I've left the Wal-Mart stuff up for long enough and got my share of comments about it. There's probably another post or two waiting to be written on related items, but for now I think it's time to go forward.
There's a few odds and ends out there, most notably the Alito nomination to the Supreme Court. Sounds like he's a very good choice, and a good point was brought up in several places that I read: he was confirmed to the federal bench in a unanimous vote in 1990, so even Democrats like Kennedy, Kerry, and our locals Sarbanes and Mikulski had no objection then - thus their opposition now would simply be partisan sniping. But what else would we expect? Looks like I need to bring up that point to our Senators, and see what happens.
Interesting note I found through Duvafiles and a succession of backlinks. Key quote from the source blog, TaxProfBlog: Since 1977, governments collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period.
So what is this that Democrats are whining about excessive profits? Tell government to look in the mirror and get off our back first, rather than try and stick their hand in the till even more! Oh, and gas was down near $2.25 the last time I went by the pump, so the market is doing what it does best.
And, speaking of government getting off our back: I support the Fiscal Watch Team Offset Package. Unlike my link above, this comes from the office of a REAL Senator. It's time to get that spending down like we did in the 1990's. The less money government sucks out of your pocket, the more money you have to spend at, say, Wal-Mart.
Monday, October 31, 2005
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Wal-Mart debate
There was a comment on my blog yesterday that stirred up one helluva hornet's nest. Of course, it was about Wal-Mart and the upcoming hit piece of a movie - at least that's how it started.
I'll start with the comment that spawned all this. Bear in mind, the reason I deleted the comment was because it wasn't pertinent to the subject of the post (Michael Steele's trip to Salisbury.)
"Nice blog, have you heard about the new walmart movie that documents the high cost to low price? Check out the sample clip on my blog www.thoughtsoft.blogspot.com, or go to walmartmovie.org Thanks"
Here's his bio, from the website, so you have an idea of who started this:
Im a student at University of Missouri, Columbia. Majoring in history and philosophy. My blog brings to the viewer the best and most interesting websites and articles I can find that are important for the short term and long term survival of the environment and a healthy democracy.
Well, the comment piqued my interest so I decided to head over there and read the post. Basically it said that "The High Cost of Low Price" was a "MUST-SEE" movie. Don't think I'll do that, but I had to comment. This is what I wrote back:
As it turns out, I'm not sure if you commented on my blog out of the sheer attempt to spread the word about this so-called documentary, or if you actually happened to read my blog archives, where several posts actually happen to deal with my feelings about Wal-Mart. The particular comment that you made was one I decided to delete simply because it wasn't germaine to the post that it was linked to. But I did decide to stop by and look at the blog, which I suppose was the objective!
Just by reading two or three posts on your blog it's apparent that you buy hook, line, and sinker into the union's anti-Wal-Mart propaganda line. They are just so enraged that Wal-Mart is a successful corporation who chooses not to be unionized, and for good reason - it leads to higher prices!
Where I live we have several food stores, Wal-Mart being one. It turns out that I do the bulk (but not all) of my shopping there because they sell goods I desire at the lowest everyday prices. This isn't to say that they ALWAYS have the lowest prices, but that's the beauty of competition.
In my posting, over and over I have stressed that nobody is having a gun put to their head and being told, "you must work at Wal-Mart." People know coming in that in the retail field, you're not going to get rich working as a cashier. And the majority of those who work at Wal-Mart aren't doing it as the sole support to their families. There's a lot of senior citizens who work there for various reasons, as well as a huge number of working wives. This is something that the unions fail to mention when they bitch about how the health insurance is at Wal-Mart...many of their employees do not need it because they're covered under a spouse's plan or, if they're over 65, they're entitled to Medicare.
There are two other reasons that Wal-Mart is a passion of mine. And no, neither of them is having a family member working there or owning stock in the company. Number one, the Democrats in Maryland's General Assembly (our legislature) put together an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation called the "Fair Share Health Care Act." It was basically tailored to punish one successful company, I'm sure you can guess which one. All because they didn't pay enough in health care benefits in the opinion of the Democrats, the unions, and their main grocery store competitor in Maryland, who is unionized.
Because of this legislation, item number two came into play. A few months ago, plans were announced by Wal-Mart to build a regional distribution center a few miles south of here. The county where it would be located is one of Maryland's poorest and most rural counties, and the 1,000 jobs that would be provided would make it the county's largest employer. But, even though Wal-Mart owns the land, the plans for this center have been put on hold pending the disposition of the Fair Share bill, which was properly vetoed by our governor. Unfortunately, the veto is likely to be overriden since the Democrats have enough votes to do so.
I'm sure you're gung-ho to see this movie that slams Wal-Mart. And there are a few things that I don't like about them, such as their occasional abuse of eminent domain. But that's also a function of local government being greedy and seeing tax dollars - money brought in by payroll taxes on Wal-Mart employees.
However, on balance I think Wal-Mart is a good company, and this campaign by the unions is only out of fear that a large successful corporation that is not unionized will shrink their worker pool. More importantly to them, it shrinks the millions of dollars in the pot of union dues that they use to attempt to influence the political process in negative ways (a larger, more intrusive government.)
I look at it this way. The maker of this movie has every right to make it, that's what's great about our country. But I have every right to ignore it, and I want to maintain my right to shop where I please and look for the lowest price. Wanting the lowest possible price isn't "greed", as one of your commentors said, it's part of the beauty of the capitalist system. Another part of that beauty is the freedom to leave a workplace if the pay and conditions aren't suitable for a particular individual. But since more people are voting with their feet and wishing to be employed at Wal-Mart than those leaving, I'm left to assume that the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package.
So Thomas (the host) replied:
Michael Swartz,Your logic is fallacious... in no way can you conclude that "...the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package." There is no deductive validity to that statement, it is not even probable in an inductive argument. There only thing of merit in your comments is your stand fast approach to being a supporter of the consequences of capitalism and your obvious libertarian religion.
I take it, you missed the new memo... recently recovered by walmartwatch.org... and the story ran just about in every paper nation wide.
Then kleinpete wrote:
Tom, thanks for stopping by my blog. I can proudly say I have contributed less than $10 to WalMart.
But they aren't the only company screwing America.
If anyone in government or business really cares about national security,they can start by bringing manufacturing back into this country and paying living wages.
So I had to reply to both of them, kleinpete solely out of curiosity:
Thomas:
I sure can conclude that, "...the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package," because it's the truth. Here's another way to put it: if they didn't offer a wage/benefits package that a worker of a certain skill level thought was appropriate, they wouldn't work there. Wal-Mart is not the sole employer offering jobs out there.
I can give you a personal example. When I was laid off from my previous job, I looked in my old hometown but also expanded the search to other places to find a job that was appropriate to my skill level and salary demands and I found it here. I made a decision and moved with the incentive that my new company would defray some of my moving costs.
Since you are a UM student and I long ago graduated college, I would conclude that you haven't seen a lot of the "real" world quite yet. That's not a slam on you, age begets experience.
And kleinpete: Is it suitable for that business to be foreign-owned? I don't have the articles or writer names off the top of my head, but I've seen in a few sources in my reading that the U.S. is still a net insourcer of jobs. Ask people who work for the auto plants from Toyota, Mercedes, etc. that dot the south.
I would be more concerned as a national security issue that we stop the influx of illegal immigration, which also has some effect on depressing wages.
But then tahoma activist chimed in:
Swartz totally misses the point, probably because he hadn't bothered finding out exactly how utterly heinous and ruthless the Wal*Mart corporation's business practices are. The union (and I assume in this case he refers to the UFCW, who do most organizing of store clerks) is seeing a massive hemmoraging of good quality jobs to this massive beast that ruthless shuts down all attempts by workers to form a union, which is nothing more than a democratically-elected group of representatives and their agents whose sole purpose is to advocate for their members.
Seems to me that the union is doing the right thing, fighting for good jobs, working to protect communities from this Chinese-American company that has no allegiance to the Chinese or the American people. Multinational corporations, of which Wal*Mart is just the most egregious example, are choking the life out of this planet, and in every community where their wealth is used to determine the course of the citizens' lives and well-being.
If Swartz wants to whine and make long posts about how good of a shopper he is, he should get off his intellectual butt and read some of the actual science (which is by definition not propaganda) on what makes Wal*Mart so bad for its employees, its customers, and the planet. Go to www.wakeupwalmart.com to learn all about their heinous double-dealing and cruelty.
If you're interested in a brand new method of community organizing that puts the power right in the hands of the ordinary people, come check out the American Peoples Congress blog at www.apctahoma.blogspot.com
Tahoma is the name for our local region, but we can have a different APC chapter for every 30000 citizens in this country. Start your own branch today with the tools I've got available on the website.
Peace and good luck fighting the beast.
Jeff Richardson
Education Director
America in Solidarity
www.americasolidarity.com
So I took that as a challenge and I went to the anti-Wal-Mart website, which is sponsored by the UFCW union. (Not a surprise, it goes in with my initial argument.) There I found the so-called smoking gun memo that was cited by Thomas, and I read it. Afterward, I had this to say:
Rather than offend commentors with a long post, I'll attempt to be brief.
We're simply not going to agree on this, are we? I read the Wal-Mart memo (all 27 pages) and one passage stuck out at me:
"On both of these issues - affordability and public assistance - it is important to note that our offering and performance are on par with other retailers; Wal-Mart's critics, however, hold it to a 'large company' standard, not a retailer standard. Despite the difference in industy economics, critics believe we should behave more like a GM or a Microsoft than a Target or a Sears." To me, that is the heart of the issue. No one rags on similarly non-union Target or Sears/KMart.
Also read a short article about Costco and their company business model. They have found a way to succeed using higher wages and benefits, which is admirable.
Now, Mr. Richardson, I also want to "put power right in the hands of the ordinary people" as well. But looking at your website, I find links to those who want to take power away from the individual and entrust it to a larger and more intrusive federal government.
I appreciate the arguments and the fact they didn't sink to simple name-calling. I'm sure this debate will continue.
Thomas commented:
M Swartz, Watch the documentary, and talk to former Walmart workers, and develope empathy, thats right empathy, and the worm will turn for you too my friend.
So I'm continuing the debate here. I will admit that I'm troubled about 46% of children of Wal-Mart employees being on Medicaid or uninsured. But - I also want to know, how much of this is by the choice of the employee? And - how does that number compare to other retailers? I'd be a lot less troubled if I found out that Target has a number of 44%. We simply don't know.
And I do think that if Costco can do business effectively in the manner which they do and keep their prices on a level with Wal-Mart's, then if and when they come to Salisbury I'll shop there. I shop Giant on occasion, even though they're a union store and I probably wouldn't care to see their chosen politicians stay in office.
But I also believe that Wal-Mart has some good ideas in this memo. They could be a leader in putting health clinics in their stores, which would hopefully encourage employees to use those as a primary care outlet rather than the extremely expensive ER. And health savings accounts are a way to let the individual have more of a stake in their health care. Personally, I'd rather have one, that way I could go to whichever doctor, lab, or other provider I choose, not one that CareFirst happens to cover. All this while maintaining catastrophic health care coverage.
Who knows, I may need a laugh and go see the movie. I'm sure some group of moonbats will show the DVD around here.
Finally, one thing in reply to Jeff Richardson. I have no problem with collective bargaining although I negotiated my own wage, thank you. Even got a raise without asking for it.
You can put a union wherever you want and I'll support it wholeheartedly, when the following happen:
1. You support right-to-work laws in each state. If being in a union is such a great thing, why are there closed shops? Are you afraid of competition? Since I know there are union locals in Virginia, and it's a right-to-work state, obviously it can be done.
2. You allow the Beck decision to take effect fully, with no reprisals or blackballing for any employee who opts out of withholding that part of his union dues not used for purposes of organizing and negotiating future contracts. Besides, what does it cost to sit down and negotiate a contract? Seems like the unions have a lot of overhead going.
Speaking of which, this brings up another point that extends the portion of a post I did earlier about the I-912 controversy in Washington state. It was ruled that if a talk radio host speaks on the subject that it's considered an "in-kind" contribution to the proponents of I-912. So does this mean that all the union thugs who will be out supporting it have to log their volunteer time as an "in-kind" contribution too? Would the UAW, who's negotiated Election Day in even-numbered years as a paid holiday, have to log each employee's pay that day as a political contribution to the Democrat party? Opened up a can of worms, huh? That's what you get when courts dictate law from the bench.
You know, when I go do my grocery shopping tomorrow, as always my first stop will be Wal-Mart. I'll have to see if they have anyone out there pushing Halloween candy and ask them where they work. Might be an interesting debate after that.
I'll start with the comment that spawned all this. Bear in mind, the reason I deleted the comment was because it wasn't pertinent to the subject of the post (Michael Steele's trip to Salisbury.)
