buy a share of Perdue (the poultry company, headquarted right here in Salisbury) and find out if all the animal rights wackos come here for the shareholder meetings. That could be fun too!
So I have a suggestion for the companies who are involved in some controversy or another: open up your shareholder meetings and sell spectator tickets! That could be a nice revenue stream once "World Wrestling Entertainment" finishes its plummet out of the public eye.
Also, on a totally unrelated subject: there's another blog linked for your reading pleasure called Regime Change Iran. I added it a few days ago, check it out. We can always use another Middle East ally, particularly one that sits on a crapload of oil.
(As an aside, I have a good method for picking people for the boards of directors of the company. I look up who they donate political contributions to - if they donate to Democrats they are O-U-T as far as my vote!)
Anyway, the Wal-Mart annual meeting has got to be a doozy if I believe this Washington Times article. Remember, it only takes one share and you can go to their meeting. So I'm betting every anti-Wal-Mart creep in the country held their nose and bought one share just to go to the stockholder meeting. Interesting how the union thugs got in...obviously their pension fund decided to invest there, or they now own a piece of their non-union competitor.
So the UFCW wants Wal-Mart to "sacrifice profits to help ensure its workers live above the poverty line." Obviously Paul Blank, the leader for the group "Wake Up Wal-Mart" has never run a business. I'm guessing he's got some cushy UFCW job and is a union lifer. That has to be true, because Mr. Blank doesn't understand that the aim for a business is not to employ people at the living wage du jour, but to make a profit for the owner; and if the business is large enough, dividends for the shareholders. Profit is made by selling goods and services at a higher income than the cost of producing or supplying those goods and services...thus it's to the advantage of business to hold labor costs down as they can.
However, that becomes a balancing act - if the wages are too high, then the company has to raise prices and lose market share, which eventually leads to employee dismissal. If wages are set too low, the company may make more money short-term, but sooner or later they lose good employees because they are underpaid. (A simplistic picture because of myriad other factors, but that's the gist of the argument.)
It's obvious Wal-Mart has found a balance there because they have a lot of employees , presumably the vast majority of whom are happy because they continue to work there, and the corporation makes a lot of money - all without the hindrance of unions. And because unions are a business too, and they've seen their market share declining as they price themselves out of labor markets nationwide, Big Labor screams and cries and tries to get their liberal allies in government to slant the playing field toward their side. In the case of Wal-Mart, you get "Fair Share" in Maryland, a bill the unions see as a model for adoption in all the other states.
I suppose if I was only a blogger and didn't have a real job (no, I can't sit here in my pj's all day) I'd go to Arkansas in 2006 after buying one share of Wal-Mart and enjoy the spectacle, maybe argue with some union thugs while I'm there. Gee, it would be like old times, working the polls on Election Day in Toledo, Ohio with my friendly neighborhood Teamster/UAW Jeep goon. And as a bonus, I could see Martha Burk in person and ask her whether she can get Tiger Woods's autograph for me next time she goes to Augusta and harasses a perfectly fine golf club. Yes, she's there too because she thinks women and minorities get screwed on stock options.
But since I do work for a living, I suppose I'll just have to stay around here. Maybe I can buy a share of Perdue (the poultry company, headquarted right here in Salisbury) and find out if all the animal rights wackos come here for the shareholder meetings. That could be fun too!
So I have a suggestion for the companies who are involved in some controversy or another: open up your shareholder meetings and sell spectator tickets! That could be a nice revenue stream once "World Wrestling Entertainment" finishes its plummet out of the public eye.
Also, on a totally unrelated subject: there's another blog linked for your reading pleasure called Regime Change Iran. I added it a few days ago, check it out. We can always use another Middle East ally, particularly one that sits on a crapload of oil.
Thursday, June 02, 2005
Three liberal wishes
Guess I've had my fill of Ohio politics for now, there's not the spark yet on the national scene from Coingate. Of course, it took "Fair Share" here in Maryland a little while to become prominent as well.
So today was a fun day in DC. Actually, any day that Howard Dean is at a microphone is a fun day. I still remember the primal scream in Iowa and thinking, "Boy, Rush is going to have a field day with that tomorrow." Not only did he, it was the end of the Deaniacs in 2004.
But Dean and the liberals today stated they had three goals, well, those besides denying Bush everything from Social Security reform to judge nominees to UN ambassadors.
The first goal is to make pensions portable from job to job. This seems like a good idea on the surface, except that makes for a transfer of one company's assets to another. I actually have a small pension from one of my old employers that I am partially vested in. Would my new employer want to go through the hassle of taking care of a fund that I'm only getting $66 a month from when I turn 65?
Seems to me it's aimed at two constituencies: nervous union members who see their pension funds raided all the time because companies mismanage them (then try to get the government to cover the costs), and squishy moderates who pine for a lite version of Social Security reform without actually privatizing it. It's sad that some people lose their pensions, but to me it's not the government's job to replace them. Unfortunately, from time to time big companies do cease to exist or go bankrupt, and placing your money in their hands is a risk. This was why the 401.(k) plans started in the first place, and why I save my own money and dictate where it goes. In fact, my old company phased out contributing to their pension fund while I was there.