"Nice blog, have you heard about the new walmart movie that documents the high cost to low price? Check out the sample clip on my blog www.thoughtsoft.blogspot.com, or go to walmartmovie.org Thanks"
Here's his bio, from the website, so you have an idea of who started this:
Im a student at University of Missouri, Columbia. Majoring in history and philosophy. My blog brings to the viewer the best and most interesting websites and articles I can find that are important for the short term and long term survival of the environment and a healthy democracy.
Well, the comment piqued my interest so I decided to head over there and read the post. Basically it said that "The High Cost of Low Price" was a "MUST-SEE" movie. Don't think I'll do that, but I had to comment. This is what I wrote back:
As it turns out, I'm not sure if you commented on my blog out of the sheer attempt to spread the word about this so-called documentary, or if you actually happened to read my blog archives, where several posts actually happen to deal with my feelings about Wal-Mart. The particular comment that you made was one I decided to delete simply because it wasn't germaine to the post that it was linked to. But I did decide to stop by and look at the blog, which I suppose was the objective!
Just by reading two or three posts on your blog it's apparent that you buy hook, line, and sinker into the union's anti-Wal-Mart propaganda line. They are just so enraged that Wal-Mart is a successful corporation who chooses not to be unionized, and for good reason - it leads to higher prices!
Where I live we have several food stores, Wal-Mart being one. It turns out that I do the bulk (but not all) of my shopping there because they sell goods I desire at the lowest everyday prices. This isn't to say that they ALWAYS have the lowest prices, but that's the beauty of competition.
In my posting, over and over I have stressed that nobody is having a gun put to their head and being told, "you must work at Wal-Mart." People know coming in that in the retail field, you're not going to get rich working as a cashier. And the majority of those who work at Wal-Mart aren't doing it as the sole support to their families. There's a lot of senior citizens who work there for various reasons, as well as a huge number of working wives. This is something that the unions fail to mention when they bitch about how the health insurance is at Wal-Mart...many of their employees do not need it because they're covered under a spouse's plan or, if they're over 65, they're entitled to Medicare.
There are two other reasons that Wal-Mart is a passion of mine. And no, neither of them is having a family member working there or owning stock in the company. Number one, the Democrats in Maryland's General Assembly (our legislature) put together an absolutely dreadful piece of legislation called the "Fair Share Health Care Act." It was basically tailored to punish one successful company, I'm sure you can guess which one. All because they didn't pay enough in health care benefits in the opinion of the Democrats, the unions, and their main grocery store competitor in Maryland, who is unionized.
Because of this legislation, item number two came into play. A few months ago, plans were announced by Wal-Mart to build a regional distribution center a few miles south of here. The county where it would be located is one of Maryland's poorest and most rural counties, and the 1,000 jobs that would be provided would make it the county's largest employer. But, even though Wal-Mart owns the land, the plans for this center have been put on hold pending the disposition of the Fair Share bill, which was properly vetoed by our governor. Unfortunately, the veto is likely to be overriden since the Democrats have enough votes to do so.
I'm sure you're gung-ho to see this movie that slams Wal-Mart. And there are a few things that I don't like about them, such as their occasional abuse of eminent domain. But that's also a function of local government being greedy and seeing tax dollars - money brought in by payroll taxes on Wal-Mart employees.
However, on balance I think Wal-Mart is a good company, and this campaign by the unions is only out of fear that a large successful corporation that is not unionized will shrink their worker pool. More importantly to them, it shrinks the millions of dollars in the pot of union dues that they use to attempt to influence the political process in negative ways (a larger, more intrusive government.)
I look at it this way. The maker of this movie has every right to make it, that's what's great about our country. But I have every right to ignore it, and I want to maintain my right to shop where I please and look for the lowest price. Wanting the lowest possible price isn't "greed", as one of your commentors said, it's part of the beauty of the capitalist system. Another part of that beauty is the freedom to leave a workplace if the pay and conditions aren't suitable for a particular individual. But since more people are voting with their feet and wishing to be employed at Wal-Mart than those leaving, I'm left to assume that the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package.
So Thomas (the host) replied:
Michael Swartz,Your logic is fallacious... in no way can you conclude that "...the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package." There is no deductive validity to that statement, it is not even probable in an inductive argument. There only thing of merit in your comments is your stand fast approach to being a supporter of the consequences of capitalism and your obvious libertarian religion.
I take it, you missed the new memo... recently recovered by walmartwatch.org... and the story ran just about in every paper nation wide.
Then kleinpete wrote:
Tom, thanks for stopping by my blog. I can proudly say I have contributed less than $10 to WalMart.
But they aren't the only company screwing America.
If anyone in government or business really cares about national security,they can start by bringing manufacturing back into this country and paying living wages.
So I had to reply to both of them, kleinpete solely out of curiosity:
Thomas:
I sure can conclude that, "...the people working at Wal-Mart of their own free will are happy with Wal-Mart's pay scale and benefits package," because it's the truth. Here's another way to put it: if they didn't offer a wage/benefits package that a worker of a certain skill level thought was appropriate, they wouldn't work there. Wal-Mart is not the sole employer offering jobs out there.
I can give you a personal example. When I was laid off from my previous job, I looked in my old hometown but also expanded the search to other places to find a job that was appropriate to my skill level and salary demands and I found it here. I made a decision and moved with the incentive that my new company would defray some of my moving costs.
Since you are a UM student and I long ago graduated college, I would conclude that you haven't seen a lot of the "real" world quite yet. That's not a slam on you, age begets experience.
And kleinpete: Is it suitable for that business to be foreign-owned? I don't have the articles or writer names off the top of my head, but I've seen in a few sources in my reading that the U.S. is still a net insourcer of jobs. Ask people who work for the auto plants from Toyota, Mercedes, etc. that dot the south.
I would be more concerned as a national security issue that we stop the influx of illegal immigration, which also has some effect on depressing wages.
But then tahoma activist chimed in:
Swartz totally misses the point, probably because he hadn't bothered finding out exactly how utterly heinous and ruthless the Wal*Mart corporation's business practices are. The union (and I assume in this case he refers to the UFCW, who do most organizing of store clerks) is seeing a massive hemmoraging of good quality jobs to this massive beast that ruthless shuts down all attempts by workers to form a union, which is nothing more than a democratically-elected group of representatives and their agents whose sole purpose is to advocate for their members.
Seems to me that the union is doing the right thing, fighting for good jobs, working to protect communities from this Chinese-American company that has no allegiance to the Chinese or the American people. Multinational corporations, of which Wal*Mart is just the most egregious example, are choking the life out of this planet, and in every community where their wealth is used to determine the course of the citizens' lives and well-being.
If Swartz wants to whine and make long posts about how good of a shopper he is, he should get off his intellectual butt and read some of the actual science (which is by definition not propaganda) on what makes Wal*Mart so bad for its employees, its customers, and the planet. Go to www.wakeupwalmart.com to learn all about their heinous double-dealing and cruelty.
If you're interested in a brand new method of community organizing that puts the power right in the hands of the ordinary people, come check out the American Peoples Congress blog at www.apctahoma.blogspot.com
Tahoma is the name for our local region, but we can have a different APC chapter for every 30000 citizens in this country. Start your own branch today with the tools I've got available on the website.
Peace and good luck fighting the beast.
Jeff Richardson
Education Director
America in Solidarity
www.americasolidarity.com
So I took that as a challenge and I went to the anti-Wal-Mart website, which is sponsored by the UFCW union. (Not a surprise, it goes in with my initial argument.) There I found the so-called smoking gun memo that was cited by Thomas, and I read it. Afterward, I had this to say:
Rather than offend commentors with a long post, I'll attempt to be brief.
We're simply not going to agree on this, are we? I read the Wal-Mart memo (all 27 pages) and one passage stuck out at me:
"On both of these issues - affordability and public assistance - it is important to note that our offering and performance are on par with other retailers; Wal-Mart's critics, however, hold it to a 'large company' standard, not a retailer standard. Despite the difference in industy economics, critics believe we should behave more like a GM or a Microsoft than a Target or a Sears." To me, that is the heart of the issue. No one rags on similarly non-union Target or Sears/KMart.
Also read a short article about Costco and their company business model. They have found a way to succeed using higher wages and benefits, which is admirable.
Now, Mr. Richardson, I also want to "put power right in the hands of the ordinary people" as well. But looking at your website, I find links to those who want to take power away from the individual and entrust it to a larger and more intrusive federal government.
I appreciate the arguments and the fact they didn't sink to simple name-calling. I'm sure this debate will continue.
Thomas commented:
M Swartz, Watch the documentary, and talk to former Walmart workers, and develope empathy, thats right empathy, and the worm will turn for you too my friend.
So I'm continuing the debate here. I will admit that I'm troubled about 46% of children of Wal-Mart employees being on Medicaid or uninsured. But - I also want to know, how much of this is by the choice of the employee? And - how does that number compare to other retailers? I'd be a lot less troubled if I found out that Target has a number of 44%. We simply don't know.
And I do think that if Costco can do business effectively in the manner which they do and keep their prices on a level with Wal-Mart's, then if and when they come to Salisbury I'll shop there. I shop Giant on occasion, even though they're a union store and I probably wouldn't care to see their chosen politicians stay in office.
But I also believe that Wal-Mart has some good ideas in this memo. They could be a leader in putting health clinics in their stores, which would hopefully encourage employees to use those as a primary care outlet rather than the extremely expensive ER. And health savings accounts are a way to let the individual have more of a stake in their health care. Personally, I'd rather have one, that way I could go to whichever doctor, lab, or other provider I choose, not one that CareFirst happens to cover. All this while maintaining catastrophic health care coverage.
Who knows, I may need a laugh and go see the movie. I'm sure some group of moonbats will show the DVD around here.
Finally, one thing in reply to Jeff Richardson. I have no problem with collective bargaining although I negotiated my own wage, thank you. Even got a raise without asking for it.
You can put a union wherever you want and I'll support it wholeheartedly, when the following happen:
1. You support right-to-work laws in each state. If being in a union is such a great thing, why are there closed shops? Are you afraid of competition? Since I know there are union locals in Virginia, and it's a right-to-work state, obviously it can be done.
2. You allow the Beck decision to take effect fully, with no reprisals or blackballing for any employee who opts out of withholding that part of his union dues not used for purposes of organizing and negotiating future contracts. Besides, what does it cost to sit down and negotiate a contract? Seems like the unions have a lot of overhead going.
Speaking of which, this brings up another point that extends the portion of a post I did earlier about the I-912 controversy in Washington state. It was ruled that if a talk radio host speaks on the subject that it's considered an "in-kind" contribution to the proponents of I-912. So does this mean that all the union thugs who will be out supporting it have to log their volunteer time as an "in-kind" contribution too? Would the UAW, who's negotiated Election Day in even-numbered years as a paid holiday, have to log each employee's pay that day as a political contribution to the Democrat party? Opened up a can of worms, huh? That's what you get when courts dictate law from the bench.
You know, when I go do my grocery shopping tomorrow, as always my first stop will be Wal-Mart. I'll have to see if they have anyone out there pushing Halloween candy and ask them where they work. Might be an interesting debate after that.
Friday, October 28, 2005
Steele bridge to Salisbury
I have pictures below in the next post. But you can read this post too!
Today Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele brought his newly-minted U.S. Senate campaign to Salisbury for what he billed as his "Eastern Shore" campaign announcement. I know in some ways we're a different state but it's nice to see that acknowlegement.
While a good part of his remarks were simply accolades for those who put the event together and for those Republicans he's worked with in Annapolis, he did make some general statements about things he'd like to accomplish if elected and sent down the street to Washington, D.C.
Today Lieutenant Governor Michael Steele brought his newly-minted U.S. Senate campaign to Salisbury for what he billed as his "Eastern Shore" campaign announcement. I know in some ways we're a different state but it's nice to see that acknowlegement.
While a good part of his remarks were simply accolades for those who put the event together and for those Republicans he's worked with in Annapolis, he did make some general statements about things he'd like to accomplish if elected and sent down the street to Washington, D.C.
- He noted the rancor and bitter relationships among the partisans in the federal government and vowed to work on ending that. Good luck with the olive branch, I'm thinking Harry Reid would be among the first to snatch it out of your hand and beat you with it. It has to work both ways and I don't see the Senate Democrats making much of a move to work with the GOP on solving problems.
- The more important part of the speech to me was when he spoke of empowerment. It was along the lines of empowering people to accomplish what they want to do by letting the government step aside somewhat. I'm all in favor of that, maybe even more than he spoke of.
He seems like a reasonably nice man in person, I did get to shake his hand and speak to him briefly. I also was the College Republican photographer of the day, they got some nice shots which I'm sure will grace their website.
There were two things that concerned me a bit. I know this area is heavily dependent on agriculture, and that may have colored his remarks some. He made a good point in that where a farm is bought out and converted into a subdivision or strip mall, that farm is lost. No one ever buys out a subdivision or strip mall to convert it back into a farm. But there are those forces in local government who would love to take control of less productive private property and convert it into a cash cow for their tax rolls and a profitable venture for a chosen developer. I'm quite hopeful that Lt. Gov. Steele would be on the side of those who feel Kelo v. New London was a poor decision, allowing local governments to overstep their bounds.
The farm analogy is a good argument, but I hope it's not an indication that he would be too much on the side of the anti-development crowd that seems to be invading this area. It's almost like the last one in wants the region to stay the same as it was when they arrived and screw the new folks who are attracted for the same reason. Development means growth (and growing pains), but it also means jobs for people like me!
On the other issue raising my concern, Steele also remarked about working in the Senate to "save the Bay," which is all well and good but to me it's not necessarily a federal priority. In my view of government, that is best managed at the state level (or two states in this case, since both Maryland and Virginia border Chesapeake Bay. They can coordinate their efforts easily enough.)
Overall, I would have to say he's working to earn my support in the race. I'm sure I could count on him to do more for me, an average Free Stater, in terms of supporting a less intrusive federal government, in both regulation and my wallet, than I could any of his other Democrat opponents. Sure, there are things I know I disagree with him on (such as the death penalty) but I believe he would be amenable to listening to my arguments, assuming they're well thought out. (Aren't they usually?)
Pictures from the event are below. One thing I was disappointed about was that I saw neither of the TV stations here covering the event while the bulk of the crowd was there. I think one of them was showing up as I was leaving. That must have been WMDT Channel 47 because there's a story on their website. (Not sure why the photo of Rosa Parks.) Also looks like the Daily Times will have coverage tomorrow according to this on their website.
Steele bridge to Salisbury - the pictures
This is a shot of some of the people who came down to watch and support Steele's announcement. I'd estimate there was about 60-75 people there, which is pretty good for a Friday afternoon on only a couple days' notice. Quite a few SU College Republicans, which was good to see.
Above, State Senator Lowell Stotzfus introduces U.S. Senate candidate, Lt. Gov. Michael Steele.
Below, Steele speaks to the crowd this afternoon in Salisbury.
Sunday, October 23, 2005
Bills that come due
It's been a tough week for UAW retirees. They found something out last week that many millions in the rest of the country will learn in the coming decades: when it comes to getting cradle-to-grave benefits, someday there's a bill that comes due.
In their case, GM and UAW worked out a deal that is supposed to reduce GM's healthcare liability by up to $3 billion a year. The automaker has found itself in an unsustainable situation as they pay the bulk of the heathcare expenses for 750,000 employees, dependents, and retirees. (According to the company website, GM actually employs 317,000 people.)
With that ratio, General Motors is getting production from fewer than half of the people they take care of. Even the UAW had to notice that the golden goose wasn't going to continue to lay eggs, and they stepped up to help out the company. As UAW members only pay 7% of their healthcare benefits (compared to 27% for salaried staff), there wasn't much room for the union to quibble.
Then today I came across a Baltimore Sun article that notes the state of Maryland could have a $20 billion liability in retiree healthcare.
"That is a huge number," said Sen. Ulysses E. Currie, the Prince George's County Democrat who chairs the Budget and Taxation Committee. "With Medicaid growing about seven or eight percent a year, K-12 education going up, higher education going up, the dollars are just not there for the state, and I don't believe for any state, to take on that."
No shit, Sherlock. But, here's our State Senate leader on the subject:
Miller said he and others would work to prevent the erosion of benefits. If anything, he said, they should be increased because state employees have been hit with increased health care costs in recent years.
"They are scary numbers," Miller said of the liability. "But this is not a state where you have a conservative Republican Senate and a conservative Republican House and a conservative Republican governor. In Idaho they might cut benefits, but that isn't going to happen in Maryland."
Maybe we all need to move to Idaho then. At least there's some sanity in the state government there. I'm sorry, but all options need to be on the table here. Right now, the state (that's you and I, assuming you're a resident of the so-called "Free State") pays $300 million a year to service 34,000 retirees, who pay as little as $21.05 a month for health insurance and $35.36 a month for prescription drug coverage. Obviously, I don't know how "gold-plated" their plan is as far as deductables and such, but my thinking is that it's comparable to GM's union retiree ratio of 7%.
One Democrat who wants to, among other things, put many more people on the state healthcare dole is Doug Duncan. He came down to Ocean City yesterday to kiss the collective ring of the teachers' union, promising to help the teachers as they attempt to raise their retirement pensions.
He also placed on his education docket a measure to award state contract preference to companies that "allow employees time off to be involved in their children's education." Now, I wonder if that would hold true, for example, if Dad wanted the afternoon off to spend time with Mom and their homeschooled kids to go to the zoo as a learning experience? I doubt it.
And the teachers, as expected, lapped it up, some waving Duncan campaign signs. Of course, Martin O'Malley, the other Democrat in the race, was also slated to address the teachers. Meanwhile, Governor Ehrlich was supposed to send an education official down rather than make the trip himself. While the teachers may feel snubbed, chances are they wouldn't welcome him with open arms anyway. And Ehrlich does have better things to do like run a state, not kowtow to a special interest.
Maybe I'll have to ask Dawn at WriteWingBlog if there's annual conventions for homeschooling "teachers, " and which politicians show up for those.
In their case, GM and UAW worked out a deal that is supposed to reduce GM's healthcare liability by up to $3 billion a year. The automaker has found itself in an unsustainable situation as they pay the bulk of the heathcare expenses for 750,000 employees, dependents, and retirees. (According to the company website, GM actually employs 317,000 people.)
With that ratio, General Motors is getting production from fewer than half of the people they take care of. Even the UAW had to notice that the golden goose wasn't going to continue to lay eggs, and they stepped up to help out the company. As UAW members only pay 7% of their healthcare benefits (compared to 27% for salaried staff), there wasn't much room for the union to quibble.
Then today I came across a Baltimore Sun article that notes the state of Maryland could have a $20 billion liability in retiree healthcare.
"That is a huge number," said Sen. Ulysses E. Currie, the Prince George's County Democrat who chairs the Budget and Taxation Committee. "With Medicaid growing about seven or eight percent a year, K-12 education going up, higher education going up, the dollars are just not there for the state, and I don't believe for any state, to take on that."
No shit, Sherlock. But, here's our State Senate leader on the subject:
Miller said he and others would work to prevent the erosion of benefits. If anything, he said, they should be increased because state employees have been hit with increased health care costs in recent years.
"They are scary numbers," Miller said of the liability. "But this is not a state where you have a conservative Republican Senate and a conservative Republican House and a conservative Republican governor. In Idaho they might cut benefits, but that isn't going to happen in Maryland."
Maybe we all need to move to Idaho then. At least there's some sanity in the state government there. I'm sorry, but all options need to be on the table here. Right now, the state (that's you and I, assuming you're a resident of the so-called "Free State") pays $300 million a year to service 34,000 retirees, who pay as little as $21.05 a month for health insurance and $35.36 a month for prescription drug coverage. Obviously, I don't know how "gold-plated" their plan is as far as deductables and such, but my thinking is that it's comparable to GM's union retiree ratio of 7%.
One Democrat who wants to, among other things, put many more people on the state healthcare dole is Doug Duncan. He came down to Ocean City yesterday to kiss the collective ring of the teachers' union, promising to help the teachers as they attempt to raise their retirement pensions.
He also placed on his education docket a measure to award state contract preference to companies that "allow employees time off to be involved in their children's education." Now, I wonder if that would hold true, for example, if Dad wanted the afternoon off to spend time with Mom and their homeschooled kids to go to the zoo as a learning experience? I doubt it.
And the teachers, as expected, lapped it up, some waving Duncan campaign signs. Of course, Martin O'Malley, the other Democrat in the race, was also slated to address the teachers. Meanwhile, Governor Ehrlich was supposed to send an education official down rather than make the trip himself. While the teachers may feel snubbed, chances are they wouldn't welcome him with open arms anyway. And Ehrlich does have better things to do like run a state, not kowtow to a special interest.
Maybe I'll have to ask Dawn at WriteWingBlog if there's annual conventions for homeschooling "teachers, " and which politicians show up for those.
Friday, October 21, 2005
Too good to be true
The radio news had me going there, but I should have known better.
They were talking about getting rid of the tollbooths on the Bay Bridge. Oddly enough, for those who don't know, you only pay to get INTO the Eastern Shore. On the way out, it's free. Not sure how that thinking came about.
Anyway, the plan proposed is to take out the tollbooths. BUT, and it's a big but, the bridge won't be toll-free. No, can't have that! Basically they will institute an overhead toll system. If you have an EZ-Pass, it will be scanned as you drive by, and if you don't, there will be an overhead camera that takes a picture of your license plate and sends the toll bill to the registered owner of the vehicle.
So, for somebody like me who may only go across the bridge a few times a year, the state of Maryland will have to send me a bill in the mail (at 30 cents or whatever bulk rate is a pop) to charge me the $2.50 toll. I'll have to spend 37 cents to send it back.
Something tells me that a mysterious "handling charge" is going to appear on these bills and the actual toll is going to be something like $5. It's a lot like buying tickets from $ticketma$ter, the $40 ticket is more like $50 with all the fees.
And all this for $183 million over 2 years, according to the news report. Hell, for that, we're a good part of the way to a new Bay Bridge, preferably one that connects closer to Salisbury.
Well, today is my turn to sit in our booth at ChamberFest. Nice day to sit inside, it's absolutely crappy outside. So we'll see how that goes.
They were talking about getting rid of the tollbooths on the Bay Bridge. Oddly enough, for those who don't know, you only pay to get INTO the Eastern Shore. On the way out, it's free. Not sure how that thinking came about.
Anyway, the plan proposed is to take out the tollbooths. BUT, and it's a big but, the bridge won't be toll-free. No, can't have that! Basically they will institute an overhead toll system. If you have an EZ-Pass, it will be scanned as you drive by, and if you don't, there will be an overhead camera that takes a picture of your license plate and sends the toll bill to the registered owner of the vehicle.
So, for somebody like me who may only go across the bridge a few times a year, the state of Maryland will have to send me a bill in the mail (at 30 cents or whatever bulk rate is a pop) to charge me the $2.50 toll. I'll have to spend 37 cents to send it back.
Something tells me that a mysterious "handling charge" is going to appear on these bills and the actual toll is going to be something like $5. It's a lot like buying tickets from $ticketma$ter, the $40 ticket is more like $50 with all the fees.
And all this for $183 million over 2 years, according to the news report. Hell, for that, we're a good part of the way to a new Bay Bridge, preferably one that connects closer to Salisbury.
Well, today is my turn to sit in our booth at ChamberFest. Nice day to sit inside, it's absolutely crappy outside. So we'll see how that goes.
Thursday, October 20, 2005
Trying to be bipartisan
The other day, I got a note in my e-mail box from the Maryland GOP regarding an amendment to the Maryland Constitution that would restrict eminent domain. As I've started getting news from the Castle Coalition, it's become a bit of a pet issue for me. Here's their press release:
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS SEEK TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
ANNAPOLIS—The Republican members of the state House of Delegates and Senate announced today their plan to introduce legislation to curb the use by local governments of eminent domain authority. The legislation proposes a constitutional amendment to the Maryland Constitution which would restrict the use of eminent domain powers. The amendment will close the loophole that allows blighted areas to be seized which has lead (sic) to the abuse of eminent domain powers at the local level.
Chairman John M. Kane released the following statement following the announcement: "The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court seriously imperils private property rights. Our country was founded on the notion of individualism and less government interference. The Court's ruling undermines fundamental American rights. Eminent domain should be restricted to allow government to seize property only for projects like roads, schools and infrastructure projects, not strip malls and McMansions. The Republican members of the House and Senate have taken a bold step towards restoring the rights of Marylanders and protecting their property from government abuse."
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. The City of New London, Conn., ruled that government can seize private property and give it to private parties to generate tax revenue. The 5-4 decision broadly interpreted "public use" as "public benefit," effectively allowing government to take private property and give it to another private party. The U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment allows government to seize private property for public use.
Well, as it stands, I happen to have two representatives. Not sure how that works, but they are both Democrats, Delegates Bennett Bozman and Norman Conway. Obviously they're likely against this, but you never know when they can steal a good idea and try to take credit for it. So, instead of writing a letter to my local DJ, I wrote the pair an e-mail that goes like this:
While my political leanings swing toward the conservative side of the spectrum, I'm also aware that the voters of this district spoke and elected both of you as my representatives. Since I moved into Salisbury late in 2004, I had no say in the matter either way.