If the liberals want to make pensions portable, why then are they against private Social Security accounts, which would achieve much the same purpose? Could it be because they can't raise business taxes to punish achievers while bailing out mismanagement?
Goal number two is much simpler, and is already in effect in some circles: making Election Day a national holiday, or changing it to a weekend day. The dirty little secret is that it already IS a paid holiday for union members, particularly those in the UAW. Yes, every even-numbered year you can count on Detroit to take time off from building cars to pimp for Democrat candidates. Obviously it works in Michigan, since they voted for Kerry in 2004 after ending a 12 year GOP run in the governors' office in 2002 and defeating GOP incumbent Senator Spence Abraham in 2000. To make it nationwide assures a base of union thugs ready to vote early and often for the D's.
Honestly, how long does it take to vote? I have voted in every election except two since I registered as a 17-year old in 1982. The ones I skipped were because I sent my absentee ballot application to the wrong address while I was in college and the other was a primary in the city I was about to move away from. And it's not like there's not been Democrats working the polls against me when I did. (That was always fun, arguing politics with them...both of us convinced we're right.)
And the third idea about a "paper trail" after electronic balloting is actually a good one - but it should be left to the states as is proper rather than by federal government mandate. Besides, we all know what happens with paper ballots in places like, say, Florida.
I guess what I would like to see is actual ideas of substance, but unfortunately, these ideas seem to be hard to come by at a liberal gathering. There was a time and place for many of the programs and ideas that were done by Democrats, but the problem is now that they're bloated big-government programs that are outmoded and need to be replaced.
So we have one more day of Dean and his friends flapping their jaws, trashing President Bush, and generally creating more hot air. Meanwhile, those of us who work and pay taxes will continue living our lives despite their not-so-bright ideas.
So today was a fun day in DC. Actually, any day that Howard Dean is at a microphone is a fun day. I still remember the primal scream in Iowa and thinking, "Boy, Rush is going to have a field day with that tomorrow." Not only did he, it was the end of the Deaniacs in 2004.
But Dean and the liberals today stated they had three goals, well, those besides denying Bush everything from Social Security reform to judge nominees to UN ambassadors.
The first goal is to make pensions portable from job to job. This seems like a good idea on the surface, except that makes for a transfer of one company's assets to another. I actually have a small pension from one of my old employers that I am partially vested in. Would my new employer want to go through the hassle of taking care of a fund that I'm only getting $66 a month from when I turn 65?
Seems to me it's aimed at two constituencies: nervous union members who see their pension funds raided all the time because companies mismanage them (then try to get the government to cover the costs), and squishy moderates who pine for a lite version of Social Security reform without actually privatizing it. It's sad that some people lose their pensions, but to me it's not the government's job to replace them. Unfortunately, from time to time big companies do cease to exist or go bankrupt, and placing your money in their hands is a risk. This was why the 401.(k) plans started in the first place, and why I save my own money and dictate where it goes. In fact, my old company phased out contributing to their pension fund while I was there.
If the liberals want to make pensions portable, why then are they against private Social Security accounts, which would achieve much the same purpose? Could it be because they can't raise business taxes to punish achievers while bailing out mismanagement?
Goal number two is much simpler, and is already in effect in some circles: making Election Day a national holiday, or changing it to a weekend day. The dirty little secret is that it already IS a paid holiday for union members, particularly those in the UAW. Yes, every even-numbered year you can count on Detroit to take time off from building cars to pimp for Democrat candidates. Obviously it works in Michigan, since they voted for Kerry in 2004 after ending a 12 year GOP run in the governors' office in 2002 and defeating GOP incumbent Senator Spence Abraham in 2000. To make it nationwide assures a base of union thugs ready to vote early and often for the D's.
Honestly, how long does it take to vote? I have voted in every election except two since I registered as a 17-year old in 1982. The ones I skipped were because I sent my absentee ballot application to the wrong address while I was in college and the other was a primary in the city I was about to move away from. And it's not like there's not been Democrats working the polls against me when I did. (That was always fun, arguing politics with them...both of us convinced we're right.)
And the third idea about a "paper trail" after electronic balloting is actually a good one - but it should be left to the states as is proper rather than by federal government mandate. Besides, we all know what happens with paper ballots in places like, say, Florida.
I guess what I would like to see is actual ideas of substance, but unfortunately, these ideas seem to be hard to come by at a liberal gathering. There was a time and place for many of the programs and ideas that were done by Democrats, but the problem is now that they're bloated big-government programs that are outmoded and need to be replaced.
So we have one more day of Dean and his friends flapping their jaws, trashing President Bush, and generally creating more hot air. Meanwhile, those of us who work and pay taxes will continue living our lives despite their not-so-bright ideas.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)