But there are times, in my opinion, where liberal vs. conservative or Democrat vs. Republican can be overcome by the simple application of common sense, making both sides see that a particular side of an issue is best for the people. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court threw common sense to the wind in the Kelo v. New London decision. It was a disastrous verdict that gave local and state governments the ability to pick and choose who and what may occupy a particular piece of private property, for the sole purpose of gaining additional tax revenue. In the Kelo case, homeowners who had held on to their modest homes, some for decades, were suddenly uprooted to make way for a multi-million dollar development by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The local government turned over their eminent domain power to a private development company, so the result was using the overarching power of government to turn over property from one private entity to another.
It has come to my attention that a group of Republican lawmakers has proposed an amendment to the Maryland Constitution to restrict the use of eminent domain powers by "clos(ing) the loophole that allows blighted areas to be seized, which has led to the abuse of eminent domain powers at the local level."
I have been told that Maryland is not a state that allows citizen-initiated amendments to their Constitution (as states like California and Ohio do), thus it appears the only method of adding private property protection to the Maryland Constitution would rest with the General Assembly. While you inhabit the Democrat side of that aisle, it seems to me that this is an example of common sense over partisanship.
Thus, as a resident of your collective district, I'm making my voice heard and asking that you make this a bipartisan issue - please support this amendment to the Maryland Constitution.
I'll keep you posted on how that plays in Annapolis. These guys are probably going to be beating on my door for votes come next fall, and it will be interesting to see the reaction.
Tomorrow I'll be out at the Centre of Salisbury mall with the Wicomico County Republican Club as we get out in the community. We have a booth as part of the ChamberFest out there. I'm slated to work from 4 to 6 but I may go a little earlier (after Rush, of course!) Can't stay later though, since more important things (like bowling) call!
Too bad I can't be two places at once since Doug Duncan, Democrat candidate for governor, is going to blow through town tomorrow as well. If you believe his website, Montgomery County is the land of milk and honey, a palatial glen of a county where he, Doug Duncan, has singlehandedly raised the citizenry from wretched mass to enlightenment. What I don't see on there is where he REALLY got the money for a lot of these things. Something tells me that mean old President Bush and Governor Ehrlich had a hand in some of this stuff by providing the coin.
Starting to get interesting and we're still a year away. I'll have to watch the coverage of Michael Steele's announcement. Our friends at FU! Maryland pithily noted that Steele has to "BEG" for people to come out and see his announcement. Somehow I think he'll draw enough of a crowd. Remember, he doesn't have a big family and partisan hacks to fill space like Duncan did, plus we as conservatives normally WORK FOR A LIVING! Tough to be a "rent-a-mob" that way.
REPUBLICAN LEGISLATORS SEEK TO PROTECT PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS
ANNAPOLIS—The Republican members of the state House of Delegates and Senate announced today their plan to introduce legislation to curb the use by local governments of eminent domain authority. The legislation proposes a constitutional amendment to the Maryland Constitution which would restrict the use of eminent domain powers. The amendment will close the loophole that allows blighted areas to be seized which has lead (sic) to the abuse of eminent domain powers at the local level.
Chairman John M. Kane released the following statement following the announcement: "The decision by the U.S. Supreme Court seriously imperils private property rights. Our country was founded on the notion of individualism and less government interference. The Court's ruling undermines fundamental American rights. Eminent domain should be restricted to allow government to seize property only for projects like roads, schools and infrastructure projects, not strip malls and McMansions. The Republican members of the House and Senate have taken a bold step towards restoring the rights of Marylanders and protecting their property from government abuse."
The U.S. Supreme Court decision Kelo v. The City of New London, Conn., ruled that government can seize private property and give it to private parties to generate tax revenue. The 5-4 decision broadly interpreted "public use" as "public benefit," effectively allowing government to take private property and give it to another private party. The U.S. Constitution's 5th Amendment allows government to seize private property for public use.
Well, as it stands, I happen to have two representatives. Not sure how that works, but they are both Democrats, Delegates Bennett Bozman and Norman Conway. Obviously they're likely against this, but you never know when they can steal a good idea and try to take credit for it. So, instead of writing a letter to my local DJ, I wrote the pair an e-mail that goes like this:
While my political leanings swing toward the conservative side of the spectrum, I'm also aware that the voters of this district spoke and elected both of you as my representatives. Since I moved into Salisbury late in 2004, I had no say in the matter either way.
But there are times, in my opinion, where liberal vs. conservative or Democrat vs. Republican can be overcome by the simple application of common sense, making both sides see that a particular side of an issue is best for the people. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court threw common sense to the wind in the Kelo v. New London decision. It was a disastrous verdict that gave local and state governments the ability to pick and choose who and what may occupy a particular piece of private property, for the sole purpose of gaining additional tax revenue. In the Kelo case, homeowners who had held on to their modest homes, some for decades, were suddenly uprooted to make way for a multi-million dollar development by pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. The local government turned over their eminent domain power to a private development company, so the result was using the overarching power of government to turn over property from one private entity to another.
It has come to my attention that a group of Republican lawmakers has proposed an amendment to the Maryland Constitution to restrict the use of eminent domain powers by "clos(ing) the loophole that allows blighted areas to be seized, which has led to the abuse of eminent domain powers at the local level."
I have been told that Maryland is not a state that allows citizen-initiated amendments to their Constitution (as states like California and Ohio do), thus it appears the only method of adding private property protection to the Maryland Constitution would rest with the General Assembly. While you inhabit the Democrat side of that aisle, it seems to me that this is an example of common sense over partisanship.
Thus, as a resident of your collective district, I'm making my voice heard and asking that you make this a bipartisan issue - please support this amendment to the Maryland Constitution.
I'll keep you posted on how that plays in Annapolis. These guys are probably going to be beating on my door for votes come next fall, and it will be interesting to see the reaction.
Tomorrow I'll be out at the Centre of Salisbury mall with the Wicomico County Republican Club as we get out in the community. We have a booth as part of the ChamberFest out there. I'm slated to work from 4 to 6 but I may go a little earlier (after Rush, of course!) Can't stay later though, since more important things (like bowling) call!
Too bad I can't be two places at once since Doug Duncan, Democrat candidate for governor, is going to blow through town tomorrow as well. If you believe his website, Montgomery County is the land of milk and honey, a palatial glen of a county where he, Doug Duncan, has singlehandedly raised the citizenry from wretched mass to enlightenment. What I don't see on there is where he REALLY got the money for a lot of these things. Something tells me that mean old President Bush and Governor Ehrlich had a hand in some of this stuff by providing the coin.
Starting to get interesting and we're still a year away. I'll have to watch the coverage of Michael Steele's announcement. Our friends at FU! Maryland pithily noted that Steele has to "BEG" for people to come out and see his announcement. Somehow I think he'll draw enough of a crowd. Remember, he doesn't have a big family and partisan hacks to fill space like Duncan did, plus we as conservatives normally WORK FOR A LIVING! Tough to be a "rent-a-mob" that way.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
They told you so
A night for blogging, no baseball tonight. Thankfully, there's a game tomorrow because of Albert Pujols. Boy did he crush that home run, it was a nice sight to see because the wild card is an abomination to the game of baseball. Hopefully the Cardinals take that series, it would be the first series between the teams with the best record in each league since 1999 (Atlanta vs. New York Yankees) and only the third since the present playoff format was adopted in 1995.
But the real subject tonight is history. With all the controversy about Harriet Miers and the "civil war" in the conservative movement, there were a few people who sounded the alarm way back before Bush took office in 2001.
First, I cite Michelle Malkin. This article is from September 10, 1999, "Will George W. work for a color-blind America?" To wit:
Although Bush claims to oppose racial quotas and preferences, he refuses to take a position on two landmark ballot measures that outlawed racial preferences by popular vote: California's Prop. 209 and Washington state's Initiative 200. More disturbing was Bush's failure to take a position on Prop. A, the 1997 Houston Civil Rights Initiative, which would have outlawed racial preferences in contracting by Houston city government.
If Bush cannot bring himself to support ballot initiatives that abolish government preferences, then his stated opposition to preferences is thin gruel.
Reading further:
If this is the voice of compassionate conservatism, Democrats have nothing to fear.
Bush's legislative record is depressing. This year he signed laws supporting minority contracting set-asides; directing electric utilities to develop diversity and set-aside plans; and creating race-targeted, scholarship-matching programs run by the state higher education coordinating board.
Some prominent conservatives – including Prop. 209 heroes Ward Connerly and Tom Wood of California – have endorsed Bush despite his reticence on racial preferences. Others, including Fred Barnes and Paul Gigot, focus on the anemic hope that Bush will appoint rigorous, conservative intellectuals to do the heavy lifting on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Emphasis mine.) California State University professor Glynn Custred, another Prop. 209 hero who casts a more skeptical eye toward Bush noted recently, "These tidbits, of course, tantalize conservatives, but they don't really tell us anything, and that's exactly the way George W. intends to keep it."
Unless, of course, grass-roots conservatives demand he unbutton his lips and use them to produce something more than poll-tested pablum.
Pretty stern stuff, written when the GOP field in 2000 was still somewhat open.
Then how about WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah, back on September 7, 2000. In an op-ed called "Consider yourself warned" he wrote:
I'm getting a lot of letters, these days, from people who say I'm being too tough on George W. Bush...What does George W. Bush stand for that is fundamentally different than Al Gore. To me the difference is like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumber. Wait until after the election? Oh, don't worry. There will be plenty of criticism left to go around after the election as well.
(L)et me give you one more concrete example of why, I believe, all those folks writing now pleading for mercy for Bush will be the same people writing to me complaining about him after Jan. 20 (2001).
One of the most frequently mentioned imperatives cited for supporting Bush over Gore is the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices. I agree this is an important consideration for evaluating any presidential candidate...
(New York Times) Reporter Jim Yardley wrote: "Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court stunned social conservatives throughout the state by issuing a 6-to-3 ruling that allowed a 17-year-old high school senior to have an abortion without telling her parents.
"'It was shocking,' said Joe Kral, the legislative director for the Texas Right to Life Committee. It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue. ...
"(A) look at Mr. Bush's record in Texas shows that he has appointed justices who have had a moderating influence on the Texas Supreme Court, often regarded as among the most conservative and pro-business in the country. He has appointed four of the court's nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O'Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. ...
"Debbie D. Branson, president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, a group that has been critical of the court and Mr. Bush over the years ... agreed that the Bush appointees had started the process of moving the court back to the center (again, emphasis mine). ...
"By the Supreme Court's 1998-99 term, the liberal judicial watchdog group Court Watch found that Mr. Bush's appointees were 'eliminating the excesses of the G.O.P. old guard.'" ...
I suggest you give serious thought to Bush's judicial record in Texas. If you are voting for George W. Bush because you think he will bring America a better U.S. Supreme Court, I suggest you are being misled.
Again, very strong and prescient words. But not all is President Bush's fault. Here is another WorldNetDaily article by David Limbaugh that I printed and kept around for several years, and by gosh he turned out to be pretty much right. It's called "The 4 Years War" and it was written on December 5, 2000, in the midst of the Florida fiasco.
While most of it dealt with the Florida aftermath, these two pieces have remained with me and turned out to be right on the money. First:
The New York Times reports that "an array of liberal groups have begun organizing for what could be a succession of quick, brutal battles on nominations, tax cuts, the budget and other issues." These groups are said to be "energized and ready to fight." A far cry from the usual liberal cries for bipartisanship, no?
The media is already beating the drums for Bush to make concessions by appointing Democrats to cabinet posts and diluting his agenda -- as if Bush has done something wrong for which he must seek atonement.
And here's another home run, almost as well hit as Pujols':
Bush, as the lawfully elected president, will likely assume the presidency in a war not of his making. While he should still reach out to Democrats in an effort to work with them, he should be prepared to govern over their planned obstruction and must not retreat from his programs.
The problem is that he hasn't governed over their obstructions. And now with the Miers nomination, he's fractured a large percentage of the conservatives from his base of support. This is from a much more recent article I received in my e-mail by David A. Keene of the American Conservative Union.
What is most troubling about this whole (Miers nomination) affair, however, is the way the administration has gone about trying to demonize conservatives who have raised questions about Ms. Miers. It began from day one to attack personally the motives, loyalty and judgment of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the nomination. Since then, the ad hominem attacks on Miers’s conservative critics have been unconscionably heavy-handed and will haunt the president regardless of how the nomination fight turns out.
Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We’ve swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we’ve believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We’ve been there for him because we’ve considered ourselves part of his team.
No more.
From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming. The days of the blank check have ended because no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lock step without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States.
I'm not sure we have to wait until 2007 or 2008 to see this happen. A good indication of how things will be comes next year when the campaigns crank up. Will stalwart conservatives want to be seen with and campaigned for by President Bush, or will he be avoided like the plague - a fate that occurred with President Clinton, as many of the candidates he appeared with on the campaign trail lost because of the association.
To me, things can be repaired if Bush gets back on the straight and narrow and fights for issues he promised to - Social Security, tax cuts, continuing to build of the successes of the War on Terror, and streamlining government. A good start would be endorsing the initiatives in Operation Offset and renewing the aggressive fight to save Social Security which he started last spring.
But I'm going to take a "wait-and-see" approach. I still support the President, but if one were to ask, I'd say he's been quite the disappointment in 2005.
But the real subject tonight is history. With all the controversy about Harriet Miers and the "civil war" in the conservative movement, there were a few people who sounded the alarm way back before Bush took office in 2001.
First, I cite Michelle Malkin. This article is from September 10, 1999, "Will George W. work for a color-blind America?" To wit:
Although Bush claims to oppose racial quotas and preferences, he refuses to take a position on two landmark ballot measures that outlawed racial preferences by popular vote: California's Prop. 209 and Washington state's Initiative 200. More disturbing was Bush's failure to take a position on Prop. A, the 1997 Houston Civil Rights Initiative, which would have outlawed racial preferences in contracting by Houston city government.
If Bush cannot bring himself to support ballot initiatives that abolish government preferences, then his stated opposition to preferences is thin gruel.
Reading further:
If this is the voice of compassionate conservatism, Democrats have nothing to fear.
Bush's legislative record is depressing. This year he signed laws supporting minority contracting set-asides; directing electric utilities to develop diversity and set-aside plans; and creating race-targeted, scholarship-matching programs run by the state higher education coordinating board.
Some prominent conservatives – including Prop. 209 heroes Ward Connerly and Tom Wood of California – have endorsed Bush despite his reticence on racial preferences. Others, including Fred Barnes and Paul Gigot, focus on the anemic hope that Bush will appoint rigorous, conservative intellectuals to do the heavy lifting on the U.S. Supreme Court. (Emphasis mine.) California State University professor Glynn Custred, another Prop. 209 hero who casts a more skeptical eye toward Bush noted recently, "These tidbits, of course, tantalize conservatives, but they don't really tell us anything, and that's exactly the way George W. intends to keep it."
Unless, of course, grass-roots conservatives demand he unbutton his lips and use them to produce something more than poll-tested pablum.
Pretty stern stuff, written when the GOP field in 2000 was still somewhat open.
Then how about WorldNetDaily founder Joseph Farah, back on September 7, 2000. In an op-ed called "Consider yourself warned" he wrote:
I'm getting a lot of letters, these days, from people who say I'm being too tough on George W. Bush...What does George W. Bush stand for that is fundamentally different than Al Gore. To me the difference is like Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumber. Wait until after the election? Oh, don't worry. There will be plenty of criticism left to go around after the election as well.
(L)et me give you one more concrete example of why, I believe, all those folks writing now pleading for mercy for Bush will be the same people writing to me complaining about him after Jan. 20 (2001).
One of the most frequently mentioned imperatives cited for supporting Bush over Gore is the selection of U.S. Supreme Court justices. I agree this is an important consideration for evaluating any presidential candidate...
(New York Times) Reporter Jim Yardley wrote: "Earlier this year, the Texas Supreme Court stunned social conservatives throughout the state by issuing a 6-to-3 ruling that allowed a 17-year-old high school senior to have an abortion without telling her parents.
"'It was shocking,' said Joe Kral, the legislative director for the Texas Right to Life Committee. It was, after all, appointees of Gov. George W. Bush who took the lead on the issue. ...
"(A) look at Mr. Bush's record in Texas shows that he has appointed justices who have had a moderating influence on the Texas Supreme Court, often regarded as among the most conservative and pro-business in the country. He has appointed four of the court's nine justices and has been a political patron for a fifth, Harriet O'Neill, who wrote the majority opinion in the parental notification case. ...
"Debbie D. Branson, president of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, a group that has been critical of the court and Mr. Bush over the years ... agreed that the Bush appointees had started the process of moving the court back to the center (again, emphasis mine). ...
"By the Supreme Court's 1998-99 term, the liberal judicial watchdog group Court Watch found that Mr. Bush's appointees were 'eliminating the excesses of the G.O.P. old guard.'" ...
I suggest you give serious thought to Bush's judicial record in Texas. If you are voting for George W. Bush because you think he will bring America a better U.S. Supreme Court, I suggest you are being misled.
Again, very strong and prescient words. But not all is President Bush's fault. Here is another WorldNetDaily article by David Limbaugh that I printed and kept around for several years, and by gosh he turned out to be pretty much right. It's called "The 4 Years War" and it was written on December 5, 2000, in the midst of the Florida fiasco.
While most of it dealt with the Florida aftermath, these two pieces have remained with me and turned out to be right on the money. First:
The New York Times reports that "an array of liberal groups have begun organizing for what could be a succession of quick, brutal battles on nominations, tax cuts, the budget and other issues." These groups are said to be "energized and ready to fight." A far cry from the usual liberal cries for bipartisanship, no?
The media is already beating the drums for Bush to make concessions by appointing Democrats to cabinet posts and diluting his agenda -- as if Bush has done something wrong for which he must seek atonement.
And here's another home run, almost as well hit as Pujols':
Bush, as the lawfully elected president, will likely assume the presidency in a war not of his making. While he should still reach out to Democrats in an effort to work with them, he should be prepared to govern over their planned obstruction and must not retreat from his programs.
The problem is that he hasn't governed over their obstructions. And now with the Miers nomination, he's fractured a large percentage of the conservatives from his base of support. This is from a much more recent article I received in my e-mail by David A. Keene of the American Conservative Union.
What is most troubling about this whole (Miers nomination) affair, however, is the way the administration has gone about trying to demonize conservatives who have raised questions about Ms. Miers. It began from day one to attack personally the motives, loyalty and judgment of anyone who questioned the wisdom of the nomination. Since then, the ad hominem attacks on Miers’s conservative critics have been unconscionably heavy-handed and will haunt the president regardless of how the nomination fight turns out.
Most conservatives have stood with Bush from the beginning. Those of us who know him like him. We’ve swallowed policies we might otherwise have objected to because we’ve believed that he and those around him are themselves conservatives trying to do the right thing against sometimes terrible odds. We’ve been there for him because we’ve considered ourselves part of his team.
No more.
From now on, this administration will find it difficult to muster support on the right without explaining why it should be forthcoming. The days of the blank check have ended because no thinking conservative really wants to be part of a team that requires marching in lock step without question or thought, even if it is headed by the president of the United States.
I'm not sure we have to wait until 2007 or 2008 to see this happen. A good indication of how things will be comes next year when the campaigns crank up. Will stalwart conservatives want to be seen with and campaigned for by President Bush, or will he be avoided like the plague - a fate that occurred with President Clinton, as many of the candidates he appeared with on the campaign trail lost because of the association.
To me, things can be repaired if Bush gets back on the straight and narrow and fights for issues he promised to - Social Security, tax cuts, continuing to build of the successes of the War on Terror, and streamlining government. A good start would be endorsing the initiatives in Operation Offset and renewing the aggressive fight to save Social Security which he started last spring.
But I'm going to take a "wait-and-see" approach. I still support the President, but if one were to ask, I'd say he's been quite the disappointment in 2005.
Saturday, October 15, 2005
I owe you a bunch!
Haven't been writing much lately. Of course, my evenings are more busy now since I'm glued to the TV. Not for the new season, but for the second season - it's playoff time! This means instead of reading my stuff and writing about it, I'm sitting slack-jawed watching Fox all night.
So I have a few things I wanted to touch on tonight since I have an opportunity. Kind of a catch-all if you will. Tomorrow I may get a chance to catch up on a couple days' worth of GOPUSA commentaries and stories.
First and foremost, I'm glad the Iraqi election seems to be going well. Actually, because I'm watching the Fox channel out of DC (that's the only one we have on our cable) I'm getting to see a little bit on the Virginia election as well. The polls have that one as really close, and it looks like the Republican Jerry Kilgore can't get off that mid-40's number while the Democrat Tim Kaine has pushed his way into the mid-40's. So the undecideds might be shifting blue. The two commercials I've sort of seen have been negative ads by Kilgore.
Obviously, if Kaine wins that one, you can bet your bottom dollar the partisan media will be all over that story as a "sign that the GOP majority is endangered for 2006." Hey, if they can spin a 4-point loss in Ohio into a win for the Democrats, imagine what they'll do with an actual victory, even if by 1% or less.
Another election story I was alerted to when I got my latest copy of Liberty & Law from the Institute for Justice originates from the state of Washington, home of "found" Democrat votes. The story goes this way:
Recently the state of Washington instituted a 9.5 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline. It was quickly denounced by various citizens, including local Seattle talk radio hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur. Their opposition led to the formation of a PAC that was set up to bring the matter to a statewide vote. As the petitions came in, it became obvious that there was enough sentiment to get this measure on the ballot, where the gas tax was likely to be repealed.
Enter a group called "Keep Washington Rolling." Rather than simply make their points on the merits of increasing the gas tax, they also decided to make an attempt to silence their opposition. That strategy was to hamstring the anti-taxers by claiming that the talk radio campaign was an "in-kind" political contribution and should be reported under Washington state election laws. Believe it or not, a judge agreed - so the anti-tax group now has to spend time and money documenting and valuing the discussions on the issue. Further, there's a conflict of interest between the members of the KWR group and the prosecutors of various counties who stand to benefit by getting highway projects completed.
The Institute for Justice has come in on the side of the radio hosts, which is the correct side. When the powers that be can use campaign finance laws (that are arguably unconstitutional in and of themselves) to hinder the voice of the voting public when they don't see things the way big government does, it thwarts the idea of a government both by and for the people.
And something VERY interesting. I was looking at the KWR website, and at the bottom is a small credit that says: "Powered by Blue Utopia." Well, Blue Utopia "provides technology and online expertise to Democratic political organizations." Just the name alone conjured that much. So what else is new? The Democrats are for higher taxes, in the name of more highway construction. Wonder what the moonbat environmentalist wackos out that way think of that?
Closer to home, another moonbat made it into the Daily Times yesterday. This is part of a letter to the editor from Joan B. Seiler that made it in Friday's edition:
Nestled in the No Child Left Behind Act is a quiet paragraph stating high schools must provide 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds' home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers to military recruiters. If a school declines, it will be denied federal funding. The only exceptions are through notes from a parent forbidding the school to release any information on their child to any military recruiter. This note must be received by Oct. 15.
For those interested, there are many places to obtain information about enlisting. If you don't want your teenager subjected to pressure to "join up" or don't want your child's name, address, phone number and SSN handed out, write to your school stating this and send a copy to the school board. If possible, mail it certified, return receipt requested, or hand deliver it and request a signed receipt. That way, no one can say they didn't know.
Teens in high school are aggressively targeted, more so now that recruitment has plummeted.
The military needs its "cannon fodder" and promises college, job training, health care and the ability to "be all you can be." Of course, that's if you don't get blown away in Iraq or Afghanistan or, worse, survive minus a few limbs.
Among the most vocal fans of the ill-advised war are Bush supporters who know that without a draft, their child has no chance of being placed in harm's way. With a draft, you would see the same campus rebellions that took place during Vietnam. Then, everyone was at risk. That's the way it should be now, too.
The government claims girls 16, 17 and 18 aren't mature enough to go to Planned Parenthood without parental permission --but they can enlist to carry a gun and be shot without anyone's permission. How about that for a "culture of life?"
The military has been selective about the schools it visits, preferring those in areas with a heavy dose of minorities and lower economic base. That's because military does offer a way out with a chance for education and job training. But the military is not a prep school, it's the military. Its job is to fight and, if necessary, to die. The first thing they give you after a haircut is a gun.
Way to blow through all those talking points, Mrs. Seiler. I especially liked the part about the Bush supporters and the draft. Something tells me that, if you asked the parents of the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan who they voted for in the last election, the name "Kerry" wouldn't come up a lot.
Then, to top it off, the Daily Times writes an editorial agreeing with her! In the editorial they cite a website called Leave My Child Alone. Among the co-sponsors of this website are serious moonbats like Code Pink and True Majority, along with ACORN.
Of course, what's not noted is that once these kids turn 18, they have to send in a card to Selective Service anyway. So the database that LMCA is worried about will be there regardless.
To me, if the military wants to have their shot at recruiting a child in high school, more power to them. It's like the volume of college info that many students receive, but with benefits like job training and lifetime medical care from the VA. Granted, there's a risk of death or disability in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I honestly think kids are smart enough to realize this - if not, the parents will likely remind them. Especially with all the partisan media gleefully covering every last American death in Iraq, it's obvious to any 16 to 18 year old that joining the military has risks.
One final thing. I never served in the military, simply because I didn't have to. There was no draft during my youth, most of which was spent on the campus of Miami University trying to figure out how to get through classes while finding time to hang with the "buds" and drinking plenty of beer. In the Reagan era, it was "peace through strength" and the worst military death toll occurred in Lebanon. But the military recruited then as well. Then, as now, the military was a volunteer organization, and some elected to serve - but most didn't.
Today, though, I have two of the little magnetic "ribbons" on my front door, one that says, "Support Our Troops" and the other, "Freedom Isn't Free." And this afternoon I took a moment to thank a veteran for his service (he had a Korean War veteran hat on.)
One can call me a "chicken hawk" because I have this attitude now that I can't be drafted. But I've come to realize that it's a good thing that our nation remains proud enough and keeps a number of young folks who care enough to sign up to defend it, knowing they risk life and limb in the process.
Parents, you may beseech your children all you want about not joining the military. But with freedom comes responsibility, and the Daily Times opinion piece is a shirking of theirs.
So I have a few things I wanted to touch on tonight since I have an opportunity. Kind of a catch-all if you will. Tomorrow I may get a chance to catch up on a couple days' worth of GOPUSA commentaries and stories.
First and foremost, I'm glad the Iraqi election seems to be going well. Actually, because I'm watching the Fox channel out of DC (that's the only one we have on our cable) I'm getting to see a little bit on the Virginia election as well. The polls have that one as really close, and it looks like the Republican Jerry Kilgore can't get off that mid-40's number while the Democrat Tim Kaine has pushed his way into the mid-40's. So the undecideds might be shifting blue. The two commercials I've sort of seen have been negative ads by Kilgore.
Obviously, if Kaine wins that one, you can bet your bottom dollar the partisan media will be all over that story as a "sign that the GOP majority is endangered for 2006." Hey, if they can spin a 4-point loss in Ohio into a win for the Democrats, imagine what they'll do with an actual victory, even if by 1% or less.
Another election story I was alerted to when I got my latest copy of Liberty & Law from the Institute for Justice originates from the state of Washington, home of "found" Democrat votes. The story goes this way:
Recently the state of Washington instituted a 9.5 cent per gallon tax increase on gasoline. It was quickly denounced by various citizens, including local Seattle talk radio hosts John Carlson and Kirby Wilbur. Their opposition led to the formation of a PAC that was set up to bring the matter to a statewide vote. As the petitions came in, it became obvious that there was enough sentiment to get this measure on the ballot, where the gas tax was likely to be repealed.
Enter a group called "Keep Washington Rolling." Rather than simply make their points on the merits of increasing the gas tax, they also decided to make an attempt to silence their opposition. That strategy was to hamstring the anti-taxers by claiming that the talk radio campaign was an "in-kind" political contribution and should be reported under Washington state election laws. Believe it or not, a judge agreed - so the anti-tax group now has to spend time and money documenting and valuing the discussions on the issue. Further, there's a conflict of interest between the members of the KWR group and the prosecutors of various counties who stand to benefit by getting highway projects completed.
The Institute for Justice has come in on the side of the radio hosts, which is the correct side. When the powers that be can use campaign finance laws (that are arguably unconstitutional in and of themselves) to hinder the voice of the voting public when they don't see things the way big government does, it thwarts the idea of a government both by and for the people.
And something VERY interesting. I was looking at the KWR website, and at the bottom is a small credit that says: "Powered by Blue Utopia." Well, Blue Utopia "provides technology and online expertise to Democratic political organizations." Just the name alone conjured that much. So what else is new? The Democrats are for higher taxes, in the name of more highway construction. Wonder what the moonbat environmentalist wackos out that way think of that?
Closer to home, another moonbat made it into the Daily Times yesterday. This is part of a letter to the editor from Joan B. Seiler that made it in Friday's edition:
Nestled in the No Child Left Behind Act is a quiet paragraph stating high schools must provide 16-, 17- and 18-year-olds' home addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers to military recruiters. If a school declines, it will be denied federal funding. The only exceptions are through notes from a parent forbidding the school to release any information on their child to any military recruiter. This note must be received by Oct. 15.
For those interested, there are many places to obtain information about enlisting. If you don't want your teenager subjected to pressure to "join up" or don't want your child's name, address, phone number and SSN handed out, write to your school stating this and send a copy to the school board. If possible, mail it certified, return receipt requested, or hand deliver it and request a signed receipt. That way, no one can say they didn't know.
Teens in high school are aggressively targeted, more so now that recruitment has plummeted.
The military needs its "cannon fodder" and promises college, job training, health care and the ability to "be all you can be." Of course, that's if you don't get blown away in Iraq or Afghanistan or, worse, survive minus a few limbs.
Among the most vocal fans of the ill-advised war are Bush supporters who know that without a draft, their child has no chance of being placed in harm's way. With a draft, you would see the same campus rebellions that took place during Vietnam. Then, everyone was at risk. That's the way it should be now, too.
The government claims girls 16, 17 and 18 aren't mature enough to go to Planned Parenthood without parental permission --but they can enlist to carry a gun and be shot without anyone's permission. How about that for a "culture of life?"
The military has been selective about the schools it visits, preferring those in areas with a heavy dose of minorities and lower economic base. That's because military does offer a way out with a chance for education and job training. But the military is not a prep school, it's the military. Its job is to fight and, if necessary, to die. The first thing they give you after a haircut is a gun.
Way to blow through all those talking points, Mrs. Seiler. I especially liked the part about the Bush supporters and the draft. Something tells me that, if you asked the parents of the soldiers killed in Iraq and Afghanistan who they voted for in the last election, the name "Kerry" wouldn't come up a lot.
Then, to top it off, the Daily Times writes an editorial agreeing with her! In the editorial they cite a website called Leave My Child Alone. Among the co-sponsors of this website are serious moonbats like Code Pink and True Majority, along with ACORN.
Of course, what's not noted is that once these kids turn 18, they have to send in a card to Selective Service anyway. So the database that LMCA is worried about will be there regardless.
To me, if the military wants to have their shot at recruiting a child in high school, more power to them. It's like the volume of college info that many students receive, but with benefits like job training and lifetime medical care from the VA. Granted, there's a risk of death or disability in Iraq or Afghanistan, but I honestly think kids are smart enough to realize this - if not, the parents will likely remind them. Especially with all the partisan media gleefully covering every last American death in Iraq, it's obvious to any 16 to 18 year old that joining the military has risks.
One final thing. I never served in the military, simply because I didn't have to. There was no draft during my youth, most of which was spent on the campus of Miami University trying to figure out how to get through classes while finding time to hang with the "buds" and drinking plenty of beer. In the Reagan era, it was "peace through strength" and the worst military death toll occurred in Lebanon. But the military recruited then as well. Then, as now, the military was a volunteer organization, and some elected to serve - but most didn't.
Today, though, I have two of the little magnetic "ribbons" on my front door, one that says, "Support Our Troops" and the other, "Freedom Isn't Free." And this afternoon I took a moment to thank a veteran for his service (he had a Korean War veteran hat on.)
One can call me a "chicken hawk" because I have this attitude now that I can't be drafted. But I've come to realize that it's a good thing that our nation remains proud enough and keeps a number of young folks who care enough to sign up to defend it, knowing they risk life and limb in the process.
Parents, you may beseech your children all you want about not joining the military. But with freedom comes responsibility, and the Daily Times opinion piece is a shirking of theirs.
Sunday, October 09, 2005
Stoltzfus picnic
This is a review of sorts. I went to the State Sen. J. Lowell Stoltzfus "Picnic in the Park" this afternoon. Luckily they had a big tent (appropriate for the GOP) so we all stayed dry. It was fortunate that it wasn't chilly out, quite comfy tempwise. Oddly enough, I believe the park in question is outside his district, but this end of the state is so gerrymandered that I don't know which way is up. He has all of Somerset and Worchester counties, but the D's put as little of the populated area of Wicomico County in it as they could to keep the districts even. I almost live right on the line sitting here in the eastern outskirts of Salisbury.
The picnic was the first political event I've made it to down here. And it was a pretty well-run one, but since the guy's been in office since 1991, it's no surprise that they have this thing pretty much down pat.
The food was pretty good, although I have to say he grows some pretty potent cabbage. At least I assume the sauerkraut was made from his stock. But sauerkraut on a dog is a winner at any picnic I go to. He had a nice little 3 piece old-time music band, and a few of his GOP cohorts in the General Assembly were there as well. I know Page Elmore was there from the House and another lady whose name I don't recall.
One thing that stuck out was the number of door prizes he had, I'd say he had about 20 or so. Didn't win any, the guy sitting next to me did. But he also had a live auction for a bunch of various items.
Now I'd say there were probably 200 or so people there - at $25 a ticket, that's $5,000. But the auction probably made another $2,000 or so. Lot of items that went in the $100 to $250 range. And he got himself on TV (I assume, since I didn't catch channel 47's news.) The other guy who got TV face time was Brian Kilgore, who's running for our County Executive post that the voters created in 2004. He's already got his shirts, the whole Kilgore clan had them on. He's got a family built for TV/video, cute wife and kid.
So Page Elmore handled the MC duties, and there were two speakers, one that served as a speaker and introducer for Sen. Stoltzfus. That guy was a gentleman named Luis Luna, who is an assistant administrator in the national EPA. Basically, his position there is to run the actual administration process, with human resources and facilities management among his duties. But it's a post high enough where he had to be confirmed by the Senate.
Luna spoke about maintaining a good balance between the concerns of the environmentalists on one side, and the economy on the other. He saw President Bush's EPA as being fair to both, whereas previous administrations listened too much to the extreme green wackos (my words, not his.) He also touched on the change in the approach to agricultural issues in the Ehrlich administration as opposed to the Democrat governors who preceded him. It's a much more cooperative arena in Annapolis now for the farmers.
That led him into his introduction to Sen. Stoltzfus. Lowell was more brief, giving out the normal kudos to the help, and also speaking about working with the Ehrlich administration against the special interests of the Democrats. He had particular problems with the Wal-Mart bill and also the investigation by partisan Democrats into the hiring and firing practices of Governor Ehrlich. Basically, it's a scheme to embarrass the governor before the election.
(By the way, sometime ago I noted that I sent the Senator an e-mail on the subject after his comments in the Daily Times. I'm happy to say he did send a short note back agreeing with me on my view of a partisan witch hunt. I did talk to him about that today when we met to jog his memory.)
I wish I'd stuck around to hear what he thought of President Bush. Someone in the back shouted out about that during Lowell's remarks. He said he'd talk to that guy later.
But I enjoyed the time there, and I certainly didn't mind the $25, it goes to a good cause. I'm sure there will be a Democrat running against him, and since rumor has it that all the General Assembly Democrats were supposed to pony up $20,000 apiece to build a war chest for Democrat incumbents in swing districts, the extra money will be helpful. Maybe next year the rain will stay away so a few more folks may come. That will be in the midst of the campaign next year in a key season for Free State politics.
The picnic was the first political event I've made it to down here. And it was a pretty well-run one, but since the guy's been in office since 1991, it's no surprise that they have this thing pretty much down pat.
The food was pretty good, although I have to say he grows some pretty potent cabbage. At least I assume the sauerkraut was made from his stock. But sauerkraut on a dog is a winner at any picnic I go to. He had a nice little 3 piece old-time music band, and a few of his GOP cohorts in the General Assembly were there as well. I know Page Elmore was there from the House and another lady whose name I don't recall.
One thing that stuck out was the number of door prizes he had, I'd say he had about 20 or so. Didn't win any, the guy sitting next to me did. But he also had a live auction for a bunch of various items.
Now I'd say there were probably 200 or so people there - at $25 a ticket, that's $5,000. But the auction probably made another $2,000 or so. Lot of items that went in the $100 to $250 range. And he got himself on TV (I assume, since I didn't catch channel 47's news.) The other guy who got TV face time was Brian Kilgore, who's running for our County Executive post that the voters created in 2004. He's already got his shirts, the whole Kilgore clan had them on. He's got a family built for TV/video, cute wife and kid.
So Page Elmore handled the MC duties, and there were two speakers, one that served as a speaker and introducer for Sen. Stoltzfus. That guy was a gentleman named Luis Luna, who is an assistant administrator in the national EPA. Basically, his position there is to run the actual administration process, with human resources and facilities management among his duties. But it's a post high enough where he had to be confirmed by the Senate.
Luna spoke about maintaining a good balance between the concerns of the environmentalists on one side, and the economy on the other. He saw President Bush's EPA as being fair to both, whereas previous administrations listened too much to the extreme green wackos (my words, not his.) He also touched on the change in the approach to agricultural issues in the Ehrlich administration as opposed to the Democrat governors who preceded him. It's a much more cooperative arena in Annapolis now for the farmers.
That led him into his introduction to Sen. Stoltzfus. Lowell was more brief, giving out the normal kudos to the help, and also speaking about working with the Ehrlich administration against the special interests of the Democrats. He had particular problems with the Wal-Mart bill and also the investigation by partisan Democrats into the hiring and firing practices of Governor Ehrlich. Basically, it's a scheme to embarrass the governor before the election.
(By the way, sometime ago I noted that I sent the Senator an e-mail on the subject after his comments in the Daily Times. I'm happy to say he did send a short note back agreeing with me on my view of a partisan witch hunt. I did talk to him about that today when we met to jog his memory.)
I wish I'd stuck around to hear what he thought of President Bush. Someone in the back shouted out about that during Lowell's remarks. He said he'd talk to that guy later.
But I enjoyed the time there, and I certainly didn't mind the $25, it goes to a good cause. I'm sure there will be a Democrat running against him, and since rumor has it that all the General Assembly Democrats were supposed to pony up $20,000 apiece to build a war chest for Democrat incumbents in swing districts, the extra money will be helpful. Maybe next year the rain will stay away so a few more folks may come. That will be in the midst of the campaign next year in a key season for Free State politics.
Wednesday, October 05, 2005
Discouragement
This will be a fairly quick post tonight. I can tell you're all cheering that one.
One item I read and one I heard are in the spotlight. Yesterday I read a commentary piece by Chuck Muth that basically shows that the GOP infighting continues. So much for the "big tent."
Actually, I'm on Tancredo's side in this one. It is long, long past time to crack down on illegals. Actually it's long, long past time to do a lot of things like cut spending, work on getting ourselves weaned off foreign oil by producing our own, and putting judges on the court who let the legislators do their job. Sometime I'll comment on Harriet Miers, but I really would like to hear the woman speak rather than everyone else assuming she's good/bad for the Supreme Court.
On one side you have the GOP establishment who is in her corner, and on the other you have good conservatives like Michelle Malkin, George Will, and Ann Coulter saying she's a horrible pick. If you follow the Malkin link, there's an audio link to an interview Coulter did with Denver radio host Mike Rosen.
Now that was interesting for two reasons. Ann certainly has some venom stored up for President Bush in her column today. And on this radio interview, she let out the "I" word I was expecting the moonbat left to carry through from the War on Terror and WMD's, yes, "impeach." That, to me, is a bit extreme. Even though there's 45 surefire Democrat votes for it in the Senate, that's not going to happen.
But she did say another thing I thought was very perceptive. As conservatives, we generally see the people we like as candidates shunned by the "establishment" GOP because they're not "electable". "Electable" candidates included Bob Dole in 1996 and George H. W. Bush in 1988-92. On those we batted .333 - great for the bigs, lousy for elections. But the "unelectable" Ronald Reagan went 2 for 2 and only won 49 states when he was reelected (including all of Delmarva.)
So, basically, we need to stick to our guns and not listen to what the establishment would have us believe would be an electable candidate who is a compromise choice. Running hard to the right is the winning way.
I commented on this at theGoldwater's blog a couple weeks back, he had an excellent post called "A Warning to Elected Republicans" that I noted then.
Excellent post. Unfortunately, we conservatives face a problem that is usually the result of the state/local GOP "annointing" a candidate before the primary, hence, before the voters would get their say.
Generally when that is done, the GOP brass goes with the candidate who they feel is more "electable" (read: moderate.)
I can give you an example from my home state of Ohio. There were two candidates for governor in 1998: Bob Taft and Ken Blackwell. Rather than have a primary fight between the two, the Ohio GOP threw their weight behind Bob Taft, the moderate, and nicely asked the conservative Blackwell to fill a vacant spot on the ballot and bide his time as Secretary of State (he was the state treasurer before, but the state GOP had found someone to run there.)
So what happened? Taft succeeded another moderate in George Voinovich, Ohio kept spending money like a drunken sailor, and let onetime surpluses became deficits.
Then 2002 came around, and a guy like me has a choice: re-elect the RINO, or, even worse, put a Democrat in the governor's office. So I held my nose and voted for Taft.
So what happened? Ohio's economy pretty much finished going in the tank, and I'm sitting here in Maryland. And, of course, the mainstream media in most of Ohio will savage a GOP politician no matter how conservative.
And, of course, all the scandal and RINOs moving to the center has Ohio fed up with the GOP just in time for Ken Blackwell to finally have a shot at the governor's office.
So the solution, to me, is to work in the local GOP to let the voters decide who's best for the party. 9 times out of 10 they pick the best (most conservative) person if given a choice.
The other time was keeping Senator Specter in Pennsylvania.
(By the way, don't stop reading at just that article, his blog is generally quite good.)
This is the reason that my blog is the "right-wing" conspiracy, not the "GOP" conspiracy. While I've been a registered Republican since 1986 (and was only a registered Democrat in 1984 to ensure Reagan would get the weakest opponent possible,) I've been known to vote Libertarian and Reform as well. But I feel the best way to get the party to move is from within.
There's more people like me than the "establishment" thinks, and it's very possible 2006 or 2008 will be the time they find that out as it bites them in the ass. When we stay home or withhold our vote for the "electable" candidate, they'll regret blowing the conservative Americans off.
One item I read and one I heard are in the spotlight. Yesterday I read a commentary piece by Chuck Muth that basically shows that the GOP infighting continues. So much for the "big tent."
Actually, I'm on Tancredo's side in this one. It is long, long past time to crack down on illegals. Actually it's long, long past time to do a lot of things like cut spending, work on getting ourselves weaned off foreign oil by producing our own, and putting judges on the court who let the legislators do their job. Sometime I'll comment on Harriet Miers, but I really would like to hear the woman speak rather than everyone else assuming she's good/bad for the Supreme Court.
On one side you have the GOP establishment who is in her corner, and on the other you have good conservatives like Michelle Malkin, George Will, and Ann Coulter saying she's a horrible pick. If you follow the Malkin link, there's an audio link to an interview Coulter did with Denver radio host Mike Rosen.
Now that was interesting for two reasons. Ann certainly has some venom stored up for President Bush in her column today. And on this radio interview, she let out the "I" word I was expecting the moonbat left to carry through from the War on Terror and WMD's, yes, "impeach." That, to me, is a bit extreme. Even though there's 45 surefire Democrat votes for it in the Senate, that's not going to happen.
But she did say another thing I thought was very perceptive. As conservatives, we generally see the people we like as candidates shunned by the "establishment" GOP because they're not "electable". "Electable" candidates included Bob Dole in 1996 and George H. W. Bush in 1988-92. On those we batted .333 - great for the bigs, lousy for elections. But the "unelectable" Ronald Reagan went 2 for 2 and only won 49 states when he was reelected (including all of Delmarva.)
So, basically, we need to stick to our guns and not listen to what the establishment would have us believe would be an electable candidate who is a compromise choice. Running hard to the right is the winning way.
I commented on this at theGoldwater's blog a couple weeks back, he had an excellent post called "A Warning to Elected Republicans" that I noted then.
Excellent post. Unfortunately, we conservatives face a problem that is usually the result of the state/local GOP "annointing" a candidate before the primary, hence, before the voters would get their say.
Generally when that is done, the GOP brass goes with the candidate who they feel is more "electable" (read: moderate.)
I can give you an example from my home state of Ohio. There were two candidates for governor in 1998: Bob Taft and Ken Blackwell. Rather than have a primary fight between the two, the Ohio GOP threw their weight behind Bob Taft, the moderate, and nicely asked the conservative Blackwell to fill a vacant spot on the ballot and bide his time as Secretary of State (he was the state treasurer before, but the state GOP had found someone to run there.)
So what happened? Taft succeeded another moderate in George Voinovich, Ohio kept spending money like a drunken sailor, and let onetime surpluses became deficits.
Then 2002 came around, and a guy like me has a choice: re-elect the RINO, or, even worse, put a Democrat in the governor's office. So I held my nose and voted for Taft.
So what happened? Ohio's economy pretty much finished going in the tank, and I'm sitting here in Maryland. And, of course, the mainstream media in most of Ohio will savage a GOP politician no matter how conservative.
And, of course, all the scandal and RINOs moving to the center has Ohio fed up with the GOP just in time for Ken Blackwell to finally have a shot at the governor's office.
So the solution, to me, is to work in the local GOP to let the voters decide who's best for the party. 9 times out of 10 they pick the best (most conservative) person if given a choice.
The other time was keeping Senator Specter in Pennsylvania.
(By the way, don't stop reading at just that article, his blog is generally quite good.)
This is the reason that my blog is the "right-wing" conspiracy, not the "GOP" conspiracy. While I've been a registered Republican since 1986 (and was only a registered Democrat in 1984 to ensure Reagan would get the weakest opponent possible,) I've been known to vote Libertarian and Reform as well. But I feel the best way to get the party to move is from within.
There's more people like me than the "establishment" thinks, and it's very possible 2006 or 2008 will be the time they find that out as it bites them in the ass. When we stay home or withhold our vote for the "electable" candidate, they'll regret blowing the conservative Americans off.
Monday, October 03, 2005
Pickin' and grinnin'
Through my connection with the Maryland GOP, I got wind of a letter from the Maryland Dems. I love reading the lies and bullshit, it's really fun. Beats talking about the James Stockdale of SCOTUS nominees, Harriet Miers.
So here goes nothing, that's about what the letter is worth. Now my commentary is pretty good.
Dear xxx,
Fall is here and campaign season is revving up. We have less than one year left before our Democratic primary (September 12, 2006) and just over a year before the General Election of 2006 (November 7, 2006).
That and the phone numbers at the end might be the only two true facts in the letter, and I'm not sure about the phone number.
The Maryland Democratic Party is on a roll…and I want to keep you updated on some of things that are happening!
On a roll, right down the hill. Don't look now, but the growth areas in Maryland are turning Republican if they're not already there.
Just this week we surpassed the $1 million mark in fundraising for the year – that's almost twice the amount we raised by this point in 2003, our last `off year' -- and we still have significant activity planned for the final three months of 2005.
Come on. In 2003 you didn't have a governor's race to worry about the next year and all the money was going national. How about a comparison to 2001? I noticed through followthemoney.org that, while your contributions to the governors' race between 1998 and 2002 stayed relatively constant, the GOP gained close to $4 million and outspent you. And you'll likely get outspent again because now you'll have the challenger.
Our largest event during the fourth quarter will be a rousing Maryland Tribute to Paul Sarbanes. The dinner tribute will take place at the Wyndham Hotel in Baltimore on the evening of Tuesday, November 1, 2005. More details are available at www.mddems.org. We hope that you will be among the many Marylanders who will join us that night to honor a true Maryland public servant.
If by "public servant" you mean backbencher and toadie to the liberal special interests, then you hit it right on the head. What exactly has he done in 30 years again?
The newly-formed Maryland Democratic Business Council is poised to kick off a year-long series of local business forums later this year. The Council is co-chaired by:
* Discovery Communications CEO Judith McHale;
* Weldon Latham of Davis, Wright and Tremaine; and
* Former software executive and Talbot County Democratic activist Carl Widell
Their "business" council has McHale, a CEO of a company that runs generally liberal programming on cable - think "Animal Planet." They also do Discovery Channel, TLC, BBC America, and oddly enough, the Military Channel.
Latham works for a law firm, with this being an interesting case in their docket. He is part of what they call the "corporate diversity counseling group." Guess shaking down corporate America is good practice for this job.
Then you have a "former" software executive and activist. Why is he a former executive?
So none of this lot are small businessmen.
The Maryland Democratic Party team has added several expert staff in the last few months. We have brought on three regional field directors – Jocelyn Bogdan, Monique Hall, and Bill Kottmeyer – to build relationships with communities, organizations and individuals across the State, and to coordinate aggressive voter contact operations. With the aid of state-of-the-art voter data, our three Democratic Party organizers will be able to target, talk to, and turnout Democratic voters this November for the city elections in Annapolis and Frederick, and next November for the statewide elections.
Wow, they have a computer now. That former software executive is really paying dividends. And I should get on their e-mail list just to see how "aggressive" their voter contact operations are. They'll not forget calling me.
I'm pleased to announce that Joseline Pena-Melynk, former Secretary of the Maryland Democratic Party, has joined the Party as our Community Coordinator. Pena-Melynk, who serves on the College Park City Council, will serve as primary liaison to community, ethnic, and labor organizations throughout the state. We have also added Melissa Campbell to our fundraising team. She is a veteran of several political campaigns and joins us from the fast-paced world of Capitol Hill.
Sounds like they sent Campbell back to the minors. It's not like the D's are having a field day getting contributions nationally either.
The Maryland Democratic Party is putting in overtime to spread the word about Democratic priorities. During the next 14 months your Party leaders will be criss-crossing the state to talk about how Democrats are working hard to:
* Lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs; (Soak the drug companies and screw the market up so drugs become less readily available.)
* Make college more affordable; (That would be taxing the rich.)
* Provide more resources to our counties for school construction; (Rollback of the property tax freeze.)
* Increase the minimum wage; and (Read: drive small business out of Maryland.)
* Promote groundbreaking stem cell research (Killing babies for questionable results at best.)
Democrats are standing up for Maryland, not for the misguided policies of the Bush administration and the national Republicans.
Which have pulled the economy out of the recession that started when your guy Clinton was in office, fought back against terrorists instead of simply attempting to criminalize them, and began to restore the courts to their Constitutional mandate rather than judicial activism.
We will be touching voters across the state early and often to talk about their day-to-day needs and to demonstrate how the Ehrlich-Steele Administration does not reflect or represent Maryland values.
In other words, we'll lie about Ehrlich/Steele since they pulled the state out of the deficit the Democrats put them in and shown leadership in promoting Maryland as a business-friendly state.
I hope we can count on your continued support and involvement in the Maryland Democratic Party. You can reach the Party at 410-269-8818 or 301-858-8818, or via e-mail at democrat@mddems.org. Please keep in touch!
Oh, I plan to. It's your party that is out of touch with the values of mainstream Maryland, and, by extension, mainstream America.
Sincerely,
Terry Lierman
Chair
Maryland Democratic Party
PS: If you haven't done so already, please visit www.mddems.org to sign up for our email list – and please forward this letter to five of our friends, family or neighbors, and encourage them to do the same! Thank you very, very much!
I plan to, because I like to see what the enemy is up to. And I think I just forwarded the letter for you. Of course, my commentary makes the letter far more truthful.
Paid for by the Maryland Democratic Party and not authorized by any federal candidate or candidate's committee. By authority of Oz Bengur, Treasurer.
And how much is e-mail these days? Maybe that's why Widell is a "former" software executive.
Sounds to me like the Democrats are running a bit scared in Maryland. It's not as blue of a state as one might think.
So here goes nothing, that's about what the letter is worth. Now my commentary is pretty good.
Dear xxx,
Fall is here and campaign season is revving up. We have less than one year left before our Democratic primary (September 12, 2006) and just over a year before the General Election of 2006 (November 7, 2006).
That and the phone numbers at the end might be the only two true facts in the letter, and I'm not sure about the phone number.
The Maryland Democratic Party is on a roll…and I want to keep you updated on some of things that are happening!
On a roll, right down the hill. Don't look now, but the growth areas in Maryland are turning Republican if they're not already there.
Just this week we surpassed the $1 million mark in fundraising for the year – that's almost twice the amount we raised by this point in 2003, our last `off year' -- and we still have significant activity planned for the final three months of 2005.
Come on. In 2003 you didn't have a governor's race to worry about the next year and all the money was going national. How about a comparison to 2001? I noticed through followthemoney.org that, while your contributions to the governors' race between 1998 and 2002 stayed relatively constant, the GOP gained close to $4 million and outspent you. And you'll likely get outspent again because now you'll have the challenger.
Our largest event during the fourth quarter will be a rousing Maryland Tribute to Paul Sarbanes. The dinner tribute will take place at the Wyndham Hotel in Baltimore on the evening of Tuesday, November 1, 2005. More details are available at www.mddems.org. We hope that you will be among the many Marylanders who will join us that night to honor a true Maryland public servant.
If by "public servant" you mean backbencher and toadie to the liberal special interests, then you hit it right on the head. What exactly has he done in 30 years again?
The newly-formed Maryland Democratic Business Council is poised to kick off a year-long series of local business forums later this year. The Council is co-chaired by:
* Discovery Communications CEO Judith McHale;
* Weldon Latham of Davis, Wright and Tremaine; and
* Former software executive and Talbot County Democratic activist Carl Widell
Their "business" council has McHale, a CEO of a company that runs generally liberal programming on cable - think "Animal Planet." They also do Discovery Channel, TLC, BBC America, and oddly enough, the Military Channel.
Latham works for a law firm, with this being an interesting case in their docket. He is part of what they call the "corporate diversity counseling group." Guess shaking down corporate America is good practice for this job.
Then you have a "former" software executive and activist. Why is he a former executive?
So none of this lot are small businessmen.
The Maryland Democratic Party team has added several expert staff in the last few months. We have brought on three regional field directors – Jocelyn Bogdan, Monique Hall, and Bill Kottmeyer – to build relationships with communities, organizations and individuals across the State, and to coordinate aggressive voter contact operations. With the aid of state-of-the-art voter data, our three Democratic Party organizers will be able to target, talk to, and turnout Democratic voters this November for the city elections in Annapolis and Frederick, and next November for the statewide elections.
Wow, they have a computer now. That former software executive is really paying dividends. And I should get on their e-mail list just to see how "aggressive" their voter contact operations are. They'll not forget calling me.
I'm pleased to announce that Joseline Pena-Melynk, former Secretary of the Maryland Democratic Party, has joined the Party as our Community Coordinator. Pena-Melynk, who serves on the College Park City Council, will serve as primary liaison to community, ethnic, and labor organizations throughout the state. We have also added Melissa Campbell to our fundraising team. She is a veteran of several political campaigns and joins us from the fast-paced world of Capitol Hill.
Sounds like they sent Campbell back to the minors. It's not like the D's are having a field day getting contributions nationally either.
The Maryland Democratic Party is putting in overtime to spread the word about Democratic priorities. During the next 14 months your Party leaders will be criss-crossing the state to talk about how Democrats are working hard to:
* Lower the cost of health care and prescription drugs; (Soak the drug companies and screw the market up so drugs become less readily available.)
* Make college more affordable; (That would be taxing the rich.)
* Provide more resources to our counties for school construction; (Rollback of the property tax freeze.)
* Increase the minimum wage; and (Read: drive small business out of Maryland.)
* Promote groundbreaking stem cell research (Killing babies for questionable results at best.)
Democrats are standing up for Maryland, not for the misguided policies of the Bush administration and the national Republicans.
Which have pulled the economy out of the recession that started when your guy Clinton was in office, fought back against terrorists instead of simply attempting to criminalize them, and began to restore the courts to their Constitutional mandate rather than judicial activism.
We will be touching voters across the state early and often to talk about their day-to-day needs and to demonstrate how the Ehrlich-Steele Administration does not reflect or represent Maryland values.
In other words, we'll lie about Ehrlich/Steele since they pulled the state out of the deficit the Democrats put them in and shown leadership in promoting Maryland as a business-friendly state.
I hope we can count on your continued support and involvement in the Maryland Democratic Party. You can reach the Party at 410-269-8818 or 301-858-8818, or via e-mail at democrat@mddems.org. Please keep in touch!
Oh, I plan to. It's your party that is out of touch with the values of mainstream Maryland, and, by extension, mainstream America.
Sincerely,
Terry Lierman
Chair
Maryland Democratic Party
PS: If you haven't done so already, please visit www.mddems.org to sign up for our email list – and please forward this letter to five of our friends, family or neighbors, and encourage them to do the same! Thank you very, very much!
I plan to, because I like to see what the enemy is up to. And I think I just forwarded the letter for you. Of course, my commentary makes the letter far more truthful.
Paid for by the Maryland Democratic Party and not authorized by any federal candidate or candidate's committee. By authority of Oz Bengur, Treasurer.
And how much is e-mail these days? Maybe that's why Widell is a "former" software executive.
Sounds to me like the Democrats are running a bit scared in Maryland. It's not as blue of a state as one might think.
Sunday, October 02, 2005
Taking the quiz
I'm not going to change the name of the blog quite yet. But I actually helped out theGoldwater today by clicking on his Google ad. I know, sacrilege. But it was an ad for the Libertarian running for Ohio governor, a guy by the name of Bill Peirce. Actually, I agree with practically everything on his stated platform. But I don't always agree with the Libetarians as a whole.
Or do I? I actually had taken what they call the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" before. At the time I registered right on the line between conservative and libertarian, at the outside of the box. But now my position is only a few steps right of the top corner as seen on the quiz, more solidly libertarian. I think a couple of my positions have moved some on the "personal issues score." It's now 70 on personal issues and 100 on economic issues. I think it's because my view on the "war on drugs" has softened a little bit.
It's odd because I also fit the given definition of "conservative" as well: "Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement."
With the possible exception of "government action to defend morality", it's pretty close to my view. We tried to legislate morality with the 18th Amendment, and it didn't work.
So I'm wondering where others who read this fall along the quiz lines. I'm betting half or better register as libertarians, and most of the rest as conservatives. But it's nice to have an idea. Take the quiz!
Or do I? I actually had taken what they call the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" before. At the time I registered right on the line between conservative and libertarian, at the outside of the box. But now my position is only a few steps right of the top corner as seen on the quiz, more solidly libertarian. I think a couple of my positions have moved some on the "personal issues score." It's now 70 on personal issues and 100 on economic issues. I think it's because my view on the "war on drugs" has softened a little bit.
It's odd because I also fit the given definition of "conservative" as well: "Conservatives tend to favor economic freedom, but frequently support laws to restrict personal behavior that violates "traditional values." They oppose excessive government control of business, while endorsing government action to defend morality and the traditional family structure. Conservatives usually support a strong military, oppose bureaucracy and high taxes, favor a free-market economy, and endorse strong law enforcement."
With the possible exception of "government action to defend morality", it's pretty close to my view. We tried to legislate morality with the 18th Amendment, and it didn't work.
So I'm wondering where others who read this fall along the quiz lines. I'm betting half or better register as libertarians, and most of the rest as conservatives. But it's nice to have an idea. Take the quiz!
Saturday, October 01, 2005
My turn to be politically incorrect
I kind of jumped on this a little late, but better late than never.
In a nutshell, Bill Bennett got in trouble for saying that if all black babies were aborted, the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Now, honestly - would anyone short of the most rabid, absolutist white supremacist be serious in saying a thing like this? I don't think Bennett fits that category. Compulsive gambler, yes. Racist, no.
And lost (or at least buried) in the coverage is that Bennett was citing another's work. The book Freakonomics theorized that part of the drop in crime in the 1990's was due to Roe v. Wade. Abortions were performed on poorer women in a number that was greater than their proportion to society as a whole. Since poorer children are more likely to commit crime because of their economic circumstance, it stands to reason that crimes drop when there's fewer of them.
Further, the coverage ignores the context of the remark. From www.gopusa.com, here's the transcript of the conversation between Bennett and a caller to his radio show:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't - never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as - abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both - you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well -
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Seems to me that Bennett is using the stated fact that, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, "In 1997, about 9% of the black population in the U.S. was under some form of correctional supervision compared to 2% of the white population and over 1% of other races."
So, in a theoretical sense at least, the statement is correct. Does it make me racist to say this and support what he said as an argument for the point he was trying to make? You know, free speech and all?
I'm sure it abhors Bill Bennett that abortions are performed at all, let alone the eugenics of killing only black babies. Leave that to lefty heroes like Margaret Sanger.
In a nutshell, Bill Bennett got in trouble for saying that if all black babies were aborted, the crime rate in the country would be reduced. Now, honestly - would anyone short of the most rabid, absolutist white supremacist be serious in saying a thing like this? I don't think Bennett fits that category. Compulsive gambler, yes. Racist, no.
And lost (or at least buried) in the coverage is that Bennett was citing another's work. The book Freakonomics theorized that part of the drop in crime in the 1990's was due to Roe v. Wade. Abortions were performed on poorer women in a number that was greater than their proportion to society as a whole. Since poorer children are more likely to commit crime because of their economic circumstance, it stands to reason that crimes drop when there's fewer of them.
Further, the coverage ignores the context of the remark. From www.gopusa.com, here's the transcript of the conversation between Bennett and a caller to his radio show:
CALLER: I noticed the national media, you know, they talk a lot about the loss of revenue, or the inability of the government to fund Social Security, and I was curious, and I've read articles in recent months here, that the abortions that have happened since Roe v. Wade, the lost revenue from the people who have been aborted in the last 30-something years, could fund Social Security as we know it today. And the media just doesn't - never touches this at all.
BENNETT: Assuming they're all productive citizens?
CALLER: Assuming that they are. Even if only a portion of them were, it would be an enormous amount of revenue.
BENNETT: Maybe, maybe, but we don't know what the costs would be, too. I think as - abortion disproportionately occur among single women? No.
CALLER: I don't know the exact statistics, but quite a bit are, yeah.
BENNETT: All right, well, I mean, I just don't know. I would not argue for the pro-life position based on this, because you don't know. I mean, it cuts both - you know, one of the arguments in this book Freakonomics that they make is that the declining crime rate, you know, they deal with this hypothesis, that one of the reasons crime is down is that abortion is up. Well -
CALLER: Well, I don't think that statistic is accurate.
BENNETT: Well, I don't think it is either, I don't think it is either, because first of all, there is just too much that you don't know. But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could - if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky.
Seems to me that Bennett is using the stated fact that, according to the Bureau of Justice statistics, "In 1997, about 9% of the black population in the U.S. was under some form of correctional supervision compared to 2% of the white population and over 1% of other races."
So, in a theoretical sense at least, the statement is correct. Does it make me racist to say this and support what he said as an argument for the point he was trying to make? You know, free speech and all?
I'm sure it abhors Bill Bennett that abortions are performed at all, let alone the eugenics of killing only black babies. Leave that to lefty heroes like Margaret Sanger.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)